Commons Sitting of 31 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—l° National Gallery, &c., Dublin (No. 2); Militia Ballots Suspension; Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges (No. 2).
2° Usury Laws Repeal.
3° Cinque Ports; Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women; Duchy of Cornwall Office.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, according to notice, to move the second reading of the Bill to continue for two years the Board of Public Health, and those Acts which confer their powers on the local and general boards of health. There cannot, I conceive, be any subject which is more interesting to Parliament, or which is more deserving of the attention of Parliament, than that which contemplates arrangements for the protection of the public health. When I say "the public health," I do not allude to the health of those wealthier classes of society who either have the means when casual sickness attacks them to have recourse to the best medical advice, or who, when they find themselves in a place where an epidemic has broken out, can fly to a healthier
968
region, where, with all the appliances of art, and all the resources which opulence can place at their command, they can screen themselves from the danger which menaces them:—I speak of those humbler and poorer, but much more numerous Members of the community, who by their calling are fixed to spots from which they cannot fly—who by their poverty are precluded from having recourse to the aids of art and science—who, from their want of information, are unable to protect themselves, by such means as may be at their disposal, from the noxious influences which surround them, and for the protection of whose health, therefore, it is most incumbent on the Legislature to make provision. We must remember that with such persons health is not, as with the upper classes of society, a more question of pleasure, of enjoyment, or of comfort. Health to the lower classes is life—it is existence itself—it is the very breath they breathe. As long as they have health, so long they are able to labour, and to apply their industry to purposes useful to themselves and beneficial to others; but when sickness oppresses them, they are cast down into helpless poverty, and either they themselves, with their families, or their families if they should die, probably become burdens to that community of which they ought to be the mainstay and support. There is no part of the world more favoured by nature than this island in which it is our happiness to live. Men of science have explained to us how it happens—by what beautiful and merciful contrivance of Providence it has been so arranged—that these islands which, from their position in regard to the globe, might have been afflicted with the climate of Siberia or the Baltic, do in fact enjoy the most temperate climate in the world — how it happens that this country is free, on the one hand, from those burning heats which are so destructive to animal and vegetable life in other quarters of the globe, and exempt, upon the other, from those extremes of cold which in so many regions of the world make man, and beast, and vegetation alike torpid during the greater portion of the year. Our climate offers to us the means of enjoyment, the means of industry, the never-failing opportunity of accumulating wealth; and not only has it increased the opulence of the country, but, through the exertion of acquiring it, it has given to the people who reside in it habits of intellectual energy and physical strength,

969
which enable them to rival the people of any part of the habitable globe. But although nature has done much, it cannot be said that man has seconded by his efforts the bounty of Providence. We are certainly liable to this reproach, that we have turned our attention too much to the production of wealth, and have forgotten that the very conditions of society which are most favourable to that object are also most favourable to the production of those influences which affect health, and by so doing counteract the production of wealth, and lead to the engendering of poverty. In order to the production of wealth, it is essential that men should be congregated in vast masses in towns. All the tendencies of our commercial and manufacturing habits have for years proceeded in that direction. Our towns have increased greatly in number, and prodigiously in extent, and our wealth has proportionally augmented. But men engaged in the active occupations of business, and in the acquisition of wealth, have not their attention sufficiently called to the influences incidental to the condition of the towns in which they live—influences which tend to undermine, or it may be destroy, the health of those masses on whose exertions they depend for the employment of their capital and the increase of their wealth. This matter forced itself on the attention of the Legislature some years ago; and in 1848, my noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle) brought into Parliament a Bill—of which I now propose the continuance—in order to establish a General Board of Health, the object of which should be the diffusing of information, and the spreading of local organisation throughout the country for purposes of general health and comfort. The general outlines of that arrangement were, that there should be established in London, in connection with the Government, a Board to take cognisance of the health of the country at large, to superintend sanitary organisation, to collect authentic information on the subject, and to give advice to those who might require it. But the ultimate purpose to which the labours of this Board were to be directed was to create in towns and in districts local boards, self-governing, composed of persons belonging to the respective towns or districts, who, by their knowledge of the particular condition of the locality, and by the information they might acquire of themselves, or obtain from the General Board, might be in a position to make effectual those arrange-
970
ments, and to adopt those precautions, necessary for securing, as far as human regulations may do it, the health of the quarter committed to their charge. The Act of Parliament then passed gave to these bodies large powers, but powers not more extensive than were necessary for the attainment of the object for which these boards were to be established. There was a certain process defined by means of which, upon an application from town's and cities, these local boards were to be established, and the powers of the Act to be consigned to them. And the Act had this merit also, that it guarded against an evil which had long been complained of, and which had been very severely felt, in respect to Parliamentary proceedings. One most serious obstacle to local improvements in former years was the great expense of carrying local Bills through the two Houses of Parliament. This evil, which had been long felt and generally condemned, was remedied a few years ago in a particular class of cases—such as the Inclosure Acts — by arrangements which have proved most satisfactory, and which have tended very greatly to the improvement of the country, while it had prevented much needless expenditure. Arrangements of a similar description were, therefore, adopted with regard to these local boards of health; and the result has been, that whereas in the ordinary course of proceeding the cost of each of these Acts would have been, upon an average, 2,000 l., these local bodies have been constructed under the provisions of the Act which it was now proposed to continue, and invested with all the powers that a local Act could have conferred upon them, at a cost varying from 150 l. to 200 l. each. From no fewer than 300 towns there have been applications to be brought within the operation of the Act; 182 local boards have been actually established; and in regard to all these a saving of five-sixths of what would have been the expense had it been necessary to go through the process of obtaining local Acts has been effected. The Act—the Public Health Act—has been continued from time to time, but it will expire at the end of the present Session of Parliament. Such is the present state of the question. But, I am sure that there cannot be two opinions as to the inexpediency of permitting arrangements which have been so carefully contrived to fall now suddenly into disuse. You are dealing with the interests of millions of your fellow-subjects—men who

971
cannot take care of themselves, and who, if exposed without protection to the calamities which from time to time sweep over the face of the country, will become not only wretched and ruined themselves, but will become, through themselves or their families, a serious burden on the community at large; for if an unfortunate workman, afflicted with a fatal sickness, died, his family in all probability was thrown upon the parish. But, it must also be remembered that, even if death should not overtake either him or them from the want of sanitary arrangements in the towns wherein they dwell, the children are probably brought up in a state of disease, the consequences of which they feel for ever, and they are consequently dependent all their lives on private charity or the support of the parish—
"To help them through that long disease—their life."
This is, therefore, a matter which we are bound to take into consideration, not only upon grounds of humanity and duty, but also out of regard to the interests of those whose interests we are especially bound to protect. It is a matter which concerns alike the pecuniary, the commercial, and the local interests of the country; and, as such, it has an imperative claim upon the attention of Parliament, and Parliament is bound to take care that those arrangements which now exist for the preservation of the public health should not be permitted to drop. At the present moment I think it would be peculiarly unfitting that such laws should be allowed to expire. I do not wish to create alarm—I frankly admit there is no ground for alarm; but the truth ought to be known: it would serve no purpose of policy to conceal the fact, that a terrible disease—a disease more terrible in apprehension than in reality—the cholera—prevails more or less in many parts of Europe; and that, during the last twelve months, it has prevailed with fatal violence in many parts of this country. We all know what ravages it made in Newcastle, and that it has been very severe in Glasgow. Even now it is showing itself in various districts of this metropolis. I do not, I repeat, desire to create alarm by this statement; on the contrary, I am sensible, and I should wish the country to be aware, that although the most formidable and fatal of all maladies if left to itself, it is, I believe I may venture to say, of all calamities the most manageable if taken in time, and if proper and scientific
972
measures are adopted in its early stages. It is a fact established by experience, and attested on the authority of the most eminent medical men in Europe, that if you apply to the cholera in its earlier stages those means and methods which medical skill and science enable you to apply, you may almost in every case give such a check to the malady as will render its further progress impossible. But these means and methods require direction and combination. One of the most efficient and beneficial plans for preventing the ravages of the cholera that has been adopted is that which is called "house-to-house visitation," suggested by the General Board of Health—the system by which gentlemen, in a manner most honourable to themselves, formed themselves into committees, and undertook the task of going through their districts day by day, and ascertaining the existence of those premonitory symptoms, of which the persons who suffer them are hardly conscious that they mean anything particular, but which when pointed out and disclosed, render possible the application of remedies by which thousands upon thousands of lives have been saved. Amongst the Queen's troops stationed at Newcastle, last year, there were 800 cases of incipient attacks of cholera; but only four turned out fatally. These men, it must be remembered, being under the hourly inspection of their officers, and having the advantage of continual medical attendance in their regiments, applied for medical relief as soon as the disease manifested itself, and while they were stationed in that town, only four of them sank under the prevailing epidemic, I say, therefore, that upon general principles of public expediency, it is desirable to uphold this system; and if this be so in periods of comparative security, surely the case must be still stronger in a season of national emergency. Surely, at a moment like the present it would be something worse than madness—it would be absolute guilt—on the part of Parliament to deprive the country of the advantage of those medical arrangements against a calamity which may in a few hours overspread the land, which this Board was purposely established to provide. If we do so we shall pursue a course as criminal as it is infatuated, and we shall probably have upon our consciences the deaths of thousands, who, in the absence of such means of protection, will fall victims to a devouring malady. I cannot believe,

973
therefore, that Parliament will hesitate to continue for a limited period the General Board, and the arrangements with respect to the local boards which have been established under its supervision. The question, however, fairly arises, upon what conditions the Board shall for the future be placed. On this subject I can have no hesitation in saying, that although the arrangements introduced by Lord Carlisle's Act had many recommendations, and worked well in many respects, yet they have not, on the whole, produced such a condition of things as it would be advisable for Parliament to continue. The constitution of the General Board was, in the first instance, one paid member, one unpaid member, and the First Commissioner of Board of Woods and Works. The latter was President of the Board only in virtue of his office as chief of the other department; therefore the Board was, to all intents and purposes, an independent body in the State, administering matters of the greatest public importance, but not under the control of any department of the Executive Government of the country, nor represented by any responsible organ in Parliament. This, I think, was a mistake. I think it was a mistake to place a Board having various and important functions to perform—functions in which many interests are, one way or another, involved, and which it was scarcely to be expected that they should be able to discharge without in some degree thwarting the views and projects of a large class of persons, who derived a fair and legitimate advantage from the previously existing state of things. Such being their position, and such the delicate and difficult character of their duties, it was, I think, upon the whole, a mistake to place the Board in the independent, and, so to speak, "unseen" condition in which it has hitherto remained. Therefore, although the object of the present Bill is to continue the Board for a limited time, and to a certain degree in its present condition, it introduces an important alteration in its government and administration. Its object is to connect the Board with the office of the Home Department, so that it may be a branch of that establishment. In a word, I wish to place the Board under the direct order and control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Not that the Home Secretary should be a member of the Board, bound to daily attendance, for that would be physically impossible; but that
974
he should have the power of the appointment and removal of the members of the Board, and the right to give such orders and directions to the Board as, acting upon his own responsibility, he may think fit to issue. The result will be that the Home Secretary will be, in the first place, answerable for the personal composition of the Board; and he will be, in the next place, responsible for anything done by the Board of which complaint may be made. Either individuals or bodies, who may suppose they have a cause of complaint in regard to anything which the Board has done, or is about to do, will make that complaint to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will examine into the matter. If, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, he shall think fit to sanction what has been done, or what is intended to be done, he will be here to answer for the proceeding in his place in Parliament; but if, on the contrary, the complaint shall, in his opinion, prove to be well founded, he will make it his business to grant redress upon his own responsibility, so that no man may suffer an injustice. This, I think, will be an improvement upon the former system, which, I must say, was not altogether in accordance with the principles of our Parliamentary constitution. It may be asked, why place this Board under the Home Secretary? Simply because the Home Secretary is or ought to be Minister for the Interior, and there can be no business which more imperatively commands, or more eminently demands, his attention than the care of the general arrangements for the health of the country. If he does not do that, what is he to do? You may as well abolish his office altogether, as to deny him jurisdiction over concerns which are matters of vital interest—I do not mean a play on words—to the masses of the community. It is, in fact, the first duty, and the most legitimate function, of a Home Secretary to attend to such matters, and from which he cannot shrink. Even as it is, although I have no power over the Board of Health, which, as at present constituted, is an entirely separate body, and no mere bound to obey my orders than is the Navy Board or the Victualling Department, I every day of my life receive from some part of the country applications connected with the business which the Board of Health is specially appointed to transact. One correspondent complains of defective drainage, another calls my attention to the

975
fact, that an epidemic has broken out in a particular district; and thus I am, in one way or another, in continual communication with the Board of Health upon these subjects, although I have not a particle of authority over them, not the least official power to order them to do or leave undone any particular thing. The Home Secretary is, in my opinion, the man who, upon every principle of justice and sound policy, and from the constitution of his office, ought to be vested with the authority and responsibility of these matters; and it is for the purpose of conferring such authority and responsibility upon him that I have framed the Bill for which I now solicit the sanction of the House. It may be said that I ought to create a new office for this purpose, and that there should be a President of the Board of Health sitting in Parliament, who should be an entirely independent officer. If such a suggestion be made, all I can say is, that it is a new thing for Members of Parliament to press upon a Government the expediency of creating a new office which the Government do not think necessary for the public service. Looking simply to the convenience of Government, in regard to the divisions in this House, and looking to the three great objects of making a House, keeping a House, and cheering the Minister, I apprehend no Government would object to have a new office forced upon them by a vote of this House. But the matter is one of too great importance to be dealt with on the principle of party convenience. Consolidation, and not the splitting up of departments into various sections, has been the principle upon which administrative organisation has of late years been pressed upon the Government and acted upon by them. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has made some arrangements of great value on that principle in the naval department, consolidating under one head various departments of the Navy which had previously exercised a comparatively independent authority, and the result has been most beneficial to the service. Parliament and the country have been crying out lately for the application of the same principle to the military department. Everybody has been saying that the separate Boards should be abolished, and that Commissariat, Ordnance, and barracks should be brought under one head to ensure unity of action and singleness of responsibility. This being the spirit of the age and the prevalent opinion, it would
976
be an anomaly to separate the department of the Board of Health from the Home Office, and to constitute it a new and independent department. And, so far from any advantage arising from it, it is my opinion, the constituting it into a separate department would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and delay. The Home Secretary could not shut himself out from applications in respect to matters of this kind, and it is manifest that a correspondence between the Home Office and a separate and independent department would be attended with much delay, uncertainty, and confusion, and even, perhaps, conflict and collisions of opinion, all which would be avoided by placing these subjects under the responsible control of the Home Secretary. It is on these grounds that I submit to the House the arrangements contained in this Bill. It provides that the Board shall continue for two years; but, if the House should be of opinion that it would be better to limit the duration of the Bill to one year, that is an alteration to which I shall not object. Moreover, if next Session the House should be of opinion that it would be desirable to inquire, by means of a Select Committee, into what has been doing in this matter since 1848, I shall not be disposed to controvert the propriety of that course, or to oppose it in any way. I do not want to force upon the House my own opinions in this matter, but I do submit that it is expedient to continue, for a limited period, the arrangements that have been in existence since 1848, with the material alteration which I have already described —an alteration, the effect of which will be to bring the Board into active connection with a responsible public officer. Should it be the opiniou of the House next Session that this arrangement does not work well—for I, like any other man, may be deceived in my expectations—it will, of course, be competent for them to reconstruct the system on any other principle that may be deemed most desirable. There is one other point upon which I cannot avoid touching, though I do so with great reluctance—I allude to the objections that have been made to some of the persons who constitute the present Board; but, not having had any detailed information of their proceedings, I am not now disposed to express any decided opinion on this branch of the subject. But this I do know, from returns and from facts—this I do know, in some degree, from personal observation— that infinite good has been accomplished,

977
and that a system has been suggested and carried into operation which has had the effect of saving a great number of lives which would otherwise have been sacrificed to epidemics. I know also that applications have been made by no fewer than 300 towns for the assistance of the General Board in the establishment of local boards, and I know that local boards have been actually established in upwards of 180 towns, and I am informed that, notwithstanding that circulars have recently been addressed to all these towns entreating them to petition against the renewal of the Public Health Act, two or three towns only have complied with that requisition, while the overwhelming majority have spoken of the Act in the highest terms of commendation, and have expressed an anxious desire that the present law should continue and their satisfaction at the arrangements that have been made by the Board. On the other hand, I am assured that great personal unpopularity attaches to one member of the Board. I know not how the facts may be, but this I do know—and I am bound to apprise the House of it—that all the members of the Board have placed their appointments in my hands, and have declared in the most frank and honourable manner that, if there be any prejudice against them, well or ill founded, which is likely to impede the operation of the Act, or to prove injurious to the public service, they shall be ready to retire from the Board whenever the Government thinks fit that they should do so. I think it right, also, to inform the House, that in the event of the Bill now receiving the second reading, I mean to propose a clause in Committee assigning retiring allowances to such officers of the Board as may be entitled to claim them, on the usual scale of retiring allowances, so as to make it easy for the Government, if they should think fit, to enable members of the Board who may, by former services, have a just and fair claim to retire. I mention this subject because I think it is due to the persons concerned, against whom I know that considerable prejudice exists, that I should state the circumstances. I am sure the sense of justice will induce hon. Members to weigh carefully the facts upon which these representations have been made. Prejudice, I feel well assured, will not overbear the interests of truth. Englishmen are not apt to be run away with by clamour, nor is it their habit to condemn men without knowing why. It
978
has been said that the Board have, in their defence, imputed base motives to large classes of men; but that is not a fair way of stating the case. The Board have certainly had to manage arrangements which conflicted with the fair and legitimate interests of many very intelligent and very active men. That part of their system which enabled the General Board to erect local boards out of municipal councils without the expense or delay of obtaining local Acts, necessarily took away the fair and ordinary profits of many a respectable man. The improved arrangements which they suggested conflicted in many cases with the interests of water companies, as well those already in existence as those which were merely projected. The methods of engineering which they suggested interfered, for a time, with the previous opinions and the employment of local engineers; and, all things considered, it is not to be wondered at, that great prejudice should be created against them, in many respects without good and proper justification. However, I do not wish to enter into a discussion of this subject—it is one which rests between the Board and their accusers. My object is simply the organisation of the department. I do not want you to pronounce, any opinion upon the men; but I have their authority for saying, that they hope that no personal consideration affecting themselves will prevent any arrangement being come to which the House may think conducive to the public interest. I hope, therefore, that the House will perceive the propriety of passing this Continuance Bill. I think it a matter of the deepest possible interest to the great mass of the people in this country. At the present moment especially, to take away the means of guarding against an epidemic which is fatal only when it is not met by the anticipatory means which medical science affords, which means can only be effectually applied by consultation with some central authority, will be, in my opinion, to incur a responsibility which I should be very sorry to see the House of Commons taking upon itself. Well indeed would it have been for all the towns in this country if they had all adopted the same measures of cleanliness that have been adopted by some, under the superintendence of the Board of Health. Not the cholera only, but those diseases which now spread such, havoc amongst the population would have either altogether disappeared or assumed a softer and less formidable Character than

979
they now, unhappily, present. Some hon. Gentlemen in this House are accustomed to lament the bloodshed and loss of life that inevitably accompany war, and there are others connected with agricultural interests who frequently deplore the injury inflicted upon those interests by the scarcity of husbandmen, which is consequent upon excessive emigration; but the House may depend upon it that thousands of lives are every year lost in this country which might have been preserved by better sanitary arrangements and more skilful methods of treatment; and I do not hesitate to assert that disease has deprived us of more men than all the ravages of war, or all the emigration ships that have ever sailed from England for all the ports of the world. It is a question interesting to every class—to the employers as well as to the employed. Upon the health of our people depend the prosperity, welfare, and greatness of the nation; and I hold it to be the primary duty of the Legislature to omit no means which can be provided by legislative enactments, or improved administrative and medical arrangements, for the purpose of securing the health of the labouring classes of the community, who are tied to the spot, who cannot fly from the pestiferous courts in which they live, who are compelled to see the pale faces of their children and their neighbours becoming more and more wan day by day, who are living in the midst of filth which I will not offend the ears of the House by describing, and who, even when no epidemic rages, are subjected to diseases which sap the vitals of their strength by deadly and irremediable poison. I conceive that, when by legislative enactment means could be afforded to that valuable and most numerous class of society to extricate themselves from those dangers to their health which they are now unable to escape, the House would take upon itself a responsibility I will not believe it will incur by refusing to adopt such an enactment. I shall feel convinced, until I hear the contrary, that no man who really feels as an Englishman—no man who is a friend to humanity —no man who is actuated by those sentiments which ought to animate every Member of this House—can propose to deprive the country of the necessary means of preserving the public health. I shall feel convinced, until I hear the contrary, that no man will get up in this House and object to the continuance of the Act to which this measure refers for the limited period pro-
980
posed by the Bill. I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that, in rising to oppose the second reading of the Bill, he did so from no feeling of antagonism to the Government, or to the noble Lord who was so distinguished a Member of that Government:—this was no party question, and it would be a great misfortune were it ever so treated. The noble Viscount had spoken of this Act as having been introduced in 1848, and since then renewed from time to time; whereas it was passed in 1848 for five years, and to the end of the then ensuing Session of Parliament—so that this was precisely the time when the Legislature was properly called upon to review the operation of the measure, and nothing could be more unreasonable than the proposition of a noble Earl elsewhere —the non-official member and patron of the Board (the Earl of Shaftesbury)—that such review of its proceedings was an unhandsome attack upon absent individuals. The object of the Act of 1848 was twofold —to introduce sanitary measures for the benefit of the country, and to constitute a board for administering the functions created. As to the necessity of a Public Health Board, no one denied it; the point to be clearly established was the value of a Board which almost entirely depended on the manner in which it was administered. He thought he could show the House that, as the present Board of Health had conducted its proceedings, it had been a misfortune and a mischief rather than an advantage to the country. He would premise that, so far as he was concerned, the suggestion of the Home Secretary on a former occasion, that those who opposed the Board did so from feelings of personal or private dislike, was quite unfounded. He had no personal or private dislike towards the members of the Board; his whole communication with them had been of an official character, and his objection proceed altogether upon official and public information, and upon public grounds. The Board, as appointed in 1848, was to consist, not, according to the noble Viscount's notion, of two paid and one unpaid member, but of one unpaid member, one paid member, and a president, who was to be the Chief Commissioner of Works. With such a composi-

981
tion, it was obvious that the Chief Commissioner of Works had a power which he could not have when they came to appoint two paid members. He had, then, a real controlling power over the Board, which was defeated when an additional paid member, appointed to carry out the Interments Act, came into operation; and with it was defeated also the intention of the Legislature. He had great respect for the zeal and charitable motives of Lord Shaftesbury, with whom he had acted most confidingly on various Commissions; but there were many social principles of action which guided the noble Earl from which he entirely dissented, and those principles were conspicuous in the administration of this Board. The Public Health Act and the Nuisances Removal Act together permitted an interference with every trade and every occupation, of the most arbitrary and most stringent character. Inspectors might enter any house they pleased, order what improvements they chose to call so, and, if the improvements were not made by the owners, have them made under their own direction, and mulct the owners of the cost. These were great powers, which could safely and properly be intrusted only to persons who would exercise them with the greatest judgment, the greatest caution, and the greatest forbearance. The Board of Health had exercised them to a very large extent, without either judgment, or caution, or forbearance. The Board was not only an executive Board, it was also a legislative Board, enabled to make provisional orders which, in the case of rural districts, or of small places not protected by local Acts or by actual interposition on the part of the House, were carried out by Orders in Council, obtained almost as matters of form, but which then operated as Acts of Parliament. The noble Viscount said that the functions of the Board were to advise the Government as to sanitary measures, and next, to administer the law intrusted to their care. Neither of these functions had been satisfactorily discharged by the Board. As to their advice, the Government of the time had required the Board to advise it upon the subject of metropolitan interments. The Board took a long time—above a year and a half—in making inquiries, and involved the country in heavy expenditure in getting information, or what purported to be information, from all parts of the country and from abroad. In 1850 they had completed these inquiries, and prepared their scheme. What was their
982
scheme? Its two great principles were, first, that the Board itself should be constituted a corporate and permanent body, to carry out the act which they recommended to the Government; and secondly, that the body so formed by the Board should have the monopoly of all the funerals of the metropolis, so that no one within its limits, high or low, rich or poor, should die, but that they were to be empowered to pounce upon the body, to bury it, and to exact a fee from the survivors. All the ordinary feelings of mankind were to be set aside, all the tender emotions of relations to be trampled upon, all the decency of mourning, all the sanctity of grief, to be superseded, in order that the Board of Health might get their funeral fee. So great and general was the alarm produced by the promulgation of the scheme, that the Secretary of the Home Office — the present Secretary of the Colonies—would only consent to take the measure up in a modified form, and, having greatly altered its scheme and provisions in order to allay the public feeling, presented it to the House, where it passed, still much to the dissatisfaction of the general public. That was one instance of the advice given by this Board. Let him mention another. The House would remember that there was a great desire in the public mind that some scheme should be brought forward for the supply of water to the metropolis. The public feeling, indeed, on the subject was so strong that the influence of the water companies would have been as nothing against it; and had the Government brought in any really effective measure of their own on the subject, whatever it might have been, there was little doubt it would have been carried. But, unluckily, the Government again recurred to the advice of the Board of Health. The advice of the Board was, that they themselves, as a corporate body, should control and regulate the whole supply of water to the metropolis, that all the existing river and stream supplies should be abandoned, and that the 2,000,000 of persons inhabiting the metropolis should be left dependent on such supply of water as could he scraped out of the sand of the Surrey hills. That scheme of theirs was under the consideration of two Governments—of the Government of the noble Member for the City of London and of the Government of Lord Derby; but neither the one nor the other could make up its mind to adopt such a scheme. Both rejected it; both were

983
necessitated to reject the advice which had been given by this notable advising Board. Where, then, was the use of such advisers? Why, their advice was worse than useless; it was advice which, if adopted, would have been in the highest degree injurious in both the instances he had cited. There was another occasion of recent date on which they had given their advice to the noble Minister of the Home Department. His noble Friend, indeed, had carefully guarded himself against the imputation that he had so wasted his time as to read the Report they had sent in to him, setting forth their advice in extenso; but, unluckily, he had taken their advice, which, proceeding on the premiss that the Commissioners of Sewers were going on very badly, declared that nothing would save the country but the adoption of tubular drainage, the pet device of the Board of Health. Thereupon the noble Lord sent a letter to the Commissioners of Sewers; and the next thing the public heard was, that the Commissioners of Sewers sent in their resignation in a body. There was general consternation as to what would be the result of the advice of the Board—general confusion. The Commissioners had, however, been got to work again—and how the noble Lord had managed it he could not imagine. What was the precise state of the matter now was not very clear; but such was the advice of the Board on that matter. Another illustration of the advising capabilities of the Board was presented in the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act Amendment Bill, which, framed on their advice, Lord Shaftesbury had presented to the other House of Parliament. That was a measure which, so far from mitigating the objections which the arbitrary and stringent character of the previous Act had everywhere aroused, so aggravated the stringency of the existing measure, that when the Bill came down from the Lords, he (Lord Seymour) had, with the general approval of the House, moved that it be read a third time that day three months, and the noble Viscount had been fain to withdraw it. So much for another specimen of the valuable advice of this Board. He would put it to the House whether the public were to continue to pay a Board for giving such advice as that. Was it worth while to keep up an advising department on such terms as these? Their advice, he would repeat, was worse than useless; it was advice calculated to bring discredit on the Government and on the
984
House itself, which should, for a moment, entertain such councils. The advice these gentlemen gave was not limited to the Government or to the House; they advised on a much larger scale, but still at the public cost. He held in his hand a statement exhibiting how they diffused their advice. The House was aware that the charge for public printing was assuming an absolutely frightful aspect; that more than 250,000 l. per annum was expended on this charge. And what sort of printing did they get? When the House ordered a public paper to be printed, they were satisfied with printing 1,000 copies, and a handsome number of copies too; but the Board of Health, when they ordered a paper to be printed, were by no means so satisfied. For example, their "Report on Extramural Sepulture," a lengthy document, of no practical use to the general community, but pleasing to the Board as an advertisement of their own merits, was printed to the number of no fewer than 6,000 copies, and distributed throughout the country, in such quarters as to the Board seemed most expedient for their own purposes. Then, again, there was their "Report on the Water Supply of the Metropolis;" of this 5,500 copies were printed and distributed; then came—1st, "Appendix to Report on the Water Supplies," 5,500 copies; next, 2nd Report, 5,500 copies"; then, 3rd Report, 5,500 copies; and lastly, 4th Report, 5,500 copies more. This was an expenditure on the part of a public Board, at the public cost, which appeared to him totally indefensible. And, moreover, what were these so costly Reports? How were they made up? When Committees of that House were appointed to inquire into any matter of public importance, Members from both sides of the House, of different ways of thinking on the particular subject, were nominated upon it, in order that, by a comparison of various views, and an investigation of contending evidence, the truth might be realised. Such, too, was the object with Government Commissions; take, for example, the Commission on Limited Liability, where it was of the very essence of the question that the different views of opposing authorities should be elicited, so that by their careful comparison and sifting the real state of the case the true principle of action should be arrived at. With neither Committees nor Commissions was it the practice for three or four men, having preconceived views, fixed prejudices upon a particular subject, to meet together, and,

985
having carefully collected only such evidence as went undisputed to confirm their theories and to fortify their prejudices, to send forth the one-sided testimony thus carefully prepared as the rule of belief for the community. Yet such had been the practice of the Board of Health, and, in consequence, their Reports were all unanimous, all one-sided, and all useless. Having thus reviewed the Board of Health as an advising department, he now came to consider them as an executive department. It had been his lot to have been himself in many offices, and, from this source and from the many inquiries in which, at the request of different Governments, he had taken part, he had a considerable amount of practical knowledge as to the working of public departments. Speaking with that practical knowledge, he was prepared conscientiously to say that he had never known or seen such a department as this Board of Health; it was a perfect anomaly; and it was fortunate for the country that it should be so—that it should be an anomaly—that there should be nothing at all like it. He would give an illustration of what he meant—a specimen of the proceedings of this singular Board. In 1850, the Metropolitan Interments Act having been previously determined upon, he had accepted office. This was in the spring of the year. At the close of the Session, that measure having been carried very much owing to the personal popularity of the right hon. Gentleman, then Home Secretary, the present Colonial Secretary, that right hon. Gentleman, acting upon the strong opinion which was evinced both in and out of the House that something should be done in the matter, that not a week even should be lost, came to hint (Lord Seymour) as soon as the Act was passed, and asked him to see there was no delay in carrying it into operation. This was in August. He had, accordingly, determined, at much personal inconvenience, to remain in town during that autumn, in order to carry his right hon. Friend's wishes into effect, and had taken no vacation whatever, with the exception of a few days at a time, which themselves were spent in visits to places where the Act was to operate. Himself filled with this desire to carry the Act into effect without delay, he went to the Board of Health. The measure had passed in the beginning of August. On the 15th of August, Dr. Southwood Smith was appointed a member of the Board, for the purpose
986
of carrying out the Interments Act. After Dr. Smith had been a fortnight in office, he (Lord Seymour) went to the Board to hear what they proposed and were prepared to do. He asked them, "Well, gentlemen, have you got into order? and, if so, what are you going to do? Have you made up your minds as to what shall be your first step?" "Oh, yes," said these gentlemen, "we have made up our minds what we shall do." "What is that?" "Well, we 're going to Paris. We have had a Board here to-day, and we are determined to go to Paris." It appeared to him a strange Board that thus began their work by going to Paris. He said to them that it appeared to him they had quite sufficient information already whereon to proceed; that Dr. Sutherland had already been travelling for them, at large public expense, in France and Germany, wherever a graveyard could be found; however, as they did not seem to relish his objections, and as he did not wish to commence working with them in a state of hostility, he did not insist further; and the Board accordingly did go to Paris, taking their secretary with, them, to write their letters and pay their bills. When they came back a fortnight, afterwards, he took the liberty of sending for the account of their expenditure on this little trip, which he took to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to show him how the Board was beginning its work. The next thing he heard of the Board was, that they wished to appoint a number of persons to attend to the decoration of the burial-grounds. They wished to appoint, among others, Mr.—now Sir Joseph— Paxton, a gentleman at that time the great oracle of the town on all questions of taste, who was to be delegated to look after the decorative department of the churchyards; while another gentleman was to be appointed churchyard architect; and a third, Dr. Brown, was to see about the planting and laying out of the burial grounds. His own impression as to the impropriety of these proceedings was confirmed by a letter to the Board from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remonstrating with them for making appointments and determining upon expensive arrangements altogether without the sanction of the Treasury. In order that such objectionable proceedings might not occur again, he had sent to the Board of Health, requiring copies of all the minutes of their proceedings, so that he might see what was going on, it being im-

987
possible for him at that time—the Board of Works and the Board of Woods being then united—to attend at the Board of Health, who were in the habit of holding boards every day for some three or four minutes per diem. He had, however, gone to the Board on several occasions. He went to them, for example, on the 30th of January, 1851, at the request of the Government, in a special case, which was this: The Board of Health had proposed to buy up at once all the metropolitan cemeteries, and determined to render themselves and the Government liable for the purchase, amounting to 250,000 l., according to their own estimate, but to a much larger sum in the estimate of the persons who were to sell the properties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had thereupon sent to him and expressed his entire objection to this arrangement—an objection in which he (Lord Seymour) fully concurred, deeming it most unwise to enter upon such an undertaking, and that the proper course would be to purchase, in the first instance, one, or perhaps two, cemeteries at either end of the metropolis, as the most practical means of testing the experiment. He went to the Board of Health on the subject. This was on the 30th of January, 1851. They had, at this time, received a letter from the Treasury, intimating that only two cemeteries should be purchased in the first instance, so that the experiment might be made with these, before the Board proceeded further. The Board read to him a long letter of seven pages, which they had prepared, and in which they argued the point with the Treasury. Thereupon, as the minutes recorded—
"Lord Seymour moved that a letter should be sent instead of the proposed draught, stating that the Board are ready to act on the suggestions contained in the Treasury letter. This Motion not being seconded, Lord Seymour stated that he wished that the Treasury should be informed, when the Board's letter is transmitted, that he differs from it."
Now, as to this matter, Lord Shaftesbury, in his place elsewhere, had stated that the thing had not happened as he (Lord Seymour) had described it on a former occasion. Lord Shaftesbury, speaking upon his honour, spoke, it was to be remembered, upon the information of the secretary—not having been himself present on the occasion—whereas he (Lord Seymour), having been present, spoke from his own recollection. However the matter might have been technically as to the non-second-
988
ing, certain it was that he had put the Motion he had mentioned, that it was not adopted, and that the long letter to the Treasury was. In consequence, he (Lord Seymour) had desired the assistant secretary to the Board to address to the Treasury this letter—
"The General Board of Health,
"Gwydyr House, Whitehall, Jan. 31, 1851.
"Sir,—In transmitting to you, for communication to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, the inclosed letter from the General Board of Health, in answer to your letter of the 22nd instant, respecting the proposed purchase by the Board of all the metropolitan cemeteries, I am directed to state that Lord Seymour, the President of the Board, does not agree with the letter of the Board, and that his Lordship rather recommends that the Board should act upon the suggestions of their Lordships as contained in your letter of the 22nd instant. "I have, &c.,
"C. MACAULAY, Assistant Secretary."
This was the first instance, in the book, of the differences between the Board and the Treasury, his position in which might be judged from the minute which he found at page 44 of the Parliamentary paper—
"Read—a letter from Lord Seymour, objecting to the answer which the Board had proposed to send to the Lords of the Treasury in answer to the letter of their Lordships dated the 13th instant, and recommending the Board to adopt forthwith the suggestions of the Treasury, instead of rearguing the subject with their Lordships."
It was said that the best course would be to renew the Board for another year, and have an inquiry into the whole subject next Session; but it seemed to him impossible to go on with the present constitution of the Board, and especially with its present composition. Lord Shaftesbury had made it a charge against him that he had never attended the Board; this was not the case, though it was the case that he had ceased to attend the Board when he found by experience that it was to no purpose that he attended a Board where he was systematically overborne, while he could occupy his time to really useful public purposes in his own office. The noble Earl had added that he (Lord Seymour) had told him, in confidence, that he never meant to do anything that he was not compelled to do. He would not be so discourteous as to go into any discussion with the noble Earl as to the expression so attributed to him; all he would observe was, that if he had said this to the noble Earl in confidence, his confidence had been much misplaced, for the noble Earl had taken the very first opportunity of publishing what he had said, when he thought he could bring it out to damage his character.

989
He (Lord Seymour) did not, however, wish to go into the matter, for he did not wish to occupy the time of the House with mere personal questions. With regard to the executive functions of the Board, the question was, if possible, still more important. Take their proceedings as to provisional orders. The Act provided that if one-tenth of the rated inhabitants of a place should petition the Board of Health to be brought within the Act, the Board of Health should be enabled to apply it. This, of itself, was opposed to every principle of the Constitution, that one-tenth of the population of a place was to govern all the rest, and to force such an Act as this upon them. Still, the power being enacted by Parliament, it might be so exercised that its objectionable features should be mitigated by the moderation of those who administered it. But how was it administered? The Act itself supplied no means of testing the validity of the signatures to the petition. A petition, then, coming to the Board, purporting to be signed by one-tenth of the inhabitants of a place, an inspector was forthwith sent down to the place, with no power, even if he wished it, to examine into the validity of the signatures. Nay more, the practice was that the inspector, so sent down, did not permit any inhabitant to see the petition; he said to the inhabitants, "You can't see it, you can't question it, you are delivered up, bound hand and foot, to the Board of Health." The unpopularity which such a measure as this must excite throughout the country was obvious. He could appeal on the point to the many Members who had, while he was in office, come to him, and asked to have towns struck out of the schedule. During the year that he held office under the operation of this Act he had himself struck out seven towns from the schedule after the Acts had been introduced relating to them, besides a good many more which he had struck out before the Act had been introduced. These, be it remembered, and others like them, were the cases of large towns or important districts which could defend themselves; but as to the smaller places and rural districts, which were without such protection, they were helpless as against the Board, which by their provisional orders, under the formal but effectual sanction of Orders in Council, completely overrode them. He had in his hands a remonstrance against this operation of the Board, received within the last few days, since the declaration of Lord
990
Shaftesbury elsewhere that the Board never forced its measures upon any place, which remonstrance — from Barton-upon-Irwell—energetically denounced the proceedings of the Board towards that locality. The noble Viscount seemed to think that matters would mend when the Board should be placed under the control of the Home Office; but, as to the smaller and unprotected districts, the control so anticipated would prove, with the present composition of the Board, and under its present mode of internal action, altogether nominal. The noble Viscount had contended that the whole principle of our Government was not to separate departments, but to consolidate them; but there was the striking example to the contrary of the Poor Law Board, which, having been under the Home Office, it had been found essential to separate from it, and to create of it a new department. The effect of the proposed control would be simply this—that when a grievance came before the Secretary at the Home Office he would write on the corner of it, "Remonstrance—for the opinion of the Board of Health;" and the Board would send in an elaborate Report to the noble Lord, which the noble Lord, according to his own announcement, would not waste his time in reading; and the Board would then act as before, except in cases where the parties aggrieved were in a position, by themselves or their representatives, to make a fight against the Board. That would be the course of things, and that was not the way in which the public business ought to be done. The Bill provided that there should be two paid and one unpaid Commissioner who were to be the Board. Now, it appeared to him that where the Executive Government was to be responsible for the proceedings of a Board, the amateur member proposed was altogether objectionable. He had great respect for Lord Shaftesbury's personal character, but he entirely objected to the noble Earl's grand principle of government—the centralisation of everything—the interfering with everything and everybody. Such centralisation, such interference, should be the exception, not the rule; and, where exercised, should be exercised with the greatest caution and forbearance. It appeared to him, then, that the most beneficial sphere in which the noble Earl could apply his ability and his zeal was in such general superintendence, as a legislator in his place in the House of Lords, over the Board, and other

991
boards, as the case should require in his opinion, and he was sure always to be listened to with attention. With regard to the noble Viscount, he apprehended that the only effect of his assuming the control of the Board in the way proposed would be that the noble Viscount would feel himself called upon, whenever a grievance was alleged against the Board, to come down to the House and with some dexterous and amusing speech defend the Board—to throw the shield of his own popularity over their unpopularity, of his adroitness over their blunders. The noble Viscount had vastly entertained the House with laying down the rule that there was in every town a dirty party and a clean party, the dirty party being distinguished by their hostility to the Board of Health, the clean party by their affection for that body; but he must express the opinion that the jobbing of the Board of Health presented an amount of dirt which must be very startling to the clean party in question. The whole thing was perfectly monstrous. Some engineer whom no one else would employ, or some medical man whom nobody would consult, would be anxious to have the Health of Towns Act applied to his district; he would then get a few signatures, and would send up his impartial suggestion that a particular place could not get on without the interposition of the Board; the Board, jumping at the suggestion, would forthwith send down one of its elect inspectors, equally craving employment, who would, on arrival at the luckless place of his destination, place himself in communication with the doctor or engineering adviser, who being the person who had communicated with the Board, would thus have acquired a locus standi; the united pair would then consult with the surveyor of the local board, whose opinion, seeing that he could only be removed by the central Board, would be sure to take only one direction, and, by this combination of powers, the principle of self-government was utterly violated under the operation of this Board. He must protest against the continuance of this most objectionable system of great power exercised without anything like adequate responsibility. What he wanted to see was, some person made really responsible for the acts of this Board. He did not say that this person should not be a Cabinet Minister, that he should not be a Member of that House—not at all; but he wanted to see some practical man, well acquainted with business, at the head
992
of the Board, and not a more sanitary theorist. It seemed to him that the Board were always trying to make business for themselves, because they felt that they had not business enough to do. He thought that if they were to appoint a responsible head, with a secretary, instead of the present Board, such an arrangement would work far better than the one proposed. The noble Lord had talked as if all those who opposed the Board of Health, were opposed to measures for securing the health of the people; but this had nothing to do with the question before the house. What they had to deal with was, first the existing Act, and next the Board by which it was to be carried out. He admitted that the Act must be continued for another year, but not subject to its being administered by the present Board. It would be necessary next year to reconsider the question, and he was anxious to have independent persons at the Board who might give their opinions as to the operation of the Act. The gentlemen who were now at the Board were pledged to the present Act, and it was not likely, therefore, that they would afford evidence which would tend to a diminution of the powers conferred by the Act. The present members of the Board had entirely lost the confidence of that House, and it was, therefore, absolutely necessary that they should be removed. The noble Lord said, however, that the cholera was approaching. The cholera was always coming whenever the powers of the Board of Health were about to expire; but, if the cholera was at hand, that was the very reason why they should establish a Board in which the public had confidence. It had been stated, in defence of the General Board, that many documents of the local boards bore testimony in their favour; but how were these things managed? He found in the Appendix to the Croydon Drainage Report that statements were given from letters represented to be received from several local boards, and among them was the following extract from a letter from Leamington—
"I do not consider the General Board interfere unnecessarily with the local board; on the contrary, we have not been able to obtain their assistance so readily as we could have desired. We have, nevertheless, already found their aid and assistance most valuable, from the useful information we have obtained from them. Instead of our connection tending to augment expenses, I consider it has, in all respects, quite a contrary effect."

993
The Report containing this extract was published in August last year; but he found in a local newspaper, in the autumn of that year, an account of a meeting of the local board, at which the publication of the statement was discussed, and the following resolution was unanimously adopted—
"That the clerk do, by letter, express to the General Board the surprise of the local board at the paragraph in question, which never proceeded from or was sanctioned by the board of health for the district of Leamington."
The statement seemed to have been sent by some individual, and the General Board at once published it in a Report, of which they distributed some 5,000 copies, and which contained other letters in their praise. The instance he had mentioned, however, certainly shook his confidence generally in these letters of commendation. When the local boards were established, they sent down inspectors, who usually objected to the plans that might have been prepared by any engineer, however eminent. He had in his hand a communication from Mr. Robert Stephenson— who might certainly bear comparison as an engineer with any officer of the Board of Health—in which he said—
"I have long entertained the strongest conviction that the detailed plans of towns required by the Central Board of Health prior to giving their sanction to the improvements proposed from time to time by local boards, involve a very unnecessary expenditure of money, and I have not hesitated to express this opinion unequivocally whenever called upon to do so. On this subject I have conferred with several very experienced engineers, and they entirely concur with me in this opinion."
The General Board of Health would have large and detailed plans, their inspectors usually threw aside the plans of the local engineers, and he had received letters from every part of the country complaining of the manner in which the proposals of excellent engineers had been overridden by the inspectors of the Board; at Grimsby, for instance, the plan of Mr. Rendle had been rejected in favour of some unknown engineer who was attached to the Board. Considering, therefore, the proposed constitution of the Board to be very objectionable, he hoped the House would decide that the Bill should not be read a second time, in order to show that they meant to have a Board that should be properly responsible to the House, and that they would not be satisfied with a Board constituted in the manner proposed by the noble Lord. It was clear that the Home
994
Secretary would not control the proceedings of the Board, but would only act when an appeal was made to him. He (Lord Seymour) thought he had stated enough to convince the House that the Board, as at present constituted, ought not to be continued, and he hoped that the House would reject the measure, in order that, in introducing another Bill, the Government might propose a Board constituted in a more satisfactory manner. He was not responsible for the measure having been introduced so late in the Session; for it might very well have been brought in much sooner, for it contained only seven clauses. He did not wish to interfere with the Public Health Act, but he desired that it should be differently administered, for the manner in which the present Act had been carried into effect during the last two or three years by the General Board of Health had not only been disadvantageous to the community, but most discreditable to the House. He, therefore, begged to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he thought his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had taken a very great responsibility upon himself in bringing all the weight of his name and character to bear against a Board as honest, and skilful, and as effectual, he believed, as had ever administered any public department. He believed if his noble Friend had kept up a more frequent intercourse with the gentlemen of the board, many of the bad impressions which he had formed of them would have been dispersed or forgotten in the consideration of the great zeal and earnestness which they had always evinced in the business on which they had been engaged. His noble Friend had adopted the principle of selecting certain exceptional instances in particular cases as examples of how matters in general had been managed by the Board; and had wished the House to take its conclusions solely and simply from those exceptions. He did not think that a fair line of argument, for he was satisfied that in the great majority of cases, of which the noble Lord had taken no notice, the Board had acted most judiciously and greatly for the advantage of the public. With respect to the proceedings of the General Board towards places in the coun-

995
try in which the Health of Towns Act had been introduced, the noble Lord seemed to wish it to be understood that the Act had been forced upon them against their will; but he (Mr. M. Milnes) could state that out of 182 local boards embodied under that Act, and which were now in full operation, there were only six who were in any dissension whatever with the General Board. His noble Friend had also picked out for ridicule a few exceptional cases of what he deemed ill advice given by the Board to the Government on certain occasions; but he had said not one word about the judicious and wise advice which they had given to the Government from time to time, and he thought the Government would be ready to admit that they had derived great advantage from the recommendations of the Board. The noble Lord had likewise cited the conduct of the Board in reference to the question of intramural interment and the water supply of the metropolis. But the noble Lord would surely admit that those were questions of a most complicated character, and surrounded with considerations of private interest with which it was most difficult to grapple, and with other practical difficulties which, perhaps, nothing but time would overcome. The Bishop of London stated that, if the advice of the Board had been followed in regard to intramural interments, that difficult and important question would now have been settled. He would place the authority of the right rev. Prelate against that of the noble Lord. Surely, it was no reproach to them that they had consulted the principles of taste in the laying out of cemeteries. In reference to water supply, the noble Lord had sneered at the proposal of the Board for drawing it from the Surrey hills. The question was one of great magnitude; but they were encouraged by what had been done at Preston, Manchester, and elsewhere. Much had been said of the relations of the Board with the noble Lord himself, and it was to be regretted that he had not entered more closely into communion with the Board, instead of only attending seven times during his whole period of office. The inference was unavoidable, that he had a strong personal repugnance to the members of the Board. It was undeniable that, amidst all the splendour of the metropolis, there existed more squalor and misery amongst the dwellings of the poor than in any other city or country. ["No, no!"] His own experience led him to the
996
conclusion that there was nothing to compare with it. This being so, how should we set about remedying the evil? The principle of self-government was strongly upheld in this country; but, recollecting that in the case of public nuisances, the proprietor of a sal-volatile manufactory even maintained that it was conducive to health, and that the proprietors of other more offensive works did the same, it became a question whether some sort of police surveillance should not be exercised over these cases. It was a question how this could be done so as to produce the slightest interference with individual liberty, and whether the existing Board fulfilled this condition. The noble Lord had failed to show a single instance in which the Board had abused its powers. The only case which he described as a tyrannical act of interference was one where the Board had waited eighteen months before exercising the powers with which they were invested. As the noble Lord, therefore, had not made out a single case in which the Board had abused its powers, he (Mr. M. Milnes) thought he was not justified in coming forward to demand the suppression of a public department on the ground of a general abuse of power. It was said the House had no confidence in the Board; but that confidence ought to be based on careful inquiry, and an examination of facts and documents on both sides. The Board might not always have acted in the best manner, but the vast benefits which they had conferred on the country were not to be overlooked on that account. He hoped the House would not allow these miserable elements to form part of the discussion. Unless it could be proved that Mr. Chadwick or the Earl of Shaftesbury had abused their authority by applying the law to cases which did not properly come within its scope, the House ought not to concur in the rejection of this Bill. It should be remembered that the House had selected those men as the best to advise and assist the people of England in all sanitary matters; and it was a most paltry charge against them that they had published a few thousand more pamphlets than they ought to have done. If the House put them in a position of great responsibility, and, the moment they came in contact with private interest, sided with those interests, they had much better have never legislated at all, but have left the people to wallow in their own dirt. It was said that voluntary efforts were sufficient in

997
this matter, and that all Government interference was unnecessary, as in the matter of education. He thought, on the other hand, that the prudent exercise of a central authority was essential for keeping in check unwholesome trades, pestilential manufactories, and other matters. This might create a little momentary unpopularity, but that would be far outweighed by the benefits to be secured.
MR. HENLEYsaid, there was a very strong feeling in the country in favour of cleanliness, but it seemed as if the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken was resolved not to be satisfied unless everybody would consent to be cleaned by Mr. Chadwick; or, if they were unwilling to consent, that they should remain dirty. It was because the process of cleansing had been conducted in a manner very unsatisfactory to the great mass of the people that many of them were now doubting whether it would not be better to remain uncleansed than to be cleansed in the manner proposed by the Board. He (Mr. Henley) had taken some part in framing the Health of Towns Act. The subject was one of much difficulty and complication, and great discretion and skill were required on the part of those to whom were intrusted the large powers conferred by the Act. The question the House now had to consider was, whether a fortunate selection had been made of the persons to whom these powers had been committed? The Government showed, by the manner in which they introduced this Bill, that they—in common, he believed, with the whole country—had come to the conclusion that those powers had not been well and judiciously exercised. This was shown by the proposal to change the tribunal. The Board, therefore, must stand condemned, not only by the voice of the country, but of the Executive Government also, or a simple Continuance Bill would have been proposed without any change in the Board. The hon. Member who last spoke complained that it was unjust to condemn the Board when no instance of misconduct had been established against them. Why, if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the "show up" the Board had received at the hands of the noble Member for Totness (Lord Seymour), he (Mr. Henley) did not know what would satisfy him. He (Mr. Henley) thought few Members in that House could have pressed into so small a compass such a tale of wrong-doing and mis-doing as the noble Lord had done in
998
this case. The strong antipathy against the Board had not arisen from nothing. We were a long-suffering and a forbearing people; and it was only when we came to be kicked very hard, and especially on points very sensitive, that we could get up a feeling against the constituted authorities; and his hon. Friend might depend upon it that in this country it was impossible for any public department to fall into general disfavour so long as it discharged its duties properly. In this case he believed the Board of Health had operated more to delay than to facilitate the cleansing process. All the change, as far as he (Mr. Henley) understood it, which was now proposed by this Bill was, that the proceedings of this Board were to be removed from under the First Commissioner of Works, and placed wholly under the control of the Home Secretary, who was to be responsible to Parliament for their acts. Well, what would be the result? Why, the same thing that occurred when there was a Member of the Government answerable for the Poor Law Commissioners in that House. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), crammed by the Board of Health, would come down to that House full of his brief, and from that brief, with all the strength of the Government at his back, would endeavour to carry this Board through all their difficulties. But let the noble Lord beware, for he might easily bring on his head a degree of responsibility much greater than he appeared to reckon upon. It was desirable above all things that this Board should be constituted so as to obtain public confidence. Their powers must necessarily be large, and in some degree unconstitutional, to carry out the objects they had in view; and it should be the business of the House to see that the persons constituting the Board were likely to exercise those powers with discretion and judgment. But in the meanwhile he thought it desirable that the Government should introduce a continuing Bill, and should reform the Board on some such model as the Poor Law Board. He thought, under the circumstances, the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had taken the only wise course which he could have taken; and he (Mr. Henley), therefore, cordially supported his Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped that before the House decided upon rejecting this Bill, they would well consider what

999
was the exact difference between the Members who had spoken on opposite sides of the question. As to the first point, that there should be some body, some authority, administering provisions for the health of the country—this appeared to be generally admitted. The health of the community, the ravages of diseases and epidemics, and the best modes of counteracting them, were matters of such high import, that all must admit the essential necessity of some Board somewhere existing for the purpose of watching over them, and with adequate powers. So far, therefore, they were agreed. As to the precise extent of those powers, there likewise appeared to be no great difference of opinion. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) objected to the power given to one-tenth of the ratepayers of any locality to have the Health of Towns Act applied to their town. He did not agree with the noble Lord, but this was a point which the noble Lord and other hon. Members seemed disposed generally to refer to a Committee to be appointed early next Session; and his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) had stated that the Government was quite willing that the duration of the present measure should be limited to one year, with a view to a consideration of the whole subject next Session. He thought that a proposition to which the House generally would be disposed to agree. As to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that would be impracticable; for, unless the House thought fit to sit continuously for the next six months, the proposed inquiry could hardly be terminated before the Board, according to his view, came to its end. Then came the question, presented with great ability and condensation by the noble Member for Totness (Lord Seymour), whether the powers now given to the Board had been exercised with discretion; or, on the other hand, with such indiscretion that they could not, even for the limited time proposed, remain intrusted to the persons who now exercised them? With reference to that, great stress had been laid on some points on which he quite agreed with the noble Member for Totness the Board of Health had been mistaken in the advice they had given. He conceived that the members of the Board had exaggerated views on the subject of central powers, and on the mode in which those powers could be used in this country. He knew that, as to one of these gentlemen, Mr.
1000
Chadwick, he had stated to that gentleman twenty years ago his opinion that he did not take sufficiently into account the habits of self-government of this country, and the desire there was in all local bodies to continue that government in their own hands. On the other hand, it would not be denied that, while local government was an excellent thing, still, as to many things, there was frequently such irregularity, such neglect, on the part of those local bodies—for example, as to the Poor Laws, as to the health of towns, as to education —that it was useful to have some general supervision, some general board, which should, at least, furnish information and advice enabling local bodies the more effectually to manage their concerns. Such, at least, had been the course of legislation adopted with the general consent for the last twenty years. The noble Member for Totness had instanced several cases in which, according to his opinion, this Board had acted indiscreetly and given injudicious advice. He was not disposed, on this occasion, to enter into any discussion on each particular case of this kind; but he would say that there were other subjects on which the advice of the Board had been of great importance, and on which its merits had been overlooked. He could say, for example, with regard to cholera, that the Report of the Board which, some four years ago, was founded on their investigations and experience was one of the most valuable Reports upon the health question which he had ever read in his life. It proceeded upon the belief, confirmed by all the experience of the Board and all their inquiries, that, though cholera was a disease most difficult to deal with successfully—a disease which, once established, had exhausted the highest art of the most scientific medical men in the world—yet that, when encountered at an early stage, when it had been only one or two days in a place, by close attention to premonitory symptoms, by house-to-house visitation, and by careful treatment consequent upon such visits, it was possible to a great degree to meet an attack of cholera, or at any rate very greatly to mitigate its ravages. No public Board ever rendered a greater service to the community than was rendered by the compilation of this Report —a report which in any future visitation of the cholera would, he was satisfied, be the means of preserving many thousands of lives; nor could any public body ever render a greater service than by bringing

1001
all the facts together, and then showing what had been the experience of the different towns and the results deducible from that experience. So with respect to many other matters, which he did not wish to go into then, he considered that the Board of Health had been of great public service. With reference to that which was the special business under the Board of Health, it had been shown that in 180 towns the Board had been invited to interpose for the improvement of the health of those towns; and it was important to observe, as touching the question of local self-government, that what was done in these towns was not the putting them under the Board of Health, "bound hand and foot," as the noble Lord had said, but that the Board of Health gave its advice and assistance in the formation of local boards of health, which then provided for the health of the place. The other ground on which the Board was attacked was in reference to the persons who formed the Board. He felt himself in a great degree responsible for the nomination of these persons, because, in one office or another, he had been very much concerned in the appointment of those persons. Of Lord Shaftesbury he would say nothing, for that noble Earl required no defence and no eulogy from him. There was no man living who had done so much as the noble Earl to promote the welfare of the working classes, or done it so disinterestedly or so unostentatiously. However men might dissent from many of his views and many of his measures, still this testimony would be readily accorded to him, even in his own generation, and most assuredly in the generations which should come after him. But as to Mr. Chadwick, who was the object of much obloquy, he would say a few words; and, while he stated what he thought favourable to him, he would not disguise in what he conceived that Mr. Chadwick's administration of public affairs was faulty. Mr. Chadwick was a man of the greatest energy, and with a spirit of inquiry which induced him to labour, by zeal, by unremitting attention to the subject in hand, to go to the bottom of it, and to attempt some-remedy for the evils which he conceived himself to find there. He was appointed an assistant commissioner to inquire into the Poor Laws, and if in that large book, the Report of the Commissioners, they turned to the Report of Mr. Chadwick, they would find there the germ of that amendment which, in his (Lord J. Russell's) convic-
1002
tion, had saved the country from great social evils, if not absolutely from social revolution. He thought that this was a testimony which might be fairly proposed in favour of Mr. Chadwick. With respect to other subjects—with respect to crimes —Mr. Chadwick's inquiries had been of the greatest use to the country. The constabulary, which had been partly provided for the counties by Parliament, was very much the result of the inquiries which Mr. Chadwick made into the subject; and he (Lord J. Russell) trusted that in a future Session that valuable measure would be carried out to the extent which was requisite for the efficient police of the country. With reference to this subject of health, Mr. Chadwick's inquiries into the health of the metropolis and of towns had been carried on through various Commissions and investigations which had been undertaken on this subject; so that, on these various topics—the Poor Law, the improvement of the police of the country, and the improvement of the health of the country—there was no man to whose zeal and assiduity this country was more indebted than to Mr. Chadwick. Having thus stated what he regarded as Mr. Chadwick's merits, he would not disguise that, like many other men, ardent reformers, he very often, in his zeal for amendment, as he conceived it, overlooked or disregarded the objection and repugnance with which his views and propositions were received by others. Thus, when he was placed upon the administration of the Poor Laws as secretary, many of his proposals went altogether against the feeling of the country, were repugnant to the general sentiment of the country, and were therefore injudicious and not to be persevered in. With respect to this Health of Towns Act, no doubt, in many instances, Mr. Chadwick's acts had, in like manner, given offence. It was quite obvious that in many of our towns many of the ratepayers had rather be let alone than be called upon to take the measures necessary for their own health and that of their townsmen. There were likewise many persons who were pecuniarily interested that the plans of the Board should not be adopted, and it was very probable that Mr. Chadwick had not observed towards these classes of persons the most conciliatory tone possible. However, as to the persons forming the Board, his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) had already informed the House that every member of the Board had placed

1003
his resignation in his noble Friend's hands, to be made use of whenever the Government should think it advisable to dispense with their services. His own opinion was that Lord Shaftesbury would probably think it too thankless a task to continue in his office. With reference to Mr. Chadwick, after the twenty years of labour which he had applied to the public service, at the cost of his health, now much impaired, it would not be deemed unfair that, were he to retire, his services should be compensated by a retiring allowance commensurate with the nature of the duties he was at present discharging. Mr. Chadwick, as he had said, had placed his resignation in the hands of the Government. With reference to Dr. Southwood Smith, it was very certain that, for the effective working of the department, a medical Commissioner was necessary, and it did not appear that any objection was made to this gentleman. Under all these circumstances, he ventured to submit that the proposal of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) was preferable to either of the others which had been laid before the House—the proposal, namely, to continue the Act for one year, upon the understanding that, at the commencement of next Session, there should be due inquiry into the whole subject, the result of which would show what powers were thereafter to be vested in the Board of Health, and in what authority those powers were to be vested, and that in the meantime the Board should be placed under the general supervision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who should be responsible for its working. It was of the greatest importance that, for the next three or four or five months, the measure should have the services of those who were thoroughly acquainted with the details of the department, and not be placed all at once in the hands of new persons, so that the House, when it came to make the inquiry intended, might have the full benefit of the experience which the present gentlemen possessed, and not be in the hands of persons scarcely more experienced in the matter than itself. He ventured to submit to the House that there had been very little difference of opinion between the different Members who had spoken on this subject; that the rejection of this Bill would be a very unwise proceeding; and he hoped the House would adopt the plan submitted by his noble Friend.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he should sup-
1004
port the second reading of the Bill. He had received several letters from persons engaged throughout the country in carrying into operation the Health of Towns Act, acknowledging the obligations they owed to Mr. Chadwick, and, among others, the following from Dr. Peacock, addressed to Mr. Chadwick himself—
"Deanery, Ely, July 15, 1854.
"My dear Sir—I have read with equal pain and indignation the attacks which have been made upon your official character in the House of Commons and in the Times, and I think it is incumbent upon every one who appreciates the value of the important labours to which your life has been devoted to protest against such gross injustice. We are chiefly indebted to your investigations and reports for the first sound views which have been taken of the proper administration of the poor, and of the correct principles of sanitary reform; and it is to your courageous exposure of the jobs of parish vestries, water companies, and of engineers who have either an interest in the perpetuation of abuses or are too idle or ignorant to learn or to practise what a more enlarged and liberal experience should teach them, that you are indebted for the obloquy with which they are attempting to overwhelm you. I have no doubt but the triumphant success of the sanitary measures which are in progress under your auspices will speedily silence all your enemies.
"I can speak from my own experience, as chairman of the board of health at Ely, that we are, in a great measure, indebted to the kind support which you have given us for the success of our undertaking; without your support, our effort to effect the drainage and water supply of this place would have been stifled at its birth.
"Believe me, my dear Sir, very truly yours,
(Signed) "G. PEACOCK."
He thought they ought to pass the second reading of the Bill on account of the important services which the Board of Health had rendered and was still rendering to the country. He was authorised also to state on behalf of Mr. Chadwick, that his medical advisers had recommended him not to continue in the Board.
MR. HUME,before giving his vote, wished to know whether, if this Bill were read a second time, the Government would undertake as soon as possible to remove Mr. Chadwick, and to reform the constitution of the Board?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it had been already stated that all the three members had placed their resignations in the hands of the Government, to be accepted whenever the Government might think fit; and as his hon. Friend (Mr. Heywood) had stated that Mr. Chadwick felt he was no longer able to continue to act upon the Board, there need be no longer any question about that gentleman.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 74: Majority 9.
Words added: — Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.

THE BOARD OF HEALTH—EXPLANATION.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLrose, at the request of Lord Shaftesbury, to remove an impression which had arisen from words supposed to have fallen from him on a previous occasion in reference to the Board of Health. When that subject on a former occasion had been under discussion in this House, he (Sir B. Hall) had made use of certain words in allusion to certain regulations in relation to burial-grounds in the metropolis. He was reported to have said that those regulations emanated from the Board of Health in the one instance, and that in another Mr. Chadwick was the author. Lord Shaftesbury, however, had written to him to state that the Board of Health had nothing whatever to do with the regulations to which he had alluded; that they were entirely under the direction of the Secretary of State, and that as a Board they were not cognisant of, or a party to them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was perfectly true that these regulations did not proceed from the Board of Health, nor were they at all intended as general regulations, but as recommendations in reference to one particular burial-ground.

NEWFOUNDLAND—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the affairs of the colony of Newfoundland, upon which he had made an inquiry some time ago of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, with regard to the demand of the Colony for responsible government. The answer then given to his inquiry was, that the Duke of Newcastle had sent out a despatch stating certain conditions upon which he was willing to accede to that demand. Since then he (Sir J. Pakington) had heard that the Colonial Legislature had rejected these conditions; and he believed a deputation was now in London, and had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman to ask what were his intentions on the subject. The question he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman now was, whether it was his intention to recede
1006
from the conditions laid down by the Duke of Newcastle, to alter those conditions in any degree, or to adhere to them?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was quite true that the Duke of Newcastle had stated, in a despatch transmitted to the Colony, the conditions he thought it desirable to lay down before responsible government was conceded to that Colony; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had quite correctly stated the reception those conditions had met with. These conditions had not been rejected, but, on the contrary, three of the most important seemed to have been objected to by no party in the Colony. The first of these related to the compensation to be awarded to holders of offices, and the differences which had arisen on this point were only as to the amount of compensation, and were, he hoped, susceptible of very easy and satisfactory adjustment. With regard to the increase in the number of members, no difference of opinion existed, he believed, on that point. As respected the sub-division of electoral districts—one of the most important of the conditions referred to—a Bill upon this subject had passed the Assembly. It was true that differences had arisen between the Council and the Assembly upon this point, but they had arisen upon matters of detail which had been magnified into more importance than could be justly attributed to them. It was correct that the Assembly had deputed persons to see the Secretary of State on these subjects; and he (Sir G. Grey) was now in communication with them, and he hoped that the differences which had arisen between the Council and the Assembly were by no means insuperable. With respect to the question which had been put to him, he would, without adhering strictly to every one of them, express his general concurrence in the conditions laid down by the Duke of Newcastle.

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION—(IRELAND).
Order for Committee of Supply read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Mr. LUCAS said: Sir, I wish to bring before the notice of the Government and of the House a subject of which I have given notice, and which has been some time on the paper. Notwithstanding the advanced period of the Session, I hope the House will be of opinion that I need not

1007
make any apology in introducing so important a subject, and in pressing that importance upon their attention and consideration. If any apology of that kind were necessary, my excuse might be found in the repeated requests made on the part of the Government that I would postpone the notice which has for some time stood on the paper. But another excuse, if excuse were indeed called for in this matter, might be found in the treatment of the Irish Land Bills, which had been under the consideration of Parliament during the greater part of this Session. Looking at the very peculiar and anomalous condition of Ireland—I mean the social and industrial condition of Ireland—I think it must be obvious to any one who takes an interest in the condition of that country that the Parliament of the United Kingdom owes a debt to that country, and that the people of Ireland have a great claim upon the Legislature to do all that in it lies to place their social and industrial affairs upon a better footing than they have been for some time past, and on which they still continue. During this Session nothing has been done with that view. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), and those who act with him, have for the last two Sessions pressed for a settlement of the land question; but the noble Lord and the other Members of the Government within the last few weeks have given us to understand that they despair of bringing that question to a settlement. That being so, and seeing that the industrial population of Ireland have for the present Session nothing to hope from Acts of Parliament, we are driven back to attempt to find some remedy for the social evils arising out of that question by other means, if any such there be. I don't know whether the English Members of this House are in a position sufficiently to picture to themselves the peculiar evils under which Ireland at present labours. I have heard some English Members of Parliament state that Ireland is in an extremely prosperous condition. I have heard it said by Gentlemen occupying a very high position in this House, that there is hardly a country in Europe which is in so prosperous a condition as the sister kingdom. I think that this is a great mistake, and the influence of such a mistake upon the proceedings of this House is likely to be so adverse and unfavourable to Ireland, that it is necessary I should say a few words on the condition
1008
of that country. I am not now going into the subject in detail, but I wish to refer to one or two leading points which I take from official statements of facts that, I believe, cannot be contradicted, and that deserve, in my opinion, to be very maturely and carefully considered. In the first place, I find it stated in official documents, which I believe cannot and will not be contradicted, that Ireland is in this peculiar position with reference to her population, that the annual births which occur in that country are barely sufficient to balance and equal the annual deaths that take place in it; that, in fact, there is no increase of the population at present; and that the large emigration which is now carried on is a net annual loss of population unbalanced from any other quarter. This is a statement which will probably not be contradicted. This emigration is not like the great emigration which is at this moment going on from the Atlantic States to the western States of America, in spite of the magnitude of which the population of the Atlantic States is very greatly on the increase; but it is a great emigration taking place along with no increase of the population whatever, and the whole of that emigration is, I believe, a loss to the population of Ireland. The Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners, taking notice of this lamentable state of affairs, as I consider it, in one of their latest Reports, inform us that this state of things is not likely soon to be brought to an end—that it is not like the case of an ordinary emigration having its origin in distress, but that it has its motive power on the other side of the Atlantic, and is kept up, not morely by distress at home, but by large funds furnished by persons in America to their family connections in Ireland, and by which those family connections are from time to time drawn across the Atlantic. They have estimated the increasing sums which year after year are applied to this purpose, and the figures, which I may shortly state, are these:—In 1848 the sum thus furnished amounted to 460,000 l.; in 1849 it was increased to 540,000 l.; in 1850 it was further increased to 957,000 l.; in 1851 it was increased to 990,000 l.; and in 1852 it had increased to 1,404,000 l. I may say, therefore, as a matter of fact, that since 1848 the funds have been raised from less than half a million to a million and a half, for the purpose of carrying persons from Ireland to America; and the Emigration

1009
Commissioners say, "The emigration will not be averted by anything short of a great improvement in the position of the labouring population in Ireland." I know there are some gentlemen, not in this House, who look on this emigration with feelings not of absolute dissatisfaction. Their views are expressed in some of the organs of public opinion, and indicate a belief that the emigration consists entirely of Catholics, and that it will be a beneficial thing if this drain of the Catholic population of Ireland should proceed a good deal further. I don't wish in the least to go into any angry question between Catholics and Protestants; but I will refer to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir John Young), when the other night the hon. and learned Member for Ennis. (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) brought under the consideration of the House the condition of the police force in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman admitted on that occasion the fact that the emigration of Protestant policemen was much greater than that of the Catholic members of the force, and he eluded the inference drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman of the ill-treatment of the Catholic policemen by attributing the fact which he admitted to the greater activity and energy of the Protestant policeman as compared with the Catholic. The fact, however, is admitted with regard to a section of the population which, so far as I know, possesses no peculiar features to distinguish it from the rest of the country, except this, that both the Protestant and Catholic members of that force are distinguished for their superior activity and energy, and that both of them are perhaps rather more disposed to the enterprise which results in emigration than other classes of the community. But we have at least this fact admitted, that in this respectable force, there is a greater emigration of Protestants than of Catholics. I only refer to this to show that the decreasing population affects all classes of the community alike—that it is an emigration which is going on to the diminution of all classes of the population—that it arises from circumstances which affect all classes of the population—and that it behoves all of us to see whether we can do something to put a stop to this frightful process, which, if it goes on at its present rate, will literally leave Ireland without a single inhabitant before the end of the present century. No one, of course, sup-
1010
poses that this consummation will actually be attained. Something will happen, of course, to arrest the evil; but when we are told that Ireland is in a prosperous condition, I cannot, for my part, consider a country in a prosperous condition of which it can be truly said that the tendency of the movement of its population is to come to an end before the expiration of the next fifty years. The Colonial Commissioners have, I believe, pointed out the only means which will really arrest that decrease—namely, a marked improvement in the industrial and social condition of the labouring classes in Ireland. It is the business of this House, I conceive, if it has any care for the social and industrial condition of Ireland, to do something to bring about that result; and it is our business, as Members representing considerable classes of the people of Ireland, to endeavour to press that subject on the attention of the Government and the House. Having to deal with an agricultural population, and believing that the only way to secure confidence in the industrial operations of that agricultural population was to improve the law regulating the relations of landlord and tenant, we have already done our best to find a remedy specially applicable to agriculture, and after two years of incessant labour in this House, preceded by labours out of this House not less strenuous, we have hitherto reaped no other reward of our labours than failure and disappointment. We have received the most disheartening reply from the noble Lord in reference to this subject; there is no hope, he says, whatever of bringing this question to a satisfactory settlement. The noble Lord shakes his head, and I am bound to think that I have misunderstood him; but I think I am authorised in saying that he expressed an opinion that it was extremely doubtful whether any legislation could be sufficiently precise to settle these disputed questions between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I think these were very nearly the words of the noble Lord, and there is really now by the Government no hope held out to us of raising the condition of the agricultural population by legislation bearing on the relations between landlord and tenant. Well, then, having failed for the moment on that side of the question, I think it is not improper for those who think that other legislation, not so directly bearing on agriculture, might have a beneficial result to bring forward any suggestion which they think holds out

1011
a reasonable hope of advantage to the community; and the suggestions which I have to offer are those which will raise no angry or hostile feelings between class and class—which will benefit Protestant and Catholic alike, landlord and tenant alike, the people of England and Ireland alike, and which can do evil or injury to no class of the community. The suggestion I have put on the paper of this House is in these words—
"On going into Committee of Supply, to direct the attention of the House to the propriety of instituting an inquiry into the best means of promoting Irish manufacturing industry by training or apprenticeship schools, and other similar establishments."
It was difficult in the few words which were suitable for such a notice to express exactly what the proposition was that I had to lay before the House; but at the outset I would say that the proposition I have to lay before the House is, that the Legislature shall act much more directly in affording facilities and encouragement for establishing manufactures in Ireland than it has yet attempted to do. This is not a theory of my own—it is not a more speculation on my part; but I propose to lay before the House an account of what has been done within the last seven or eight years with the greatest success in a neighbouring kingdom. I wish the House to enable the people of Ireland out of their Own funds—for I make no demand on the Treasury; I am not asking for one single sixpence out of the public funds of the country—to do for themselves, and for their own benefit, what has been done with the greatest advantage and the most admitted success in the neighbouring kingdom of Belgium. In making such a proposition as this to the House, which is, I believe, in its main features perfectly new, I suppose I may have to encounter a good deal of opposition. I believe that opposition will arise mainly from the novelty of the proposition, and, as a necessary consequence, from the want of due consideration hitherto given to it by Members of this House. The great objection that has been urged against my proposition in private is, that for the State to interfere to promote the establishment of manufactures is to violate the principles of free trade. I believe if that difficulty were got over—seeing the experience which we have from Belgium—that really neither the Government nor the House could have very much objection to accede to my proposition. If
1012
that be so, it is proper that I should say a few words on the principle of free trade, as bearing on this subject. I believe the proposition I have to make does in no degree violate the principles of free trade. I make a great distinction between rules of protection which are intended to protect the permanent continuance of manufactures, and the interference of the Government in the first establishment, and in overcoming the difficulties which are found in the way of the first establishment of a new manufacture, especially in a country where very scanty manufacturing establishments are found. There is a passage in the report of Mr. Wallis on the New York Exhibition which is so exceedingly suggestive in reference to the point which. I am now discussing that I will read it to the House. He says—
"The mutual dependence of one branch of manufacture upon another is so wide-spread and universal that, at first sight, the difficulty in commencing some of them appears so great as to convey the impression that it is insurmountable. It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise that many skilled artisans have, from time to time, returned to Europe, after an attempt to establish a manufacture, since the embarrassments arising out of almost unaided exertions, and an isolated position, were too great to allow them to do justice to themselves, or to those employers whose spirit and enterprise might have induced them to embark capital in such undertakings. The pecuniary loss of the latter has frequently been inevitable; and the early history of nine-tenths of the various branches of manufacture now flourishing in the United States, and amply repaying the present proprietors, is that of ruin; or of enormous sacrifices on the part of those who had the hardihood to become pioneers in those arts which now promise to become, at no distant period, of vital importance to the well-being of millions of industrious men and women."
Now, I think that with some limitation, though I don't wish to prove the parallel to Ireland in every respect, these sentences might have been written in reference to three out of the four provinces of Ireland. If it be true with regard to manufactures which give employment to thousands of industrious men and women, and which are the foundation of great and important trades in America, that the real history of nine-tenths of them was, that they were founded on the ruin of the pioneers of those manufactures, I think there is a clear difference between the capacity of a trade or a manufacture already established to subsist itself, without protection, and the capacity of a trade or manufacture to establish itself, in the first instance, without help. And this is the whole point of the proposition I have to lay before the House. To take the

1013
phraseology of Mr. Wallis, nine-tenths of the efforts that have been made to establish manufactures in America have been bad commercial speculations on the part of the original speculators; and, therefore, it is obvious that if the original pioneers, as Mr. Wallis calls them, had been guided solely by principles of commerce, and not by that ardent spirit of enterprise which, in the hope of great success, very often disregards prudential considerations, clearly those manufactures which now give support and employment to thousands of industrious men and women would never have had an existence in America. Now, what I want is, that where these difficulties exist some aid should be afforded by the machinery of the State—not by money taken out of the public funds—but by some local machinery to overcome those local difficulties that are insurmountable in the ordinary course of things. That being the general view I take of this question, I wish to say also if any objection is taken on the ground of free trade, or of the impropriety of the Government of the country interfering with regard to manufactures, I think that is not an objection that can fairly be taken either by the present Government or by any Government of recent years. We have voted of late years considerable sums at the instance of the Board of Trade for the purpose of promoting manufactures. No doubt these were generally for industrial schools, or for normal schools, which could not in strictness be called manufacturing establishments; but it was obvious that these sums of money were not voted simply for the purpose of education, or the schools for which they were voted would have been placed under the control of the Privy Council of Education, and not of the Board of Trade. Why does the Board of Trade interfere with schools of design, with the manufacture of lace, with wood engraving, and with the manufacture of porcelain? It does so because all Governments of recent date have recognised the duty of the Government to interfere with the view of promoting and encouraging trade; and in order to provide employment for certain classes of the community, it gives aid to a certain class of industrial occupations to hold their ground against the manufactures of foreign States. You have already sanctioned the principle that it is the business, not morely of the Committee of Education, but of the Board of Trade, to deal with the question of edu-
1014
cational training; and, therefore, you have sanctioned the principle that it is the duty of the Government to do such things as are prudent and feasible for the encouragement of trade and manufactures, even in this country. Well, then, all I say is, if you admit this, you give up the whole principle —you give up the whole preliminary objection; and the only remaining question is, whether the peculiar mode of interference which I propose for the Government is one which in itself is prudent and unobjectionable, and whether any objection can be taken to my proposal on the ground that it sins against principle. If it sins against principle, the conduct of the Government in proposing those Estimates equally sins against principle. It will be said that these are exceptional instances; but what do you mean by saying that these are exceptional instances? I don't understand how there can be these exceptional cases with regard to doing an injury to a community. The real question, therefore, between my proposition and that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is, whether the proposal which I make is a prudent and proper one, and one likely to tend to the benefit of the community. I think I have now disposed of the preliminary objection taken to my proposition on the score of principle. I am unwilling to trespass too long on the attention of the House, but I hope the House, having regard to the importance of the subject, will bear with me while I point out some circumstances which, I think, show what a large part the State has borne in the history of manufacturing and commercial enterprise. Take this country, for instance. When a country attains a certain degree of manufacturing prosperity, I admit that it would be unnecessary to adopt a proposition such as I am now bringing under the notice of the House. There are large aggregates of capital, and the fullest knowledge and enterprise employed in manufactures in Great Britain, and there is at the same time the fullest means for carrying out any improvements in old manufactures, or in establishing new ones. But, even in Great Britain, go back to the history of industrial enterprise before the middle of the last century, and if you inquire how manufactures have been established there, what do you find? If you go to a period antecedent to the middle of the last century, when manufacturing industry was firmly established throughout this island, you will find, I think, three epochs at which this manu-

1015
facturing industry received a great impulse, and in each of those epochs the impulse was received from circumstances which had very little to do in their origin with commercial enterprise, but a great deal to do with the interference of the State. The first period to which I would refer is the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. Up to that time you had no very considerable manufactures. At that period you have the birth of what for many generations was the great staple manufacture of the country, namely, the woollen trade. How did that originate? Why, it originated, not in private enterprise, but in the invitation to this country from the Low Countries of a number of weavers, dyers, and fullers, who introduced into London, Bolton, Norwich, and other English towns, the manufacture of fine woollen cloth which had no previous existence there. Two centuries later you have another great advance in the manufacturing industry of England. During the civil wars which desolated the Low Countries, and in which the city of Antwerp was sacked and destroyed by the Spanish General, the Duke of Alva, about one-third of the manufacturers and merchants in that city, who wrought and dealt in silks, damasks, taffeties, bays, sayes, serges, and stockings, came over to England, where they were hospitably received, and introduced a great many of those manufactures which did not exist here before. According to an English historian of our national industry the rise of the manufacturing industry of this country may be said to date from the fall of Antwerp. The third period is the end of the seventeenth century, when you have the revocation of the edict of Nantes. Then, something like 70,000 manufacturers and workmen were driven by the folly of Louis XIV. into this country, where they were hospitably received by the people and the Government. Large sums were spent to establish them here, and that not merely from motives of humanity and religious sympathy, but from motives of commercial prudence, and from the belief—and experience has proved that that belief was not unfounded—that the introduction of so many skilful artisans into manufactures which were imperfectly carried on before in this country, and of processes of manufacture not known here at all, would be of the greatest possible commercial benefit to this kingdom. And so it has proved; and I believe it will now be difficult to find any three manufacturing epochs in the history a England before the middle of the last
1016
century which are at all to be compared to the three periods to which I have referred, and to the events connected with them; and it may be truly said that, if you take away these three epochs, the manufacturing industry of this country would not have grown up to the high position in which it was found a century ago, and would not have experienced the extraordinary development which it has since received. There is no country in Europe which does not furnish me with examples of great leading branches of industry which have been introduced into them, not by private enterprise and prudence, but by the wisdom of States and monarchs taking advantage of political circumstances to introduce into their own countries trades and manufactures which had not before flourished there. What, for example, is the history of the silk trade? It came, as we all knew, from China. For a long period the manufacture of silk and the culture of the silkworm were confined to China. It was afterwards transferred to Constantinople about the sixth century, and thence to Greece. How did it get from China to Constantinople? Not by commercial enterprise. It was introduced into Constantinople by the Emperor Justinian, who was at considerable expense in inducing two Persian monks to bring over in canes the eggs of silkworms, and along with them the knowledge of the various processes by which the manufacture was conducted. From Constantinople it travelled into Greece, and from thence into Sicily and the south of Italy, where it was carried most unquestionably, not by commercial enterprise, but by an act of public rapine on the part of an adventurer, Roger, the Norman King of Sicily, who, being on a plundering expedition in Greece, brought home, as part of his plunder, several silk manufacturers, and established them in Palermo and in Calabria. The manufacture afterwards spread throughout Italy, and subsequently came into France—but how? Not by more private commercial enterprise, but by the act and patronage of the State —by the Act of Louis XI., who brought the silkworm to Tours—by that of Francis I., who brought it to Lyons—and by that of Henry IV., who brought it to Paris. I might cite many other instances, and if I do so it is because my case is very much supported by the general interference of States and Legislatures in introducing manufactures at different periods in the history of the world. Take, for instance, Geneva, in Switzerland, which is unquestionably the

1017
centre of a great manufacturing population, and which owes the origin of most of its manufactures, not to more commercial enterprise, but to civil convulsion, and to a wise prudence on the part of the Swiss community in taking advantage of those convulsions. The watchmakers of Geneva were originally citizens of Paris, but they were driven out of that city by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes; and by their means the watch trade of Geneva, and many other trades, along with great improvements in agriculture and gardening, were introduced into that part of Switzerland. The establishment of those trades was in great part completed after an interval of several generations by the French Revolution, which drove out the remaining artisans of that class from Paris to Geneva; and thus Geneva owes its commercial and industrial prosperity, not to the more spontaneous impulse of commercial enterprise, but to its citizens prudently and wisely taking advantage of political circumstances and hostile convulsions to introduce and settle among them many of those trades and manufactures which did not exist among them before. The last example with which I shall trouble the House is one very appropriate to the condition of Ireland. It is the case of Prussia. Long after the close of the thirty years' war Prussia lay devastated by the ravages committed during the war; many of its towns had been in great part destroyed —many of them had lost half, and others of them five-sixths, of their houses and populations. The country had become a perfect waste; agriculture was neglected, and trade and manufactures were entirely destroyed. How was the country revived? It was revived by the action of the Great Elector, as he was called, by his adoption of a course of policy almost exactly similar to that which the House is now asked to sanction. An opportunity was afforded for his entering upon that course of policy by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The moment that that great Sovereign—for he was one of the greatest Sovereigns of his time, and his name will never be forgotten in Prussia —learnt that the banishment of the Protestants from France was taking place, he issued an edict from Potsdam inviting them to settle within his territory. He sent his agents to Amsterdam, Frankfort, and Hamburg, who supplied as many as chose to avail themselves of his invitation with money, guides, provisions, and other means
1018
of travelling; he gave them houses and settlements in land, and furnished them with the means of living until they were able to establish themselves; and in the places in which they settled they afterwards carried on the various manufactures of which they were masters. The wealthiest and richest of them came to England and Holland; but the Great Elector was obliged to take the very poorest of them, and to maintain them for some time at his own cost; but by doing so, and by thus introducing the manufactures with which they were acquainted, he changed in a short time the very face of Prussia, and, after a generation or two, a country which, when he came to the throne, was almost entirely a desert waste, became able to encounter in the shock of arms the greatest potentates of Europe banded against her. I think the case of Prussia is of happy augury if applied to Ireland. Although Ireland is at this moment destitute of manufactures, and although her people are flying from her shores by thousands, I see no reason, if a proper policy be adopted towards her by the Government, why that decrease of the population should not be arrested, and why the whole country should not flourish with manufactures and agriculture, and should not become the home of a happy and a contented people. I now wish to say a few words to the House about the more immediate nature of the proposition which I have to make on this occasion. The example I ask you to follow is that of Belgium. I have been met with this objection, that it is not necessary to go to foreign nations to see what may be done in establishing manufactures, because in all industrial matters we are far before the Continent, and it is therefore quite enough to look at home. It is precisely because that is in a certain sense true that I go to a foreign nation. Ireland has not prospered. England and Scotland have prospered, but Ireland has not. I wish to take an example from a foreign country very much resembling Ireland, and very considerably behind England and Scotland in commercial enterprise and in accumulated capital, and, therefore, a much fitter subject for comparison with Ireland than Great Britain can be. There are many points of resemblance between the provinces of Belgium and Ireland. In Belgium you have a population in great part agricultural, with small farms, small capitals, and small manufactures. Up to a very recent period—up to less than ten

1019
years ago—almost the sole manufacture of the two provinces of Flanders was the manufacture of linen in its simplest shape. The manufacture was conducted by machines of the rudest kind, and for twenty or thirty years past it was the necessary, and, indeed, the inevitable result, that the people engaged in it should feel all the effects of competition with the great capitals and the improved machinery of this country. From 1831, and later, the Flemish manufacturers of linen were in a state of great distress. Many means were attempted by the Belgian Legislature to put an end to this state of things. They attempted high protective duties, but these failed and were soon abandoned. Then, after a little time, there came a disaster exactly similar to that which visited Ireland—the failure of the potato crop—and the weavers devoting part of their time to the cultivation of the land, and subsisting very much on potatoes, there were superadded to the distress to which they were subject by competition with the capital and improved machinery of other countries, the greatest extremity of famine, of which they were the victims. The Belgian Legislature endeavoured to meet this great calamity by means similar to those which were tried in the first instance in Ireland. They had industrial committees for providing food and work to the famished people, but the result was to disorganise still further the linen manufacture, and to aggravate permanently the evils under which the people were labouring. Eventually they came, partly by individual experiments, which were followed up with great prudence and judgment by the Belgian Legislature and Government, upon the very system to which I am now calling the attention of the House. An experiment was made at Routers, a town in Western Flanders, the object of which was, not to provide work without reference to the commercial circumstances of the case, but to introduce and establish the newest processes into manufactures already in existence there, and to introduce new manufactures. That was first attempted by the town of Roulers, and the experiment succeeded. Another experiment of a like kind was made by the town of Ghent, and with equal success; with so much success indeed that a general law was passed to carry out the principle. In a very short time after the experiment was tried at Roulers, at least eight or ten new manufactures were introduced, and are now
1020
flourishing there. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then read extracts from a Report showing the great advantages that had been derived from the introduction of the system in East Flanders, and in other parts of Belgium, the ateliers having been established in sixty-eight places.] Now, at what expense to the State have these enormous results been attained?—and I am persuaded that no Member in this House will deny them to be enormous results—at what expense, I say, have these results been brought about in East and West Flanders? Why, the total expense for five years, in the two provinces of East and West Flanders has amounted to 36,788 l., or about two and a half per cent on the county cess of Leinster. Besides, the current expenses are diminishing. I find for the year 1850 those expenses amounted, for the two provinces, to 3,416 l., or about one and a quarter per cent on the Leinster county cess. I am asking you now to introduce these establishments into Ireland at the risk of the people themselves—I am not asking you for any supplies from the public Treasury—I am asking you to give the counties of Ireland the power of managing their own affairs, and of taking steps like these for their own improvement at their own risk—and I am perfectly willing that this should be done, subject to some central revision on the part of Government to prevent fraud or mismanagement, if any person should be inclined so to act. I am not, of course, submitting at this moment any Motion to the House. The proposition which I have laid before the House is a new one; and it was necessary for me to find some opportunity during the present Session to make such a statement as this, in order to elicit from the Government some opinion upon the subject as to whether they think it practicable to accomplish anything in this way for Ireland, since an impression exists —which I still hope is an erroneous one—from the language lately held by the Government, that no encouragement is to be given to agriculture, which is the staple industry of Ireland, by any immediate settlement of the relations between landlord and tenant. I commend this proposition particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but most particularly to the noble Lord the President of the Council. The words of the noble Lord appear calculated to destroy, though I for one hope it is otherwise, any hopes that might be entertained,

1021
or might spring from the conduct of the Government, in reference to the land question. But should the words of the noble Lord fairly bear the interpretation that has been attributed to them, I would press it upon the noble Lord and the Government that they should at least hold out some hope that, in other industrial pursuits, a fair amount of encouragement and means of improvement will be afforded to the people of Ireland by that which Parliament and the Government can do for their benefit without incurring any expense, and almost without incurring any trouble.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that, before he made any observations respecting the early part of the speech of the hon. Member for Meath, he wished to make a very short statement with regard to what the hon. Gentleman had said as to his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion in respect to the land question in Ireland, to which the hon. Gentleman had more than once alluded. At various periods of late years measures had been introduced in reference to the subject of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and, last year, Bills were referred to a Select Committee, which, having afterwards undergone the consideration of the House, were sent up to the House of Lords, containing everything which was thought could be done in the way of justice to the tenant. Those Bills were not introduced this year in the House of Commons, but were originally considered in the House of Lords, who took a different view of the subject from that which had been previously taken by the House of Commons. Their Lordships passed Bills which they thought contained everything that could be done by legislation for settling all questions that might exist in dispute between landlord and tenant; but when the Bills came down to that House there was a general disposition, on the part of all those who thought there ought to be, on the landlord and tenant question, a Bill more favourable to the tenant than at present existed, to consider that those Bills had far better not be proceeded with, believing that, instead of settling the question, they would excite great discontent and dissatisfaction. Such being the case, he certainly inferred—and he did not think it required any great sagacity to arrive at the inference—that it was hopeless, or, at all events, extremely difficult, in the present Session at least, that any agreement between the two Houses could be arrived at that should be satisfactory to the people of Ireland.
1022
The hon. Gentleman had adverted to something which was supposed to have been stated by him (Lord J. Russell) on a former occasion, when those Bills were the subject of consideration. Now, he did not consider the question as hopeless, neither did he express himself to that effect. What he did say was, that he thought the best way in which to begin legislation on the subject was by taking care to provide in the fullest manner possible for encouraging and maintaining voluntary contracts between landlord and tenant; and that if that were done, there might be a hope entertained that the parties standing in the relation of landlord and tenant might be drawn near and more near to one another, and that the great landlord and tenant question might at some no distant day be set at rest. But he did not say, as had been imputed to him, that it was a question the settlement of which was utterly hopeless. Having said thus much with regard to the question of the land, he would now say a few words with respect to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. He would not say anything that evening at all decisive upon the very interesting subject which the hon. Gentleman had introduced, as to the rise and progress of manufactures in Belgium. Without being more informed than he was as to the manner in which the linen manufactures in Flanders were founded, and what particular measures were introduced, and the mode in which they were carried into effect, he should not give any positive opinion on the subject. But it appeared to him that there were some clear principles to which the House ought to adhere, and that among those principles there was one, that education and instruction of any kind might come within the province of the Government; and that, therefore, as was the case in many manufacturing towns with respect to manufactures, and with respect to the general laws upon the question of machinery, instruction might be very well given under the superintendence of the Government. But it was quite clear that all instruction of that kind was given by an outlay and an expense on the part of the Government, and that it did not pretend to be a remunerative process. It was a general mode of instruction, from which all manufacturers, in whatever branch of industry they might be concerned, might derive advantage. It was, however, a totally different thing for the Government to carry on agriculture or manufactures of any kind as a branch of commerce. Govern-

1023
ment could not pretend to gain a profit by such a system. He was of opinion that one course of proceeding might be very wisely pursued by the Government, whereas the other course of proceeding would be very unwise, and had been uniformly found to fail wherever Government sought to interfere with the profits of industry, which should be the remuneration of individual labour and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the number of artisans who had come to England, and who had gone to other Protestant countries —Prussia and Switzerland—in consequence of the Flemish persecution, of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and of the French Revolution. But all that proved that freedom of conscience was a great advantage to a country, and that a Government which protected freedom of conscience protected at the same time the development of individual skill and industry. Those emigrations to this and other Protestant countries occurred not by reason of any persecution of manufacturers in Flanders or in France, but in consequence of those general principles of freedom, both civil and religious, which happily existed in those Protestant countries. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the flourishing state of the woollen manufactures both in Tuscany and in Spain, and which he partly ascribed to the encouragement on the part of the Government; but that, since the Government of those countries had changed, their manufactures had decayed; that a great woollen manufacture had been established in this country, while in Florence and in Seville it had died away. But all these changes were not owing to the one Government giving instruction in manufactures, and to the other Government neglecting it; but it was owing to the Governments of Florence and of Spain having become so bad that all individual enterprise was checked, while in this country, in consequence of the liberty which the people enjoyed, individuals had the means of carrying on whatever enterprise their talent and industry might lead them to engage in. He believed that these principles would ever be found of great advantage to a nation. Whether or not there should not be more instruction given on these matters was a question on which he did not wish to enter. He believed there were at the present moment schools of instruction under national boards in several places on the Continent. There was at Paris a great school of this kind; in
1024
Carlsruhe there were two schools—one for agriculture and another for manufactures; in Ghent and in Liege there were also similar schools. These schools might be worthy of imitation; and he was not prepared to say that like institutions might not be carried further in Ireland. But without giving any opinion as to any particular course pursued in Belgium, in Berlin, or in other countries, he thought they must always have regard to those principles which generally governed the course of nations in this respect.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that the interference of the Government of a country, instead of aiding, suppressed the energies of a people. The hon. Member for Meath had alluded to Switzerland; but the manufactures of that country depended not on the aid of Government, but on individual enterprise. He was extremely anxious that no delusions on the subject should go forth among the people of Ireland, but that they should thoroughly understand that, unless manufacturing industry originated with the people themselves, and from their own thrift and skill, the interference of Government could do them no good. It was only under a government of civil, political, and religious liberty, and where the people were themselves industrious, that a nation could ever become a prosperous and a rich manufacturing and great commercial people.
MR. J. BALLsaid, that, considering the position of the noble Lord, a statement had fallen from him to which he thought it proper to call attention. The noble Lord had said that the falling off of the manufactures of Tuscany was owing to the Government of that country becoming so bad that no industrial pursuits could flourish under it. He (Mr. Ball) was quite sure that that statement did not apply to the history of Tuscany within the last 150 years; it was, however, unhappily quite true, in reference to the state of Tuscany for the last year or two, and he deeply regretted it. But the general government of Tuscany had been considerably in advance of all the rest of the south of Europe, at least in the tone of its administration and in the spirit of its constitution.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL,in explanation, was understood to say that he had alluded to the suppression of the laws and liberties of Florence in the time of Charles V., but had not referred to more recent times.
MR. MAGUIREthought the Government ought to have done something more than give a more passing notice of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath. They were ready to vote anything for the prosecution of the war, and, surely, the Government ought to make some effort for the restoration of a country which was a complication of disorders. Irishmen were constantly asked, why they were not industrious, and why they did not display the same energy as other nations did? But, what had been the history of Ireland for the last 100 years? He gave the present Government and their predecessors credit for having done everything in their power to promote education in Ireland; but the people required a different kind of education. The explanation of the noble Lord with respect to the landlord and tenant question was by no means satisfactory. If the noble Lord wished to hand down his name as a great statesman, and as one who knew how to deal with an unhappy country, he would earnestly grapple with the land question. There was a great manufacturing spirit going on in Ireland at the present moment, which required to be sustained. He called upon the noble Lord to turn his great mind towards the condition of Ireland, and to see that between this and the next Session some scheme be devised to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Meath.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that Ireland seemed to be an exception to almost all the principles of political economy, and Government appeared to be contributing to carrying out that exception. He had been over the farm at Glasnevin, and had examined the agricultural condition of Ireland, and he found that they were making progress, and that great satisfaction had arisen from the experience derived from that establishment. Seeing that the application of the principle contended for had succeeded in respect to agriculture, he was not aware of any strong reason why it should not be equally successful in its application to manufactures, as advocated by the hon. Member for Meath. It might be contrary to all principles of political economy, but if, notwithstanding, the principle had succeeded in Belgium, why should it not operate equally beneficially in Ireland?
MR. KENNEDYcontended that it was ungenerous to refuse this appeal, which demanded no pecuniary sacrifice from the State, but merely asked the House to give
1026
local authorities in Ireland power to try an experiment which had proved eminently successful in Belgium. There were 163 monster workhouses in Ireland, which might be rendered capable of doing enormous good to the people of Ireland in the direction pointed out by his hon. Friend. There was a great diminution in the number of inmates in those workhouses, and a further diminution was expected. He calculated that from one-fifth to two-fifths of the workhouses in Ireland might be spared in the course of two years, and made available for industrial schools. This would afford a nucleus for such operations as his hon. Friend suggested, They would, in the way he pointed out, be able to provide without cost sixty-four industrial schools in Ireland, or two for each county. These, in connection with the national schools, would be ample to carry out a substantial system of industrial training. It was his intention to bring the subject forward next Session.
Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
(1.) 2,055 l., Chapel at the Embassy, Constantinople.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished for some explanation of this Vote.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, about six or seven years ago the chapel was accidentally burned down, and, owing to the extravagant expenditure lavished on the building of the embassy house, had not been rebuilt. Two or three years ago, a Vote was proposed of 4,350 l. for the purpose, but was then withdrawn, in consequence of the lavish expenditure to which he had alluded. Strong representations of the inconvenience felt by the British residents had been made to the Ambassador, and even offers to contribute 1,000 l., though their numbers were small. The arrangements now made were such that the House would not be called upon for more than the sum now proposed. The want of accommodation, where a large number of sailors resorted, besides the residents, had been severely felt, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would assent to the Vote. An architect from the Board of Works would go out to superintend the building, but he would be under the control and direction of the Ambassador.
In reply to Mr. SPOONER,
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the architect was not the same gentleman who superintended the erection of the embassy house. The arrangements then were very imperfect, as that gentleman was not responsible to any one on the spot.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 1,400 l., British Protestant Cemetery, Madrid.
MR. AYSHFORD WISEexpressed an opinion that the Vote required some explanation, inasmuch as the conditions disclosed in the last published correspondence, as those upon which alone the Spanish Government would consent to this cemetery being established, were most unsatisfactory, and had been justly described as wholly inconsistent with the liberal spirit of the age. He thought, also, if no further correspondence had taken place, that the arrangement would lay the foundation for misunderstanding, and would tend to embroil us with the Spanish people. What were the facts? In 1851, the Marquis de Miraflores, and in 1853, General Lersundi, granted permission for the construction, at the place known by the name of La Herradura, at a short distance from the hill of San Damaso, of a cemetery for Protestant British subjects, who might die at Madrid, under the following conditions—
1. "The cemetery to be constructed with subjection to the sanitary rules required.
2. "No church, chapel, nor any other sign of a temple, or of public or private worship, will be allowed.
3. "All acts which could give any indication of the performance of any divine service whatsoever were prohibited.
4. "In the conveyance of the dead bodies to the burial-ground, any sort of pomp or publicity was to be avoided."
On this proposal being submitted to the noble Viscount, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that noble Lord very properly expressed his regret that the permission was accompanied by conditions so indicative of a system of religious intolerance on the part of the Spanish Government towards those who professed the Protestant religion, which formed so striking and unfavourable a contrast with the liberal and enlightened system of perfect religious freedom which prevailed in the United Kingdom towards the professors of the Roman Catholic faith. This took place in 1851, and nothing more was done until May, 1853, when he found that very strong language was used by Lord Howden, the British Minister at Madrid. His
1028
Lordship, in a despatch dated May 30, 1853, said, that the fourth condition was a seed of future difficulty, and that it opened a source of much possible conflict between the Legation and General Lersundi's department, and concluded with these words—"Perhaps I shall have occasion to try this question." Under such circumstances, he (Mr. Wise) considered it somewhat injudicious to establish a cemetery that had been opposed and delayed so long, and that even now was permitted to be inclosed on such unusual conditions. It appeared that this question had been more or less before the public for nearly half a century, and as long ago as the year 1796 a piece of land, intended to be appropriated for cemetery purposes, had been purchased by the Marquess of Bute. He held in his hand an original document belonging to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, which was of some interest, and with the permission of the Committee he would read it. It was from Lord Bute to Lord Grenville, and dated Madrid, 21st October, 1796—
"My LORD,—Having succeeded in purchasing a piece of ground under your Lordship's authority and the permission of the Prince de la Paz, to be converted into a burying ground for Protestants, I requested of the Prince to favour me with some assurance that it might, notwithstanding the war, be considered as still appropriated to that purpose, and I now inclose his answer, which is very satisfactory. I at the same time beg to apprise you, that I have drawn a bill upon your Lordship, payable to Messrs. Coutts, for the amount, being 95 l. 16 s. 8d."
Land, it appeared, had not risen in value at and near Madrid, for in 1846 the noble Viscount below had sanctioned the exchange of this land with the widow of Don Maroto, for some land of equal value, and of the same size, two acres and a quarter, or three Spanish fanegas, at 30 l. a fanega. Now according to the estimate, all that had to be done was to build a gateway, and to erect a wall round this cemetery, and he could not ace why Parliament should be called upon to vote so large a sum as 1,400 l. for such a purpose. Lord Palmerston, in 1850, had asked for a return of the number of British subjects who had died within a given period at Madrid, and had pointed out to Lord Howden that upon the facts disclosed by that return must depend the question as to whether the Government would be justified in expending any very large sum of money in establishing a cemetery there. Lord Howden at that time, in answer to Lord Pal-

1029
merston's request, had stated, on the authority of Mr. Otway, that the number of British subjects who had died at Madrid from the year 1834 had been only from fifteen to twenty—not more than one a year. And it appeared that, in some cases at least, the interments had been permitted to take place in the Catholic cemeteries. He could not understand why all the Protestant powers—America, and Prussia, and Holland, and other Protestant States, whose subjects came, as well as those of Great Britain, to Madrid—should not support unitedly an object of this kind. Nor could he conceive that it was necessary to have sent out a man of Mr. Albano's reputation and experience as an architect to superintend so trifling a matter as the erection of a wall round a cemetery. That such a course should have been taken, seemed to him to show an itching to expend the public money; and as charges of this description were continually increasing upon the Estimates, he had thought it right to direct attention to the subject, and to ask the Committee to consider whether there was really any necessity for this arrangement. Very few English visited Spain, and still fewer Madrid, and from what he knew he was not surprised, as it had been well said that travellers went there to stare and to starve, and to be eaten and not to eat. Paris was visited by thousands, and there was no cemetery there for the English. There was no likelihood of their countrymen going to a city of which an adage said that the climate was three months of winter and nine of hell; and he really thought this Vote was one more of sentiment than necessity. The Committee should not forget how the Votes of this class were increasing. From 4,000 l. in 1844, we had crept up now to 7,500 l.; and, including the Votes for Constantinople, Madrid, and the chaplains attached to embassies, this department cost us for the year 1844 no less than 12,285 l.!
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know whether the land was intended to be consecrated by a bishop of the Church of England? whether the chaplain of the embassy was to be the minister there? whether the bodies of Dissenters would be received there for interment? and whether this would extend to the child of a Baptist, who might not have received even lay baptism?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, since the date of the correspondence to which the hon. Member (Mr. A. Wise) had referred, Lord
1030
Howden had succeeded in obtaining terms which were considered extremely satisfactory, and in removing all the obstacles which had been thought to stand in the way of adopting the earlier proposition. The hon. Gentleman would recollect that about a year ago there was a perfect fever of indignation upon the subject, and that the strongest possible feeling ran through the metropolitan press and the press of the country generally with respect to the way in which Protestants were treated by the Spanish Government, in reference to their burial-ground. The public were especially shocked by a statement that the body of an Englishman had been dug up for the purpose of robbing it of the clothes and other articles of trifling value which were upon it. And it was under the pressure of these circumstances, and of the strong feeling of indignation which was excited by them, that a renewed effort had been made, which had resulted, as he had said, in the obtaining of terms which were considered satisfactory, and in securing a piece of land in the only place in the neighbourhood of the city of Madrid in which it could have been procured for such a purpose. The Consul General upon the spot had endeavoured to induce the British residents to subscribe some portion of the expense; but they were few in number, and in a comparatively humble position in life, and it would therefore have been utterly impracticable to obtain from them any considerable sum. It therefore became a question whether the British Government should not take steps to remove the flagrant abuse which had been made a matter of charge against every person concerned in the administration of British affairs in Spain. The Government had felt it its duty to take such steps, and to take advantage of the opportunity which had presented itself for putting an end to this state of things; and the proposition which had been submitted to the Treasury, for inclosing the ground and adapting it to its intended purpose, had been forwarded by them to the Board of Works, the Chief Commissioner of which, his right hon. Friend near him, would, he was sure, give an explanation with respect to the way in which it could be carried out, which ought, he considered, to be satisfactory to the Committee.
MR. APSLEY PELLATT: As to the consecration?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the cemetery would be consecrated by a Protestant

1031
bishop, and arrangements had been made by which it would be open to all British subjects.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the plans submitted to the Board of Works by the Treasury were so unsatisfactory, and the estimates were so uncertain, that he was persuaded that the cheapest and the most efficient mode of having the works executed was to send out a competent person to superintend them. He had arranged with Mr. Albano that he should go to Madrid, superintend the work, and return for a sum not exceeding 300 l.; and he thought this a much better plan than trusting to native agency.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 2,500 l., Royal Monuments, Westminster Abbey.
MR. EWARTsaid, that he highly approved of the object of the Vote. He believed that the monuments of Edward the Confessor, of Edward I., of Philippa, and Eleanor of Castille, would be exceedingly well restored. But he hoped the Government would take steps to secure the free admission of the public to these monuments, which were to be restored by their money. The fees taken in Westminster Abbey had been reduced from a discriminating duty to a fixed duty of 6d. each person. The plea for taking this fee was, that it went towards the payment of the persons who showed the monuments. St. Paul's was still worse than Westminster Abbey. He thought the Government should not lose the present opportunity of securing free access for the public to see the monuments which were repaired at their cost.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had already directed his attention to the subject, and had inquired why any fee was taken; and he had been told that its object was to provide for the payment of the persons who were employed in showing the monuments. It was important that no person should be permitted to go round without being attended by people by whom they might be carefully watched, the fact being that the monuments had suffered much more from the petty pilferings of the last century than during the whole of the centuries preceding from decay. Mr. Scott, in his able Report, referred to the subject in the following terms—
"As the monuments have suffered fully as much from spoliation as from decay, it is of the utmost importance that the vigilant watch kept over them should not in any degree be relaxed. Had the present system been adopted a century earlier, the atrocious pilfering and robbery, from
1032
which those invaluable works of art have so grievously suffered, would have been in great measure prevented; for it is truly mortifying to reflect that, though the church was exposed during the great rebellion to the insults of the soldiery, who were at one time quartered within its walls, and though there was actually an order of Parliament (happily never obeyed) for melting down the bronze, these monuments actually suffered infinitely less during that turbulent time, than in the enlightened period intervening between the middle of the last century and our own day, and that their greatest spoliation has been suffered at the hands of that intelligent public, who, one would have imagined, would have been the guardians, rather than the pilferers, of our national monuments."
If, therefore, no fee were to be levied on the public for viewing these monuments, it would be necessary that Parliament should vote a sum of money for the payment of persons to show them. If Parliament were prepared to do that, he would ask the consent of the Lords of the Treasury to such a Vote being proposed; and he had no doubt that if a general feeling in its favour were expressed, the Lords of the Treasury would acquiesce in it. He hoped, however, that if this were to be done, hon. Gentlemen would bear it ha mind hereafter, because, generally speaking, when Estimates of this kind were proposed, he found himself turned round upon and charged with increasing the Estimates, and told that these were matters which the individuals, and not the public, ought to pay for.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he was very glad to perceive that the general feeling of the Committee went with the Report, which was in his opinion drawn up with great skill and judgment. He was afraid, however, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) would be disappointed if he thought that for the sum of 2,500 l. all the monuments in the Abbey would be restored to their pristine state. Neither did he (Mr. M. Milnes) think it desirable that they should be restored to that state. And what he most admired in the Report was the clear line which Mr. Scott had drawn between an intelligent preservation and a mere attempt at renewal. The claim of Westminster Abbey upon Parliament rested above all upon the fact of its being the mausoleum of their great men. When the poet Campbell died some years ago—that poet who wrote "The Mariners of England," which was so applicable to the fleet in the Baltic—his remains were accompanied to the grave by a pompous funeral procession. The Earl of Aberdeen was one of the pall-bearers, and men high in

1033
station did honour to the dead. A statue was afterwards raised by public subscription—a statue quite worthy of the man. Why had it not been placed in the abbey? Why, simply because the Dean and Chapter of Westminster asked the enormous fee of 200 l. for a few square feet of space. If the Dean and Chapter did not provide places for public statues, it could not be the interest or the duty of Parliament to spend the national money in the preservation or restoration of the building. He did hope that the Government would interfere in the matter, and that the result would be that this great scandal would be removed. As a Churchman, he felt that things of that kind did much to injure the higher order of the clergy.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he believed that amongst competent judges who had considered the subject, there were very great doubts as to the expediency of adopting all the recommendations of Mr. Scott. Some months ago several members of the Archœological Society, on the invitation of Mr. Scott, examined many of the objects, and they were unanimously of opinion that many of the changes which Mr. Scott proposed were not desirable, either in an historical or in an artistic point of view. In particular these gentlemen thought that historical monuments like those would lose a great part of their interest if to any great extent old portions were taken away, and new ones substituted for them. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give an assurance that great caution would be exercised in the matter.
MR. BRADYsaid, it was melancholy to see such a splendid structure as Westminster Abbey decaying day by day, and he thought the Dean and Chapter greatly to be blamed for allowing it. He doubted whether money was well bestowed on monuments the erection of which had defaced and been almost the means of destroying the appearance of the beautiful architecture of the interior of the abbey. He objected to the erection of statues in ecclesiastical buildings, although he thought a proper place should be provided in which the country should do honour to those who had served it well. It was a disgrace that the people were not permitted to go freely through this building, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) would endeavour to make some arrangement with the Dean and Chapter to effect that object, failing which he considered he would be justified in coming down
1034
to the House and asking for a Vote for the purpose.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he wished to remind hon. Members that the greater part of the abbey, namely, the nave, the choir, and the transept, were already open to the public without any charge; and the only reason why the rest was not placed in the same position was that which he had stated, namely, that it was necessary to prevent them from being pilfered. If the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) would read the Report carefully, he would see that the only object of Mr. Scott was to prevent the monuments from receiving injury from the process of decay which was continually going on. With regard to the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes)—the monument to the poet Campbell—all he could say was, that he would immediately enter into communication on the subject with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and he had no doubt that when he had stated to them the wish of the House, they would be willing to comply with it.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped that any money voted would be appropriated to the preservation of the monuments or the payment of persons to take care of them, and would not go into the pockets of the Dean and Chapter.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he felt called upon to complain of the violent attack made in the Report on the public, by attributing the mutilation of the monuments to their pilfering. He thought, it confidence were shown in the public, it would not be violated, as instanced in the case of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and other cases. It was an entire mistake to suppose, if they allowed the people to go into places in which were works of art, they ought to be watched like a parcel of pickpockets. He thought, if the Dean and Chapter considered it was so great a responsibility to protect the monuments committed to their charge, it would be well to withdraw that responsibility from their hands and vest it in the Government, when the public might be freely admitted.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) 1,000 l., Statue of King Charles I., Charing Cross.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should like to know how it came that so large a sum was required?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had to state, in reply to his hon. Friend's

1035
question, that last year, an application having been made to him by the Crystal Palace Company to allow a cast of the statue to be made, and that application having been acceded to, be had an opportunity of visiting the statue and observing certain defects in it, In consequence of what he saw he employed Mr. Richard Westmacott to examine the statue and make a report. That gentleman reported that it was in a very bad state. He stated that the horse was fractured in the knees—that the bridle, sword, and bit, were no more—that the tail was also defective, the weather having penetrated it. In short, he (Sir W. Moles. worth) found that the statue could not be completely restored for less than the sum now asked for; it was evidently in a very dilapidated state, and unless the Committee were willing to see one of the finest statues in the metropolis fall to pieces, they should agree to the Vote.
MR. AYSHFORD WISEsaid, he did not know why the Committee should be so particularly anxious to restore the statue of a King who was more celebrated for his violation of public rights than the enhancement of national liberties. He, however, acknowledged that it was a masterpiece of art, and believed it was the first equestrian statue ever raised in this country. It was, in fact, one of Le Sueur's masterpieces, and considerable interest was attached to the statue from the fact that it was sold by Parliament to a brazier, with orders to break it in pieces. The brazier, however, hid it carefully away, and sold some old pieces of bronze to the enthusiastic cavaliers of the day at high prices. The Earl of Portland, after the Restoration, discovered it, and ordered its re-erection. He (Mr. Wise) had considerable doubt whether a new pedestal would look well, and harmonise with the statue. The present pedestal was the work of Grinling Gibbon, and at all events was not in such a ruinous state as mentioned by the First Commissioner. He sympathised much with the Votes for the restoration of the monument of King Edward the Confessor, King Edward the Third, and Queen Elizabeth; but to this Vote lie could only assent as a lover of the arts. On that ground he should be glad to see it restored, but he considered the sum of 1,000 l. too large to be devoted to that purpose.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rather wonder that the hon. Member, as a lover of thy arts, does not feel more regard for the memory of Charles I. Whatever may have
1036
been the constitutional predilections or prejudices of that Monarch, we are certainly indebted to him fur something more than the statue which the right hon. Gentleman wisely advises us to preserve. Let me recal to the remembrance of the Committee that the statue once disappeared in consequence—not of a Vote—of the temper of the House of Commons, and was lost for a considerable period. When lost, it was universally agreed that the finest model of equestrian sculpture known in modern times was lost to the country. I think, after all chef-d'œuvre occurred in Parliament at that time—having regained this chef-d'œuvre of Le Sueur—it would not become the Committee, by its refusal of such a Vote, to endanger the permanent preservation of such a work of art.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 13,0001., Agricultural Statistics.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know in what counties the collection of statistics had been made?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he wished to know why the survey was not to extend to the other counties of England?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the experiment would next year be made in eleven counties, some of them very large counties. When the experiment was first made, great difficulties were experienced; but those difficulties had been removed by judicious conduct. The Government, however, did not think it proper to ask a Vote for the whole kingdom until it had made an extended trial of the plan.
MR. EVELYN DENISONasked, whether it was intended in the English returns to give the estimated produce, as in Scotland?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, from the first it had been determined to keep matters of fact, such as the quantity of stock, acreage, &c., distinct from matters of opinion, such as estimates of produce. In the Scotch returns, both matters of fact and of opinion were stated, and he was informed that those opinions had been generally regarded as correct and satisfactory. In England, where the experiment was surrounded by greater difficulty, it was intended that those inspectors who opened new grounds should confine themselves to matters of fact, but that Sir John Walsham and Mr. Hawley, in the counties

1037
with which they already had been connected, should refer to matters of opinion as well as to matters of fact.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would state (what he believed to be the fact) that the agriculturists had interposed no obstacle to the collection of these statistics.
Mr. CARDWELLsaid, it would be unfair to make any representations, on the whole, unfavourable to the intelligence of the agricultural interests; but, at the same time, it would not be true to say that there had not been at first any prejudice or opposition. More enlightened views, however, had prevailed (principally through the influence of men like Lord Ashburton), and there was every reason to believe that the work would ultimately be accomplished.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he hoped that it was intended to continue estimating the quantity of corn grown in Ireland, for although it was only an approximation, it had been productive of much good. He approved of the system under which the statistics had been collected, but thought it expedient they should be collected as early as possible. Last year some were collected as late as October.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) 6,000 l., Spurn Point, River Humber.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, this Vote was for repairing a breach of the sea, and he must complain that the evil had been much increased in magnitude in consequence of the difficulty of communicating with the Government agent in a distant part of the country. The work was now being attended to, and its progress was satisfactory. He hoped in case of a similar disaster somebody would be there who had authority to give immediate orders.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, a question had arisen between the Trinity Board and the Admiralty on the subject, but after full consideration they had come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to insist on the Trinity Board paying for this matter. Attention had consequently been given to it, and it was now under the direction of the Admiralty officer of the Humber. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that this was a matter which required close and constant attention, and that that might be done a conservator of the river Humber had been appointed, who would act under the orders of the Admiralty. He would be desired to repair the breach, and to give his constant attention to the pre-
1038
servation of the coast, and to prevent a spread of the injury. The Committee would remember that they had voted large sums of money for harbours of refuge, but the Humber was a natural—and the only natural—harbour for a long distance upon the coast. He could assure the noble Lord that he would give the subject all the attention in his power.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 13,370 l., Kingstown Harbour.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he had now to propose a Vote for the repairs of Kingstown Harbour. Since the subject was last before the House inquiry had been made, and, upon the report of Mr. Rendel, the works were suspended for a short time; but they would shortly proceed, and he trusted to the satisfaction of every one.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether any alteration in the original plan, with regard to the depth of water, was likely to be adopted, in conformity with the suggestion he had made.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the plan likely to be adopted, differed from the original design in this respect. Mr. Rendel had suggested that the harbour ought to be larger, so that steamers might arrive at all times of the tide, and the mail-bags and passengers be removed immediately to the railway train.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know whether the Vote was to be a final one?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was for one year. An estimate of the total cost of the works had been prepared.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) 16,889 l., Duchy of Cornwall Office.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that on moving the third reading of the Bill relating to this matter he had promised to make an explanatory statement. The object of this Vote was to provide a new office in Pimlico for the Duchy of Cornwall in exchange for the old office in Somerset House. The Duchy of Cornwall possessed offices, or rather he might describe it as a house, in Somerset House. There were two basement floors, in which the valuable records of the Duchy of Cornwall were placed, and there were four upper stories, which were used as the office of the Duchy of Cornwall and the rooms of the secretary. By the Act 15 Geo. III. c. 33, a part of Somerset House was vested in the King for the use of the office of the Duchy of Cornwall, and for other offices. The offices now occupied by the Duchy of Cornwall were very much wanted by the Inland Revenue De-

1039
partment. One branch of the Inland Revenue, the Excise, had hitherto been carried on at an office in the City, and the other at Somerset House, and it was considered expedient that both should be united. The office in the City was sold, and this branch was brought to Somerset House, where new buildings were in course of erection for the Inland Revenue office. However, great inconvenience was felt from the want of sufficient space, and this was more particularly felt since the Succession Tax had added considerably to the duties of that department. He had accordingly been directed to put himself in communication with the Council on the subject. They stated, however, that they were very well satisfied, and did not wish to part with their office in Somerset House, but for the convenience of the public service they consented to give up Somerset House on condition that they were furnished with an office as good, as valuable, as well situated, and to which they had as good a title as to their office in Somerset House. He thought these conditions only fair and reasonable, and he then took steps to procure a house for them. The first place to which he had directed his attention was Buckingham House, Pall Mall, but he found that in the first instance 30,000 l. was demanded, and that 4,500 l. would be required in addition to put it in order for the accommodation of the Duchy of Cornwall office. This sum was, he thought, much too large; it was double the amount of the present Vote. He had then proposed the Irish office in the Birdcage Walk, but on inquiries he found it impossible to obtain the fee simple of that building. It was then proposed to build a new office on the site of the new street at Pimlico. He was anxious that the houses in this street should consist of a new and better class of buildings, as being likely to return ultimately a larger amount of ground-rents to the Crown, and he thought that the best mode of beginning would be by building a new office for the Duchy of Cornwall at the extremity of the street, near the entrance to St. James's Park at Buckingham Palace end, and the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall agreed to accept this site, and plans for the new office were prepared and agreed to. But then arose the question of the comparative value of the two sites, and estimates were made on the part of the Board of Works and the Duchy of Cornwall respectively. The Board of Works argued that as the new office would be of
1040
more value than the old office in Somerset House, the Duchy of Cornwall ought to pay a portion of the expense. But the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall contended, on the other hand, that, as they had no desire to change, as they were very comfortable where they were, and only consented to vacate their present offices for the public convenience, it was not fair to call upon them to pay any portion of the expense. He could not deny that there was much force in this argument, and the following arrangement had at last been come to:—Two valuers were to be appointed—one by the Board of Works, the other by the Duchy of Cornwall—with power to the valuers to select an umpire; these valuers to have power to determine the difference between the value of the old office at Somerset House and the new office at Pimlico. If the value of the old office was greater than that of the new, Government was not to be called upon to pay anything to the Duchy of Cornwall. If, on the other hand, the value of the new office was greater than the old, the Duchy of Cornwall was only to be called on to pay the half of that difference, the other half being remitted in consideration of the accommodation that their removal would afford to the public. It was further stated that the officers of the Duchy of Cornwall had consented to remove immediately, though the new office would not be complete in less than two years. According to the estimate made by the officer of the Board of Works, the difference between the value of the two offices was 4,000 l., to be paid by the Duchy of Cornwall, of which, if the estimate were adopted, 2,000 l. would be paid by the Duchy of Cornwall to the Consolidated Fund for the increased value of the new Vote, and the other 2,000 l. would be given up as an accommodation to the Duchy of Cornwall for giving up an office which they had no desire to leave, and to which they were as much entitled as any hon. Member was to his town house. This was the estimate of the Board of Works, but the Duchy of Cornwall had come to a different estimate, and one in which no payment was to be made on their part. If the Vote were not agreed to, the Duchy of Cornwall would be very well content to remain in their present office in Somerset House, but the result would be very inconvenient to the public service.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he saw no necessity for this outlay at the present time. The Irish office had been removed

1041
from the house in Birdcage Walk, and, that being unoccupied, the right hon. Baronet ought to have removed the Duchy of Cornwall to that office. [Sir W. MOLESWORTH: But they won't go.] The House had lately voted 467,000 l., including, he supposed, the surplus from the late Exhibition, for the purchase of ground for public buildings. Surely a place could be found at Kensington Gore for the Duchy of Cornwall; or there was a space behind Somerset House leading to Waterloo Bridge which was available for the same purpose.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth was constantly harping upon the Vote of 500,000 l. for the sites of Kensington Gore and Burlington House, but he seemed to forget that 150,000 l. of that money was no part of the public grant, but was a munificent contribution from the surplus proceeds of the Crystal Palace. The House had voted 200,000 l. for the purchase of land at Kensington Gore, but that was not for the purpose of public buildings, nor was the 125,000 l. voted for Burlington House, inasmuch as it was purchased for the sake of the site, and it was generally contemplated that the present edifice would be pulled down. And then the hon. Gentleman said that the House having given near 500,000 l. for public buildings, ought to be able to find accommodation for the office of the Duchy of Cornwall. He could not understand by what process of logic the hon. Gentleman arrived at this inference. Whether it was right to purchase the area which the country had obtained at Kensington Gore by means of the 150,000 l. surplus of the Crystal Palace, was a question for that House to discuss, but it was impossible in these plots of land to find any equivalent for the house they were taking away from the Duchy of Cornwall. If they were turned out of Somerset House, the country was bound to find them another office. The arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet seemed to him very wise and politic, and, upon the whole, an economical arrangement, and he should support the Vote.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must explain, that he was perfectly aware that the sum of 467,000 l. recently laid out in the purchase of land included the 150,000 l. surplus of the Crystal Palace, which had not been voted by Parliament.
MR. AYSHFORD WISEdoubted extremely whether the Duke of Cornwall had
1042
in reality any vested interest in Somerset House. If at any time questions were asked in that House upon the subject of the Duchy revenues, they were told it was a private matter, with which that House had no more to do than with the rent-roll of the Duke of Northumberland, or the Marquess of Westminster. If that House, then, had no control over Duchy property, he should like to know what right the Duchy had to a public office for which they paid no rent? With a revenue of 57,000 l., and salaries at this moment of 13,000 l. a year, he thought the Duchy were not justified in asking for a Vote of this kind — one which benefited persons who assumed, when it was convenient, that they were private individuals. Before the Committee consented to this Vote, he wished to state a few facts with reference to this vested right, for the more he had investigated the case, the more disposed he had been to oppose the Vote. In 1761, George III. purchased Buckingham House of Sir Charles Sheffield for 21,000 l. Old Somerset Palace then belonged to the Crown, and was usually the residence of the Queen Dowagers. The Crown, on being paid 100,000 l., gave up Somerset Palace, and it was shortly after pulled down and the present house erected by Chambers, between 1776 and 1786. The rooms were converted into offices for the Navy Stamps, Inland Revenue, and other departments, and apartments were allotted to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Now the Act confirming this arrangement was of a very singular character, and several of the clauses were repealed five years afterwards, as contrary to the usage of Parliament, the Acts respectively being 15 Geo. III. c. 33, and 20 Geo. III. c. 40. Lord Coke had well called the Duchy "a great mystery," and there certainly appeared something mysterious about this vested interest. The proposition before the Committee was, to give up a few rooms in Somerset House, and to vote 16,889 l. for a new office in Pimlico. The new premises were to be valued against the old, and half the excess to be paid by the nation. If there were any vested interest, and the Government wanted these apartments for the Inland Revenue service, he thought the most desirable course would be to purchase the interest of the Duchy, and not embark in an expenditure without limit or any guarantee that the outlay would not exceed the amount of this Vote. It was said that

1043
this was private property; but the Committee could not forget that the original graft by Edward III. to the Black Prince was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and that the accounts were laid annually on the table of the House. And what did these papers disclose? A revenue of 57,158 l., anti salaries of 13,000 l. a year. The secretary, who now wanted a house in Belgravia with apartments vying with the Clarendon, where it would be cheaper to send him, had a salary of 1,000 l. a year, and it was almost amusing to read the list of officers employed. Besides a chancellor and an attorney general, there were land agents, surveyors, inspectors, collectors, mineral agents, registrars, auditors, vice wardens, a warden, and a council to control this multitude of officials. He really thought such a system unnecessary to collect a revenue of 57,000 l., and that it was less justifiable to ask for a Vote of 16,889 l. to build a new office, when the annual savings now accumulating for the Prince of Wales amounted to 25,000 l. a year.
THE MARQUESS OF CHANDOSsaid, the Duchy of Cornwall had asked for no Vote, and did not want one single sixpence of public money. This was really a Vote passed for the accommodation of the Office of Inland Revenue. The Duchy had not asked to remove from their present offices, with which they were perfectly satisfied, but, being asked to accede to a new arrangement, they of course wished to have accommodation equivalent to that which they at present occupied.
MR. KENDALLsaid, the Duchy of Cornwall were very well located where they were; they did not wish to move; and he thought it would be very unfair if they were turned out without giving them as good a place of residence somewhere else.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought some further explanation was necessary as to the disposal of these sites, which ought to be appropriated to Government buildings. They had had a conversation the other night as to the renewal of the lease of Montagu House. Now, that was of all others the site which, according to all authority, was the best adapted to public offices, and though some explanation had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) of the accusation he made against the present Government as to that renewal, the Committee ought to know something more about it, and by what influence it was that the public had been de-
1044
prived of that valuable site. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to examine the papers, and give the House full explanation on the subject, but he had not done so. He (Mr. Hadfield) thought it would be well if those papers were produced, and also that the House should be informed whether the renewed lease had been granted, if not to a Member of the late Government, whether it had been at the instance of any Member of that Government, or in any way for party purposes.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman was not present on Friday when he admitted, and willingly admitted, that he was the "party," as the hon. Member called it, who was responsible for the renewal of the lease. That lease was renewed to a distinguished nobleman, who was not a Member of either the late or the present Government, and therefore there was no ground for saying that party feeling had anything to do with the matter. With reference, however, to the particular point under consideration, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that when he gave his opinion generally the other night that Crown leases ought not to be renewed in the vicinity of public offices, but ought to be kept for the public service, it was not in any with reference to the Duchy of Cornwall that he was speaking when he referred to the case of Montagu House, because if Montagu House had been kept for the Duchy of Cornwall in case this alteration had been completed, it would have been one of the most disastrous arrangements that could possibly have been made for the public service, and would have entailed the loss of a large sum of money. His view respecting Montagu House had reference to a class of service much superior to and more important than the Duchy of Cornwall. He believed the reasons why the lease of Montagu House was renewed were very valid reasons. There were certain equitable claims why that lease should be renewed, which rendered it an exception to the general principles which he had ventured to lay down. He had stated on a preceding night that he had laid down that principle with regard to the renewal of Crown leases, and also that there had been made virtually an exception in the case of Montagu House which had entirely escaped his attention; but for all this he, and be alone, was responsible. He felt quite persuaded that if

1045
a renewal of the lease had been refused with the sole object of accommodating the Duchy of Cornwall, that would have been a most ill-advised and expensive arrangement for the public service.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) having reminded him that he had given something like a pledge to the House in connection with this subject, considered that he owed a word or two of explanation. When he stated that his recollection differed from that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), but that the papers relating to the transaction were at the Treasury, and he would examine them, he had the facts pretty clearly in his mind, but did not think it either wise or just, seeing that the affair had taken place many months ago, to speak positively without referring to the documents. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, rendered any statement of his unnecessary by the explanation he gave the other evening, and after that explanation he thought it hardly necessary to lay the papers on the table. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wished them to be produced, and moved for them, he saw no reason against it. Although he considered that an error in judgment had been committed in renewing the lease of Montagu House, it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say that nothing that had occurred gave the slightest justification that there had been anything more than an error in judgment committed.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to inquire whether it would be stated in the papers to be produced how much more the Duke of Buccleuch paid for Montagu House under the new lease than under the old one?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes. I think the House has a right to see the papers, and they shall be produced.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) 2,273 l., Registration of Joint Stock Companies.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether the important question of limited liability was under the consideration of Government. He would say that he was acting for an important mercantile class, connected with Manchester and also with Liverpool, who were desirous of establishing a steam-shipping company under a charter of incorporation, and, on attempt-
1046
ing to forward their views, he found it was not a very easy task to get at the information he required. The Resolution passed recently by that House bore very strongly on this question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state, for the advantage of the House and the country, whether it was the intention of Government to do anything next Session, and to bring in some measure upon the subject?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Resolution referred to the principle of en commandite, and did not apply to the granting of charters to joint-stock companies. He believed it was the general opinion, and no one more cordially shared in that opinion than himself, that it was undesirable power of this kind should be exercised by a political official who was without the means of collecting evidence on both sides. With respect to the Commission, the recommendations of the Commissioners had received the most careful attention of Government, and Government would not fail to take these recommendations into consideration.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted how anomalous was the state of the law which places in the hands of a political officer of the Government, sitting in a private room, without the power of collecting evidence, the power of granting or refusing charters of incorporation. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman again that this was a question in which the people of England took the deepest interest—a question which did not affect this country merely, but the remotest parts of the earth.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the course pursued by the Government had been in exact conformity with the decision to which a Committee of that House had arrived. He again repeated that the whole question would receive the fullest examination. At present he did not think it would be becoming to say more.
MR. BRIGHT: The President of the Board of Trade had not given him a direct answer; nor, considering the Resolution which that House had affirmed, an answer which was satisfactory.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must beg to remind the hon. Member for Manchester that a Committee of that House had inquired into the subject, but had abstained from coming to any decision. That Committee recommended the appointment of a Commission. The Government, in accordance with that recommendation, had appointed one. That Commission had made

1047
a full, diligent, and searching inquiry, and presented a carefully drawn up Report. Would it be right that he should now anticipate the decision at which the Government might arrive after a careful perusal of the Report and evidence—of a Commission, too, constituted of most able and efficient men, and the result of whose labours had been but so short a time before Parliament. When it was fully considered, then the determination of Government would be known.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) 50,000 l., Universal Exhibition of Paris in 1855.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had had a representation made to him from an important meeting in Manchester with reference to this Vote. If Mr. Cole's, the town clerk's letter was looked over it would be seen that 50,000 l. was asked for, and the purposes detailed. In Manchester there was a strong desire to have their manufactures fully represented in the Paris Exhibition, it being considered they were not fairly represented at the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, in 1851. It was desired by the Manchester manufacturers to have no names or firms affixed to any exhibition of goods, but that goods should only have places, and not names, affixed. A subscription for this purpose had been entered into, and a large sum had already been raised. He had received a letter from a manufacturer in Manchester on the subject of the items of this Vote for 50,000 l. The writer said it would appear from Mr. Cole's letter that very little of this sum was to be spent for the benefit of the exhibitors. Some of the items were these:—for dividing the spaces of the exhibitors, 3,700 l.; cleaning and watching, 5,200 l.; printing and advertising, 3,800 l.; travelling expenses and jurors, 11,250 l.; other expenses, 3,500 l. The only items which really contemplated giving aid to exhibitors were—Carriage of goods, 2,750 l.; general decorations, 2,000 l. Therefore, out of the whole 50,000 l. not more than 9,750 l. could be called direct or indirect aid to the exhibition of goods of this country. He hoped the Committee would obtain some expression of opinion on the part of Government, to show that money would not be spent on more official management, but in aiding the views and subscription of the Manchester manufacturers. Let the money be spent, the writer urged, not merely on matters of official show and glorification, but on really useful objects.
1048
He could not say anything more to the purpose than what was contained in the letter. There was only 9,700 l. to be applied to objects which directly served the great purpose of the Exhibition, while not less than 43,000 l. was to go for other purposes. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman to take care in voting this sum, that such items as 11,250 l. for jurors, &c., should not be unprofitably spent. The general result of the jurors at the English Exhibition in 1851 was nearly nothing. Medals and honours were bestowed so generally and universally, that the value of a medal to a manufacturer became so small as not to be able to be calculated at all. He did not mean to say a word against the Committee. The gentleman at the head of the Committee displayed ability and enthusiasm in forwarding the objects of the Exhibition; but he was an official, and, like other officials, was disposed to magnify the office he held, and to concentrate his whole regards in that one object. The grant might, in this view, be devoted in a magnificent manner mainly to the glorification of the official staff, as had been the case in other instances. It was right to vote a sum of money for the Exhibition at Paris, as it would be of extreme advantage to have our manufactures properly represented in Paris, as then the French people might be inclined to think it would be to their advantage to take some of our manufactures as we had done by theirs. He thought 43,000 l. for other objects than those directly of utility to the exhibitors was an excessive sum, and he hoped the Committee would look into the items.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say we ought to make a suitable response to the French Government for what they did at our Exhibition in 1851. He admitted the Vote was large, and that it ought to be carefully scrutinised. With regard to his own department, it was its duty to take care that neither the Treasury nor that House should be under any delusion as to the application of the money. The hon. Gentleman said the Vote was so divided as to make more for the convenience and glorification of the official persons, than for the benefit of the exhibitors. The convenience of official persons amounted to this; that far greater responsibilities were thrown upon them, without any addition to their salary. With regard to the distribution of the sum, he was sorry the gentlemen of

1049
Manchester did not think the expenditure would operate sufficiently for their benefit. The hon. Gentleman divided the sum into two parts. In every case of this sort there must be two classes of expenditure; one in which direct benefit would be obvious to the exhibitors; the other, where the benefit would be as great though not as obvious. This last class of expenditure had reference to that which was everybody's business and nobody's business, and which, if not undertaken by others than the individuals themselves, would not be done at all, though absolutely necessary in order to enable exhibitors to secure the benefits of the Exhibition. The hon. Gentleman sneered at the division of the sum of money proposed to be voted; but if the amount was too large, according to the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, then the hon. Gentleman's knowledge differed from his (Mr. Cardwell's) knowledge, which was on the information gained from the Exhibition of 1851. [Mr. BRIGHT: That Exhibition was a totally different thing.] It was not totally different. What the French Government did for us, the English Government proposed to do for the French exhibition. The expenditure would not be without due control—the expenditure would be under the control of the official authorities, and the items would be regularly submitted to the Board of Trade. With regard to the sum to be expended, the principle Government proceeded upon was, to call on Parliament to furnish that portion of the expenditure which could not be looked for from individuals. The expenditure would be much less than the expenditure of the French Government in 1851. As it was manifestly impossible at once accurately to state the amount of the actual expenses which would be incurred, this sum had been put down as being likely to be sufficient to cover everything which would be required; but, if it were possible to economise the expenditure, the hon. Gentleman might be assured that every effort would be used for that purpose. He might here take the opportunity of stating that the French Government had, with praiseworthy liberality, made arrangements for the admission and consumption in Paris of all articles otherwise prohibited by the French tariff on payment of a maximum duty of 20 per cent. He rejoiced to have to mention the circumstance at that time; for he thought it was only due to the French Government to make it known. It was not a matter of regular occurrence,
1050
but an experiment, and everything of course should be done to lessen the expense; and if the exhibition should increase the intercourse between the English and French people, he (Mr. Cardwell) should not regret that expenditure.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had no desire to reduce the Vote by a single farthing, if it were considered necessary for the object in view; but he still thought that, while the really useful part of the expenditure was small, and he might even say stingy, that which was to be incurred for the cost of official management, for the staff of clerks, and for sending a great many persons to live luxuriously at Paris, was too large. The French Government were said to have spent 68,000 l. on account of the Exhibition of 1851, but it must be remembered that there were not then associations of manufacturers and others at Lyons or Rouen, for instance, subscribing 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. for these expenses as there was in this country. If that had been the case, the French Government, in all probability, would not have had to spend so large a sum.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that he had always acted in conformity with one opinion with respect to what was called the Crystal Palace in this country. He entertained the same opinion with regard to Sydenham. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he had been at the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park? He (Colonel Sibthorp) had abstained from going there, fond as he was of articles of vertu, because be would not encourage foreign in preference to native industry. He had been brought up in that opinion. It might be vulgar; but he was an old John Bull, devoted to his country in every way that he could serve it—both in pocket and in person. He wanted to know whether the hon. Member for Manchester had shown his very valuable person in Hyde Park? He had not found him (Colonel Sibthorp) there, nor would he find him at Sydenham. He had never voted a shilling that was not for the benefit of his country. He would, therefore, again ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he had been at the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, and whether he meant to go to Sydenham.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, his constituents entertained the same opinions on the Vote as those of the hon. Member for Manchester. They did not object to the amount of the sum, but to its distribution.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he must complain, on the part of the people of Ireland, that the articles were only to be transported. from London to a French port. He objected to the inadequate disproportion between the cost of transport and the cost of representation—it was the half-pennyworth of bread to the six gallons of sack. He hoped that something would be done for the transport of Irish manufactures from Ireland to France. There was no vote of public money in aid of the Irish Exhibition; and more assistance was got from abroad for that important national object than from this country. He did not object to the Vote; but he hoped Ireland would receive its due share of the expenditure.
MR. RICHsaid, that there did not appear to be any objection to the Vote, and, although there were some difficulties with regard to the appropriation of it, it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would give some intimation as to what officer would have the control of the money voted, and whether any Member of the Government would be responsible for its expenditure.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he believed that if exhibitors had been left to themselves the whole affair would have been much better arranged than it would be if any charge were made upon the public funds. He could perceive that the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of this Vote, but he, for his own part, entirely objected to it. The report which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) appeared to him to be very absurd, for the greater part of the Vote would be eaten up in printing and other expenses, and in enabling a staff of jurors to pass a very agreeable time in Paris at the public expense.
MR. SPOONERsaid, there was some ground to ask a Vote for the transportation of goods to Paris, and for watching over their security there. But he did not know what we had to do with "the completion of the Exhibition and its general decoration." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite could give the House some explanation of the items which appeared in the Vote under these heads.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that all that it was intended to do was precisely the same that had been done by the French Government in 1851. It was not intended to furnish exhibitors with cases, but, after all
1052
had been done by the exhibitors, it became necessary to do something still more. In the case of raw products, persons would not care to send them over for exhibition, but the Government would do so, and the expenses of the cases would be defrayed out of this item. With regard to general decoration, also, it was proposed only to do what had been done by the French Government in 1851, and he must say that, if the textile fabric of this country were to be exhibited, in his opinion it would not be advantageous to place it in a part of the building which, from its appearance, would be the part least likely to attract the French people.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, the Government had encouraged foreigners to that degree, that no article could be sold for the ladies unless it was foreign. For durability, solidity, and beauty, there was nothing like the British manufactures. He was a real John Bull. He had no reliance upon the French. Beware of man-traps and spring-guns in Prussia and Austria. John Bull was a great fool; and he (Colonel Sibthorp) would not subscribe to any Vote for the foreigner unless it was stated to be for the good of the British public.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Vote, but he thought that if the manufacturing industry of this country had been left to itself, there would have been no necessity for it at all.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 100,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that many items paid under this head in the course of last year were very objectionable. He would not trouble the Committee with all of these objectionable matters, but only pick out some of the worst. He found that several amounts were set down for progresses made by West Indian bishops round their dioceses; he could not understand why these bishops did not pay the expense of these tours themselves. Again, for the clothing of the trumpeters of the Guards, a sum of 1,567 l. was set down. That amount ought to have been in the Army Estimates, and then there would have been an opportunity of objecting to it. Another item was the payment to Lord Cranworth on his appointment as Lord Chancellor, 1,843 l. Why this was

1053
paid he (Mr. Williams) could not conceive. A similar item was 2,000 l. to Earl St. Germans, on his appointment as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and this was as inexplicable as the payment to Lord Cranworth. The objectionable items amounted in the whole to 10,000 l. or 12,000 l., and they had no redress, for the Vote was for 100,000 l., which, no doubt, would be 20,000 l. more than would be required, so that if he even induced the Committee to deduct the 10,000 l. or 12,000 l., there would be sufficient remaining to defray all the charges.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know upon what ground a sum for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the colonial bishops for making tours through their dioceses was placed upon the Votes? It appeared to him to be an entirely new charge upon the public funds.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that for very many years the colonial bishops had been obliged to pay periodical visits to various portions of their dioceses. Several of these localities consisted of islands in the West Indies, and in passing to those districts they were usually afforded a passage in such of Her Majesty's ships as might happen to be at the particular station, and were merely allowed the expenses of their maintenance while on board the vessel. With respect to the sum paid to the Lord Chancellor upon his appointment, he could only say that a similar sum had been given to that officer from time immemorial; and he believed it was entirely inadequate to defray his expenses. To the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, also, who was a high officer of State, he did not think that an unreasonable sum was asked to be granted for the purpose of furnishing the equipage becoming his position.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that, as he had received no sufficient answer with respect to the amount allowed to the colonial clergy for the purpose of enabling them to make a tour from one portion of their dioceses to another, be should move that that amount be deducted from the Vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 99,629 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
In reply to a question from Mr. VERNON SMITH,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the first result of Sir Stafford Northcote's service was, in con-
1054
junction with another person, a Report upon the Packet Estimates, which led to a great reduction of the expenditure of the public money. He wished that his right hon. Friend should have time to read all the blue books that were produced by Sir Stafford Northcote and other public officers, and in conclusion he begged to remark that Sir Stafford Northcote was not in possession of any other emoluments when, at the request of the Government, he consented to receive a salary for his services.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, that if they did not go to a division, the hon. Member for Southwark was only wasting the time of the Committee. He thought the hon. Member should have pressed the matter much more strongly than he had done.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the allowance to the colonial bishops was so small that it did not allow them to pay the expenses of travelling to various parts of their dioceses, which in some cases included many of the West India Islands; and hitherto the practice had been to pay out of the public funds the expenses incurred by them. For example, the island of Bermuda was in the diocese of the Bishop of Newfoundland—a considerable distance. The journey would involve considerable expense, and the small salary of the bishop would hardly enable him to bear it.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he would not divide upon the question if the hon. Under Secretary promised that the items would not be repeated next year.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had been himself cruising about the whole evening in a very unsatisfactory manner, and without coming to any result. After criticising several items, the hon. Member had concluded by doing nothing.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that whatever opinion the hon. Member might entertain of his conduct he regarded with perfect indifference. He had divided Committees on a great many items of wasteful expenditure, and he never succeeded yet in any division; and he, therefore, after pointing out what he conceived to be items of extravagance, thought it better to leave the matter rather to the Government than to the House of Commons.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must protest against these constant claims for colonial purposes connected with religion.
Amendment negatived:—Original Question put, and agreed to.
(12.) 812,826 l., Post Office Packet Service.
(13.) 998,000 l., Militia.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he felt called upon to complain of the astounding increase in the standing army and militia force this year as compared with previous years. In the year ending 31st March 1852, the standing army was 98,714. The number this year was 127,977. Then there was an increase in the artillery from 14,573 to 20,306. And here was an increase of 124,700 militia, yet only 30,000 had been sent to the East, an equal number to which had been withdrawn from Ireland and the colonies.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he thought it was evident the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) knew nothing of soldiering, and he should like to see the hon. Gentleman amongst the awkward squad of the regiment which he had the honour to command. He believed that nobody in the country would be more ready to cry out "wolf," if his property were in danger than that hon. Gentleman. He (Colonel Sibthorp) considered the war to be one which involved the law, religion, and liberties of this country, and it was the duty of every loyal subject cheerfully to bear his share of its necessary burdens.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he begged to ask the Secretary at War what arrangements had been made with respect to the clothing of the troops?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTreplied that, with respect to the regiments of line, the contracts were for a year in advance. Consequently, there were contracts existing for the supply for 1855, and in some cases for 1856, in which no changes could take place, but the changes that would hereafter take place were under consideration. He had had specimens of cloth submitted to him, and hoped that he should be able, at the same time that the clothing was of a better description than heretofore, to effect a considerable saving in the outlay.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) 10,000 l. Retired Full Pay.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he wished to know Whether there would be any objection to granting to those officers who had retired on full pay—many of whom had done good service during the Peninsular war—the same boon that had been granted to those who might hereafter retire on full pay?
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he begged to
1056
ask what was the intention of the Government with reference to the recommendations of the Commission? He considered the subject alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Lindsay) worthy of consideration.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not avoid expressing his fears that justice had not been done towards the colonels of regiments in the compensation given to them in lieu of the emoluments they derived from clothing their men. When those emoluments were first given to them, they were required to give up certain pensions and other sources of income. However much the country might condemn the system of making colonels derive advantages from clothing their regiments, he was quite certain it would not be the public wish that men, many of whom were distinguished officers in the service, should be prejudiced in their income by any new arrangement it might be thought expedient to introduce.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that, with regard to the clothing of the army, he thought the alteration which had been introduced was quite necessary, and that the changes would be economical, not because the colonels of regiments would suffer from it, which he believed would not be the case, because his opinion was that the whole fault of the existing system was on the part of the clothiers, and not of the colonels. He very much doubted whether such a system could have existed for so long a period if there had been any malversation. He thought, however, the system to be most objectionable in principle, and therefore he proposed that it should be abolished. It was quite true that the officers did give up their good-conduct rewards, and that they were exposed to this inconvenience, that during the first year they held their regiment they got no emolument from the clothing, as that went to the executors of the predecessor. Under these circumstances, he had offered to the officers to pay them at once for the year, which he thought was only fair. Further than this, where the officer provided caps which would have been paid for by his successor, in that case he considered that the public should stand in the same position as the successor would have done, and should pay the value of one year or of two years, as the case might be; but in no case would the officer be entitled to more than 600 l. a year. With respect to the question whether the recommendations of the Commis-

1057
sion would be made law, he should say that they would be embodied in a warrant. He had been for some days employed in drawing up minutes on the subject, and had had a communication with the Commander in Chief respecting it, but he would not give any opinion upon it at present. He confessed that his knowledge of that House and the bad results with regard to promises was such that he did not think they could pledge themselves to make any measure have a retrospective action. However, he would promise that the subject should receive the fullest possible consideration.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. HADFIELDmoved that the House adjourn.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that at that period of the Session it was usual to sit a little late, in order to accomplish the business of Parliament in anything like a reasonable period.
Motion made, and Question "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.
Bill read 3°.
On the Question that the Bill do pass,
MR. HADFIELDmoved the addition of the following clause—
"And whereas doubts have arisen whether, under the provisions of the said Art of the 13th and 14th years of Her present Majesty, chapter 97, leases, whereby there is reserved a peppercorn or other nominal rent, are subject to the Stamp Duty of sixpence by the said Act imposed on leases where the rent shall not exceed five pounds, or to a Stamp of some other and greater amount, and it is expedient that the said doubts should be set at rest, Be it Enacted, That where, by any lease or tack of any lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects, for any term of years, there shall be reserved the rent of a peppercorn, or any other nominal rent, such lease or tack shall, in respect of such nominal rent, only be subject to the said Stamp Duty of sixpence and no more."
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he must oppose the introduction of the clause.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONmoved the clause of which Lord Naas had given notice—
"Stamp Duties now payable on Matriculations, Degrees, and Certificates of Degrees, in each and every University in the United Kingdom, shall be
1058
abolished so soon as provision shall have been made, to the satisfaction of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in lieu of any monies heretofore voted annually by Parliament for any of the said Universities."
He would remind the House that he had himself proposed a clause to the same effect, but applicable only to the University of Dublin. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to that clause on the grounds that he (Mr. Hamilton) was showing favouritism to one University. He was not ashamed to acknowledge that he felt it his duty to attend particularly to the interests of the body whom he represented; but his noble Friend (Lord Naas) having given notice of a clause more general in its application, he was quite as ready to propose it. The case could be explained in a few words. The Commissioners for the three Universities had recommended the abolition of the stamp duties. The Commissioners for Cambridge state—
"These taxes on degrees and matriculations are levied only on the students and graduates of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and with the single exception of the M.D. degree of the Scotch Universities, upon which we are informed there is a stamp duty of 10 l., there is, we believe, no similar tax upon students in any other University in the United Kingdom."
The Oxford Commissioners state—
"We are of opinion that the stamp duty now charged on matriculation and degrees, and the heavy tax of 10 l. on the certificate of a degree, should be repealed. It seems anomalous that Government should take from a place of education no t less than 2,400 l. a year."
The Dublin University Commissioners state—
"Stamps on matriculation and degrees seem to us to violate the fundamental principles of taxation. In the first place, they bear no proportion to the means of the taxpayer; the parents of the sizar, or the sizar himself—exempt from the fees to the college on account of poverty—is taxed at the same rate as the parent of a fellow-commoner, who pays to the college double fees; in fact, they have all the evils of a poll tax. In the next place, they are imposed at the time when it is most inconvenient for the contributors. To any one with moderate means, who thinks it his duty to give his son a University education, or any hard-working student supporting himself by tuitions, the period of education is the one when money can least be spared; every pound is then of value."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to his (Mr. Hamilton's) clause, as if the remission of the stamps would be so much given to the University of Dublin, but it was nothing given to the University of Dublin. The tax was a student's tax, payable by students, not by the University. It was a tax upon education, and it placed

1059
the University of Dublin in an unfair position as compared with the Queen's University in Dublin, where there were no stamps payable upon matriculations or degrees.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the House would leave the Government to deal with the question, which was one of considerable complexity—and he was prepared to say that the Government would deal with it. These degrees divided themselves into two classes; the duties upon one of these classes he admitted, as stated by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Hamilton), were taxes upon education; but the duties on the other class, such, for example, as the medical degrees, were duties upon a franchise, which opened the door to a lucrative profession; and if they remitted the duty upon the medical degree conferred by Universities, they must legislate in a similar manner with respect to the College of Physicians. There were also the Inns of Courts, and they must deal with the duty paid on admission to the degree or privileges of a barrister, and then they would have also to consider the claims of their old friends the attorneys. The stamp duties were not at present to be remitted at Oxford; as a condition for remitting them, Government would require from the University the endowment of certain professorships. He hoped, for these reasons, the hon. Member would be induced to trust the matter in the hands of the Government.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought that no case had been made against the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Hamilton), and he would support him on a division.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consent to remit the stamp duties now upon matriculations and degrees in arts? He believed he might be allowed to say that the board of Trinity College were about, of their own accord, to endow certain open scholarships, which ought to entitle them to the same remission as Oxford.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Government had at present no official knowledge of this, and it would be necessary to see in what manner these scholarships were to be arranged; but the subject should be dealt with by Government.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that under these circumstances he would not press his clause to a division.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he knew that he rose under great disadvantages at such an hour (half-past one), when the Treasury bench was the only bench that contained any considerable portion of occupants. However he would beg to move another Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the second column in page 13, under the title "Duties," beginning at the words "if the term shall exceed 100 years," and ending with the figures "3l. 0s. 0d."
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he must decline to argue the question, since it had already been decded by the House.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 8: Majority 66.
Other Amendments made.
Bill passed.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland ought not, at that hour of the morning (ten minutes to two o'clock), to persevere with a Bill which he really did think, under the present circumstances of Ireland, involved both an insult and an outrage.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the Bill was simply directed against the Ribbon lodges and secret societies in those counties in Ireland where they existed. When they looked at the operation of these societies in the county of Monaghan, and in part of Armagh, some repressive law must be considered as absolutely necessary. It was impossible to exaggerate the evils which the system of terrorism, as it prevailed there, produced, and no Government could safely dispense with the powers given them under this Act. The powers conferred upon the Government by this Act were simply these:—In case atrocious crimes were frequent and numerous in any district, the Lord Lieutenant had power to proclaim that district, and to station there a certain number of constabulary, which formed a charge upon the district. The main power,

1061
however, was the restriction placed upon the possession of arms. Any person who wished to possess arms must come forward and ask for a licence to have them in his house; but this licence was never refused unless a satisfactory reason could be assigned, publicly and in open court, why the applicant should not be allowed to have it.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that he had been told by the late Mr. Bateson that be had received thirty-eight notices, and in the place he (Mr. Mitchell) lived in the north of Ireland, a gentleman was unable to leave his house because he employed an agent denounced by one of these Ribbon societies. He should support the Bill.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, that as nothing had been shown to implicate the whole of Ireland in the offences which the Bill was intended to meet, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that while expressing his abhorrence of such few wretches as had been described, he must, assert that the state of Ireland generally did not justify the passing of the Bill—being peaceful, loyal, and obedient to the law, as a general rule.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he did not approve of this kind of legislation two years ago, and therefore he could not be supposed to agree to it now when Ireland was so much improved, with the exception of the limited districts in Monaghan and Armagh. The Bill was now said to be to put down Ribbonism, which was entirely confined to the north, there being none in Munster and Connaught, and therefore the Bill ought to be limited to that part of the country.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that none but Roman Catholics were affiliated in these societies, and he hoped it would not be supposed these crimes originated with the Protestants of the south of Ireland,
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 11: Majority 39.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at Three o'clock.