Commons Sitting of 19 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Militia Act Continuance; Militia (Service Abroad) Act Continuance; Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Gaols and Houses of Correction (No. 2).
2o Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Incumbered Estates (West Indies) Act Amendment; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo).
3o Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Inclosure of Lands; Legitimacy Declaration; Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Public Health; Vaccination (Ireland); County &c., Property Conveyance.

THE TOWER HAMLETS MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that certain differences have arisen between Colonel the Earl of Wilton and Lieutenant Colonel Dickson, both of the 2nd Tower Hamlets Militia, with reference to the affairs and discipline of that Regiment; and if it is true that the Constable of the Tower has made an application to have Lieutenant Colonel Dickson's name,
  1700
  unless he would consent to resign, removed from the Army List, without giving that Officer, after thirty-three years' service at home and abroad, any opportunity of vindicating his conduct before a proper Military Tribunal?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that he had been called upon by Lord Combermore, the Constable of the Tower, to obtain Her Majesty's approval to Colonel Dickson's dismissal from the service. This difficulty arose in dealing with the case: when a Regiment of Militia was disembodied there was no power to bring an Officer to a Court Martial. A Court of Inquiry was merely preparatory to a Court Martial; the Horse Guards were therefore unable to grant a Court Marshal, which Lord Combermore had also applied for. He had also received a letter from the Earl of Wilton containing charges against Colonel Dickson, and he (General Peel) had forwarded that letter to Lord Combermore, in order that he might inquire into them. Lord Comber-mere thought that all the charges were proved by documentary evidence; but he (General Peel), did not think that the more serious charges were proved, although there was certainly enough to show that Colonel Dickson's conduct in command of the Regiment during the period of its embodiment had not been consistent with the rules of the service and with military usage. He had, therefore, called upon Colonel Dickson to resign. Colonel Dickson refused to do so, and desired to have an inquiry; and it was, therefore, his (General Peel's) intention to appoint a certain number of Officers to make that inquiry.

THE OVERLAND ROUTE.—QUESTION.
MR. NICOLLsaid, he desired to ask the Secretary of State for War if the advantages of the Overland Route as a means of transport for Her Majesty's Troops, as described in the recent Report of the Select Committee, will induce the Government to forward Indian reinforcements by that route during the colder months of the year, and as would be consistent with the opinion given to that effect by the Military Authorities in Egypt?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the Overland Route in cases of urgency or necessity; but he trusted that better arrangements would be made than on previous occasions, so as to obviate the necessity of sending the heavy baggage

1701
round by the Cape, although the regiment itself went across Egypt and down the Red Sea.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Government, before proceeding further, would furnish some fuller and clearer explanation of the provisions of this Bill than they had yet afforded to the House. One of the main objects of the Bill, as he understood it, was to increase the already extensive powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works—a body which did not directly represent the property within the area of its operations, but merely emanated from vestries. He had been a party to the clause in the former Bill, which imposed the check of the Board of Works upon the expenditure of the Metropolitan Board, and he did so in order that important matters of expenditure might be brought before Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had taken a step beyond this, and had himself ordered a plan to be referred to referees, which was beyond his powers. The present Bill, however, did away with I all the checks which existed in the existing Act, and gave to the Metropolitan Board the power of taxing the inhabitants of London to an enormous extent, without providing for the judicious and effective expenditure of the money so collected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech, had referred to certain documents, but not a single document or plan had yet been laid on the table, and the probability was that the £3,000,000 which the Bill empowered the Metropolitan Board to borrow would be wasted. He thought it ought to be explained whether the owner as well as the occupier of property was to pay any portion of the £140,000 a year. In his opinion, the sewer-rate was one which property was interested in and derived benefit from, and it appeared hard that the tax should exclusively fall on the accidental occupier for one year. Hon. Members should remember that they were giving a power of taxation, not over their own constituents, but over the metropolitan portion of the community, and as it appeared to him very difficult to understand how this taxation would work, he thought it was important that the intentions of the framers of the measure upon this point should be clearly understood
MR. AKROYDsaid, it appeared to him that, though the Government was strongly impressed with the necessity of legislating on this subject before the end of the Session, they were somewhat afraid of the responsibility they might incur in propounding a distinct plan on this subject, and therefore had preferred to devolve the duty, with arbitrary powers, upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the Bill was introduced he listened with deep attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on that occasion praised the municipal spirit of the corporate towns throughout England; and from the remarks of the right hon. Member, he thought some provision would have been introduced into the Bill conferring on the inhabitants of London the powers and privileges of self government; and it would have been easy to have divided the metropolis into districts for the purpose. What the nation, however, was more particularly concerned in, and what it more particularly behoved the representatives of the nation to consider, was the time at which they were asked to confer this guarantee of £3,000,000. The nation had only just recovered from the burden of the Russian war, and the burden of the Indian war was now looming in the distance, and yet they were called upon to guarantee £3,000,000 for some scheme which was not even before them. What was the nature of the security to be given for the repayment of the sums thus guaranteed? He did not think that £3,000,000 would accomplish the purification of the Thames. He did not think that it would even carry the sewage down to Barking Reach. But then there was, in addition, the embankment of the Thames, the execution of which must at some time be undertaken. A Select Committee had sat on this question, and valuable and important evidence, which was not yet in the hands of hon. Members, had been given before it. Was it not reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded to hon. Members to consider the evidence before the present Bill passed? The Committee received evidence showing that the deodorizing system at Leicester had been entirely successful, and a witness observed that the cost of the plant to apply that system in the metropolis would barely exceed the annual interest of the sum which was now required to be guaranteed. With respect to the plan which it was understood would be carried out by the Metropolitan Board

1703
of Works, the Government referees, who were engineers of eminence, reported that it would fail in effecting the objects sought to be attained. They stated that the proposition to throw the whole of the sewage of the metropolis in a concentrated mass into the Thames at Barking would not prevent it returning within the metropolitan districts, and injuring the eastern districts lying contiguous to the Thames, the population of which had increased. Another strong objection to the scheme was, that it would deprive the Thames of a large amount of liquid, and thereby affect the navigation in the upper part of the river. If 80,000,000 gallons of liquid sewage, or one-fifth of the whole volume of the Thames, were taken out of it daily by intercepting sewers, he would ask the House to reflect upon the effect which might be produced upon the navigation. The water, so far from being diminished, ought to be increased. Sewage matter, indeed, was not wanted, but the liquid might be purified and made to flow into the Thames. In the North of England, when waterwork companies took water out of streams, they were compelled to form compensation reservoirs for the purpose of maintaining the full volume of the stream during the summer. He thought that the London waterwork companies, which took daily 40,000,000 of gallons out of the Thames, ought to be compelled to construct similar reservoirs. He knew, indeed, that the House could not itself enter into the discussion of these questions. All he wished was that they might not rush into hasty legislation on the subject, and especially that they would not assent to granting the national guarantee for the repayment of this £3,000,000 without carefully considering the security. They already had a specimen of the manner in which their guarantee would be dealt with in the example of Chelsea Bridge. He thought, upon these grounds, that this Bill should not be passed in haste. The hot weather was passed, and hon. Members should be allowed an opportunity during the recess of reading the evidence given before the Committee up stairs. He should oppose the passing of the Bill at present.
MR. LOWEsaid, that before intrusting the Metropolitan Board of Works with the absolute power of levying £3,000,000 upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, and before pledging the public credit of this country as a guarantee for that amount,
1704
he thought the House ought to satisfy themselves, in the first place, that the Board of Works was a body worthy of being intrusted with so great a power, and, secondly, that the money was likely to be employed in the manner most beneficial to those from whose pockets it was taken. He left others to show what were the qualities which had recommended the Metropolitan Board of Works to the choice of the Government. For his own part, it appeared to him that that Board had yet to win its laurels. He thought it worthy of consideration whether they ought to intrust a Board constituted by double election, which rendered it almost irresponsible to the constituents from whom it derived its powers, with authority to expend so large an amount as £3,000,000. There were also questions relating to contracts and other matters, to which he would not now refer, but the subject was one of great importance, and should be approached in a farsighted spirit. They ought not to seek to apply a mere temporary palliative, but they ought to endeavour to adopt a system of permanent legislation, adapted to the probable extension of the metropolis and the increase of its population, or in a few years they might find that the money spent in palliating the evil had been thrown away, and that the whole work must be commenced anew. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Akroyd) had said that there was no scheme before them, but he (Mr. Lowe) complained that a very inadequate scheme had been submitted to that House. They had on the table the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was mere prudery to say that they did not know precisely what that Board intended to do, and the House should form a judgment upon the plan before they made up their minds to adopt it. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works was that the sewage of the metropolis should be collected at a place on the River Lea, about twenty feet below high-water level; that it should be pumped from thence by steam machinery; and that it should then be discharged into a reservoir at Barking Creek, a mile below Woolwich, whence, having undergone a process of deodorization by mixture with lime, it should be discharged into the Thames. Now, this plan was calculated to carry off the sewage of a population of 3,500,000; but when the population of London exceeded that number the sewage would gradually increase, and every shower of rain would carry sewage

1705
and pollution into the Thames. Supposing the future increase of the metropolitan population to proceed at the same rate as it had done since 1801, in 1871 the contrivance now proposed would be entirely exhausted, and the sewage would run into the Thames in consequence of the inability of the sewers to contain it. The scheme could not be brought into operation in less than five or six years, and in six or seven years afterwards it would be utterly inadequate, and after having spent £3,000,000 to remedy the complaints now made, they would have to begin their work over again. This subject had been submitted by the late Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works to certain Government referees, whose plan was to form a canal which would carry off the sewage by gravitation to Sea Reach, far below Gravesend, where it would be discharged into the river. He asked the House to contrast that plan and the scheme they were now called upon to sanction with regard to effects and expense. The plan now proposed would carry the sewage into the Thames at Barking, where the river was only three-quarters of a mile wide, and where the current was exceedingly slack. The plan of the Government referees would carry the sewage into the river at Sea Reach, where there was an exceedingly strong current down the river, which was at that point a mile and a quarter in width, and whence the sewage would be carried by the ebb tide to a point from which it could not by any possibility return above the point at which it was discharged. The plan of the Board of Works proposed the deodorization of the sewage, not when it was fresh, but after fermentation had begun, when the process of deodorization would be much less complete, and the whole mass, whether deodorized or not, was to be discharged into the river. There were 118 miles of metropolitan area, and the plan of the Board of Works proposed only to drain twenty-seven miles by gravitation, while the plan of the Government referees proposed to drain eighty-one miles by gravitation. He would now ask the House to compare the expense of the two plans. It was said that in this respect the argument was in favour of the Board of Works, because, although their plan was not so complete as that of the Government referees, it was much cheaper. The plan of the Government referees, if it were adopted, would be sufficient to carry off the sewage of a population of 6,000,000, whereas that of the Board of Works would
1706
only carry off the sewage of 3,500,000. The estimate of the Board of Works was £3,000,000, while the estimate of the Government referees commenced with a charge of £6,000,000. The charge to be borne by the ratepayers must not, however, be estimated merely by the amount of capital sunk at the commencement of either plan, but by the permanent annuities which must be paid for the continuance of the schemes. What would be the annual expense of carrying out the plan of the Board of Works after the estimated £3,000,000 had been spent? In eight or ten years from this time, according to the best authority to which he had access, the expense under this plan of pumping up sewage from the low level of the River Lea to the high level of Barking Creek would be £45,000; the expense of deodorizing upon Messrs. Bidder, Hawksley, and Bazalgette's system would be £76,000; and the expense of removing useless deodorized matter in barges would be £30,000. There would thus be a permanent annual charge of £151,000 upon the ratepayers of London. If the whole cost of the annuity with which the ratepayers would be saddled were capitalized, it would, with the £3,000,000 actually spent, amount to no less than £7,000,000, and for this sum they would obtain, not a complete scheme of drainage, but one the efficiency of which would be exhausted in 1871, when new works would become necessary. Now, what would be the expense of the scheme of the Government referees, under which the sewage would be carried into the Thames at Sea Reach, at a point to which the eddies setting down the river would prevent its return? The first cost of this plan would be £6,000,000 for the construction of the canal to Sea Reach, and the annual expense for pumping sewage would be £40,000. That would be about £1,000,000 more, and the whole cost would be exactly the same as that of the other system—namely,—7,000,000. Look, however, at the difference between the results achieved by the two plans. In the one case the whole effect of the expenditure would cease in 1871, while in the other a comparatively permanent remedy would be provided, at least until the population of London reached 6,000,000, which was looking forward quite as far as it was necessary to do. Now, suppose the discharge of the sewage into Barking Creek was found to be an intolerable nuisance; some compensation ought in justice to be given to the owners of

1707
property there; and this was a point deserving of consideration. But it might be found necessary, after all, to send the sewage down to Sea Reach. Of course, £3,000,000 would already have been spent, in addition to which it was the opinion of the Board of Works themselves that it would cost £3,000,000 more to extend the drainage to Sea Reach. All the pumping, which at the River Lea cost £45,000, would be required, besides similar pumping at Barking Creek, the cost of which was estimated at £55,000—in all £100,000, or (capitalizing it) £3,000,000. The result would thus be that, if the plan should be found inadequate, as he had suggested, it would be necessary to spend £9,000,000 or thereabouts upon it; and even then the drainage powers of the metropolis would still be limited to meet the wants of 3,500,000 of inhabitants. If the Government referees should contract their scheme so as to provide only for 3,500,000 of people, he was informed that this could be done for £4,500,000; so that (supposing the information he had received were correct) to perform the work in this way would require about half the sum required to carry out the plan of the Board of Works. The scheme which the House was virtually asked to sanction in this Bill was really one for spending £7,000,000 upon a system of drainage which would become too small for the wants of the metropolis when the population reached 3,500,000, and the extension of which would cost £9,000,000, though it would even then still be open to the same objection. On the other hand, the plan of the Government referees would provide complete drainage for the wants of the metropolis until the population reached 6,000,000; it would get rid of all complicated machinery, all schemes of deodorization, the success of which was quite uncertain, and would employ the natural deodorizer which Providence had provided—water. He might, perhaps, be considered presumptuous in having offered an opinion on this subject, but, having devoted some little time to its consideration, he had arrived at such strong conclusions with reference to it that he could not resist the feeling of duty which led him to state them to the House.
MR. HEADLAMregretted that the House was compelled to discuss this question on July 19, in a thin House consisting of hon. Members wearied by a protracted
1708
Session, and under a pressure from without which led many to make use of that dangerous phrase—"Well, at any rate we must do something." He believed that the House by no means appreciated the magnitude and the ultimate importance of the work before it. A constitutional principle was involved in the scheme for carrying the work into execution. The evil from which the metropolis was now suffering affected in some degree all the streams throughout the country, which were more or less poluted by town sewage, and the scheme adopted in the case of the Thames would, therefore, probably be looked to all over England as an example in legislation of this kind. Parliament were now asked to impose, for forty years, a tax of 3d. a pound upon the inhabitants of London, after doing which they were to discharge themselves from all responsibility in regard to the execution of the works. They were asked to hand over the money to another body which owed them no responsibility, and over which they had no control, and without taking any care that the scheme should be properly expended. Now, if the Board of Works were truly the representative body of the metropolis, which, to his mind, it was not, it was singularly ill-calculated to carry out works of mechanical, chemical, and engineering science. It was probably a body well calculated to tax its constituents, but it it was, in his opinion, ill-calculated to execute works of that description. The House of Commons was the first deliberative assembly in the world; but it was not an executive body, and very wisely did not attempt executive functions. There was an exception to this general rule in the case of the building of the Houses of Parliament, which Parliament took into its own hands. Had the result of that step proved so encouraging that they ought to extend the principle by giving a taxing body like the Board of Works the charge of a great engineering work like that at present under discussion? But it was said that by handing over the duty to the Board they were merely carrying out the municipal principle. He denied that it was so, unless the opinion of the inhabitants of the metropolis could be fairly taken as to which plan they preferred, and how far they concurred in the proposal to impose a tax upon them for forty years. Again, was it right to hand over this sum to the Board of Works without taking some guarantee for its proper application? The Metropolitan Board

1709
of Works was not responsible to a human creature. Neither the House nor the ratepayers of the metropolis could control them, and it was left to chance whether they would administer these funds properly or not. The noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, used a singularly happy phrase when he said, "If the inhabitants of the metropolis pay the piper, they ought to choose the tune;" but the misfortune was that they had no power whatever of selecting the tune. His own individual opinion was that they would give infinitely more satisfaction to the metropolis if they required the works to be carried into effect by and under the responsibility of the Government. If they did that, the House would be placed in a truer and more constitutional position. The people of the metropolis did not want any such thing as the mere fiction of a representation. What they wanted was that the work should be well done; and the inhabitants of London were of opinion that it would be much better done under the direct control of the Government than by the Board of Works. As to the scheme itself, by means of which the purification of the Thames was sought to be accomplished, he would only say that even if it were successfully carried out to the extent which was proposed, the object which its authors professed to have in view would be but half attained. The evil was not confined to the odour arising at a certain portion of the year. The banks of the river were as unsightly to the eye as the odour was disagreeable to the nose, but there was this difference, that the unsightliness lasted the whole year, while the odour continued fortunately only for a short period. He thought the Thames would never be put in proper order until it was embanked, and he would suggest that the two great works of embankment and drainage should be commenced contemporaneously and carried on together. In support of that opinion he might adduce the testimony of the most eminent engineers, who maintained that unless the mud banks to which he referred were removed, the evil of which the inhabitants of the metropolis had so much reason to complain would not be obviated. The action of the sun upon those mud banks was, in their opinion, one of the main causes of the existing nuisance, and that cause, he should contend, instead of having its force diminished, would rather be further developed by the scheme under con-
1710
sideration, whose operation would be to decrease the quantity of water in the river. To show how beneficial was the addition of a supply of fresh water to the river, and how prejudicial in its influence would be the effect of any diminution in that supply, he might mention that he had, upon the previous day, been unable to find any offensive odour from the Thames between Chelsea and Westminster Bridges, notwithstanding that the temperature of the atmosphere was but very little lower than had been the case about three weeks before, when the stench had been almost intolerable. That improved state of things he held to be the result of the addition of the fresh water which within that period the river had received, and it was, he thought, therefore perfectly obvious that if the Metropolitan Board of Works were—as it would seem they proposed to do—to diminish the fresh water in the Thames to the extent of the quantity falling over a space of 100 square miles, they would be doing much to increase the evil which they professed themselves anxious to remove. For his own part, he could not help thinking that it was most unsatisfactory to the House to be called upon to sanction a scheme the prosecution of which would cost so large a sum as £3,000,000, and the operation of which could not at the best be regarded as otherwise than uncertain. He, for one, entirely deprecated the policy of sanctioning that scheme until others, which presented a greater probability of being attended with success, had been tried and had failed; while he was strongly of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory to the ratepayers of the metropolis if Her Majesty's Ministers were to carry into effect the work of purifying the Thames under their own authority and upon their own responsibility, instead of intrusting it to a Board which had, to say the least of it, not been sufficiently long in existence to be able to win for itself the confidence of the country.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that while he was disposed to give the Government every credit for having introduced the Bill before the House with the best intentions, he yet was afraid that they had been induced, by a desire to allay the anxiety which prevailed among the inhabitants of the metropolis, to deal with the subject of the purification of the Thames in a somewhat hasty manner, and consequently in a manner which was but too

1711
likely to lead to imperfect and unsatisfactory results. The discussion, however, which the Bill then before the House was sure to give rise to, would, perhaps, lead to the introduction of a satisfactory measure,—although he did not believe there could be any measure that would prove satisfactory which was unconnected with the general question of the government of the metropolis. The present Bill was open to the objection of pledging Parliament to a particular scheme, for in the first clause the Metropolitan Board of Works was directed to intercept the main drainage. Now, the House had heard from the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Cubitt), himself a member of the Metropolitan Board, that he not only doubted the efficacy of, but apprehended great danger from, any such measure; and any one who had gone above Richmond must be aware of the effect which the withdrawal of so much water by the various companies had upon the river. Again, he found no security in the Bill for carrying out its object; true, powers were given, and money was granted, but there was nothing to prevent the Board from doing what they had already done in several instances—voting for one scheme on one and another on another. What was still more objectionable, any scheme that they might agree upon would be subject to the approval of no other authority; in fact, the Board might carry out any scheme they pleased. Now, was the House quite sure that that Board was one in which the universal public had entire confidence? For his part he did not know the names of many of the gentlemen who had seats at the Board. No doubt they were respectable persons, distinguished in the vestries of the metropolis, used to deal with parochial questions, and possessed of ability and integrity. But did they command the entire confidence of the metropolis? He confessed that wherever he had been he had always heard a very different opinion expressed upon that head. Were they the representatives of any class of the community? Why, they were not the representatives even of the ratepayers. They were the representatives of the vestries; and in too many instances the majority in a vestry was a mere party. Again, by the Bill a Committee was to be chosen out of the whole body to carry out this plan, so that in fact responsibility would be twice diluted. Could anything be more unsatisfactory? Though the House was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidder-
1712
minster (Mr. Lowe) for the knowledge and ability he had displayed with regard to the details of the plans for the main drainage of London, yet the present was not the proper opportunity for discussing rival schemes. It occurred to him (Mr. S. Wortley), however, that it would be dealing with the question in a most unsatisfactory manner if they dealt with it on a narrow ground, dissociated from the question of the general government of the metropolis. In his opinion the present government of the metropolis was disgraceful to the country; and he would take the liberty of reminding the House of the recommendations which had been made by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of London, and who had particularly directed their attention to the question of the drainage of the metropolis. After giving it as their opinion that the Corporation should be reformed, and that their jurisdiction should be confined to the present limits of the City, the Commissioners recommended that the rest of the metropolis should be divided into districts for municipal purposes; that in the event of such division being made, a metropolitan board of works should be created, composed of members deputed from each metropolitan municipal body, including the common council of the City; that the coal duties now collected by the Corporation of London, so long as they remained in force, should be placed at the disposition of the new Board, and that in case the coal duties expiring in 1862 should not be renewed, the fourpence levied in behalf of the City should cease at the same time. They also recommended that the Board should have power to levy a rate, limited to a fixed poundage, for public works over the metropolitan district, and that no works should be executed by them unless the plans should have been approved by the Committee of the Privy Council. Now, that some such check as this ought to be imposed on the present Board was, in his judgment, extremely desirable, though he by no means pledged himself to the support of that particular scheme. But, seeing how the question affected a vast amount of property in the metropolis, could any man say that the Metropolitan Board represented the proprietary of the metropolis? It was doubtful even if they represented the ratepayers; if they represented anything, they represented the democracy and the ratepaying interests of the metropolis—certainly not the proprietors. It was also most desirable

1713
that upon such a Board there should be some man or men of science; and that House well knew what help they derived from the aid of such gentlemen as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson). He agreed with the Commissioners, too, that the rights and property of the Crown ought to be protected; and with these views he could not help saying—though without wishing to cast any blame upon the Government—that, in his opinion, the House was proceeding with great haste and hurry in endeavouring to legislate upon the subject at the end of a Session, when it was utterly impossible that a question of such magnitude and importance could be dealt with satisfactorily.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had often heard it said that the House of Commons was subject to periodical fits of heat and cold; and he must say that he had never witnessed a more striking proof of the accuracy of the assertion than during the debates on the question of the drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames in the course of the last six weeks. Only a fortnight ago Her Majesty's Government were absolutely threatened with impeachment by the front rows of the Opposition benches, unless they settled the question within twenty-four hours. At that time he had put in a dilatory plea and stated that the Government had the matter under their consideration, and now that they had had time to examine it, and had framed a scheme which they deliberately recommended the House to sanction and adopt, they were met with the statement that they were rashly, and with undue haste, attempting to settle a question which, after all, might be well postponed to another year; and, if he understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wortley), until the coal duties lapsed, in 1862. Now, what reason was there for throwing over this important question to another year? Some hon. Gentlemen had treated it as if it were an entirely new question; but, for his part, he considered the question not a new one; scientific opinions without number had been taken, and every man's mind was made up. He was bound to say that he knew no question that had been so canvassed, so thoroughly threshed and sifted, as the question of the drainage of the metropolis. During the last few years Commissions and Committees had sat and reported upon the subject; and when the House remembered
1714
the number of schemes which had been proposed, and the vast amount of evidence which had been taken respecting it, he was sure they could not come to the conclusion that the Government were now proposing inopportunely, and with undue haste, to settle the question. If it were the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons that no decision ought to be come to this year, upon the House of Commons be the responsibility of continuing and perhaps perpetuating the present state of things. On behalf of the Government he distinctly repudiated all such responsibility. The responsibility of action Her Majesty's Government were willing to take upon themselves; the responsibility of inaction they refused. His hon. Friend said, "that is just what we want." He (Lord J. Manners) begged to tell his hon. Friend that, having duly considered this question, the Government were of opinion that the only way in which their action could be beneficially, or even constitutionally brought to bear, was that contained in the four corners of this Bill. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) had told them that this was a question which, in its length and breadth, ought to be taken up as a whole and carried out on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, who should themselves execute not only the drainage, but the purification and embankment of the Thames. His hon. Friend had spoken at some length and with great ability, and he (Lord J. Manners) had listened to him with the greatest attention; but he had failed to discover any inkling whatever from what quarter the Government were to obtain the funds to pay for these great works. Out of what funds, he should like to know, were the Government to do this? Would the hon. Gentleman give the ways and means? Did the hon. Gentleman mean that they were to set themselves up as a pure and naked despotism, and take the money required to execute these works out of the pockets of the ratepayers of the metropolis against their will, if not without their knowledge? Or did he mean that it should be made a great national undertaking, and that the whole expense should be borne out of the Consolidated Fund? If that were his hon. and learned Friend's view, then all he could say was, that he respectfully declined making any such appeal to Parliament; and, if the opinion of the majority of that House was in harmony with his own, what alternative could be adopted except that of intrusting to the

1715
municipality which represented, if any one did, the pockets of the ratepayers of the metropolis the power and responsibility of carrying out these works? He had listened with surprise to the arguments which had been brought to bear against the constitution of the Board; but he would remind the House that that Board was constituted on the appeal of a liberal Ministry, which numbered amongst its members the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. R. Lowe) who had spoken this evening in such strong terms of denunciation of this "quasi representative body." Now he supposed the intention of the Government and the Legislature would be found in the preamble of the Act which set up that body, and what did it say?—
"That it is expedient that provision should be made for the better local management of the metropolis in respect of the sewerage, the drainage, and the paving, cleansing, lighting, and improving thereof;"—
And clauses were contained in the Act which compelled the Board to undertake the very work which was now proposed to be entrusted to them—the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames. The right hon. Member for Kidderminster was a consenting party to the introduction of that Act, and he would ask him whether, when the whole bench opposite were setting up this new Board, they did or they did not believe in their hearts that they were setting up a pure sham, and that they were deluding the metropolitan constituencies with the idea that they would have an effective municipality, which at the end of five or six years would thoroughly drain the metropolis and purify the Thames? He was bound to come to the latter conclusion, and he confessed, therefore, that he had listened with surprise to the statements which had been made to-night in denunciation of the original constitution of this body, and with still more surprise to the description of the manner in which it was composed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Wortley) urged as a reason why it was impossible to entrust the Board with the powers conferred by this Bill, that he did not know the names of some of them. That was very possible. Could his right hon. Friend tell him the names of half the corporations of Liverpool or Manchester? And was the House to assume that these corporations were worthless, unless the right hon. Gentleman, or some other hon. Member, could give them the birth, parentage, and history of all
1716
their members. He (Lord John manners) protested against this line of argument. Here was a great municipality which had been created three years ago by the solemn decision of the Legislature for a definite and specified purpose, and without now entering minutely into the quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the late Chief Commissioner of Works) and the members of that body, he thought every impartial man would admit that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had not yet carried out any plan for the main drainage of the metropolis, it was not fair to lay the blame exclusively at their door. The justification for the introduction of the present Bill was, that the powers with which it was assumed the Metropolitan Board of Works was clothed were not sufficient for the purposes contemplated; and, that being admitted on all hands, Her Majesty's Government now came to Parliament and asked it to give that Board those further powers which were necessary for the satisfactory settlement of the question. On the previous occasion he had declined to enter into the engineering and chemical questions involved in the various plans which had been proposed for the main drainage of the metropolis, and everything which had passed that evening showed how unwise and injudicious it was in hon. Members plunging into endless and useless discussions on such topics. The hon. Member for Huddersfied (Mr. Akroyd), who was a member of a Committee which had that day concluded its labours, had given his views as to how these questions might be settled, and he had been followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, who in a most ingenious and elaborate speech endeavoured to set up the plan of the referees of the Commissioners of Works against that of the engineers of the Metropolitan Board. No doubt, many hard things were said by the referees against the plan proposed by the engineers of the Board; but having read all the papers he could state that equally hard, if not harder, things were said by the engineers of the Metropolitan Board of Words against the plan recommended by the referees of the Chief Commissioner. He entreated the House, therefore, not to be led into discussions of that nature; for they might rely upon it, that if they once undertook to settle in their minds what was the best plan, in an engineering or chemical point of view, of draining the metropolis and purifying the

1717
Thames, they must constitute themselves into a perpetual Committee. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into the subject had that day closed its labours, more from a feeling of the perfect hopelessness of going through all the plans which were about to be submitted to it than on any other account. If, then, the House agreed with him that it was vain and futile to hope that they could embody in a Bill what the two Houses of Parliament might think to be the best plan for the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames; that the powers vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works were insufficient for these great purposes; that the national resources should not be called on to pay for local objects; and that the inhabitants of the metropolis, who would have to provide the funds, should have a voice in the matter, what better plan could be devised than that which was contained in the Bill which he now asked them to read a second time? As yet he had heard no answer to that. No one who had spoken to-night had suggested a better plan, so far as legislation was concerned. And until hon. Gentlemen pointed out a plan which gave the Legislature and the inhabitants of the metropolis a greater certainty that the works they were so intent upon carrying into effect could be accomplished, he entreated the House not to lose that, perhaps the last opportunity they would have, of investing with sufficient powers that Board which they found ready to their hands, and which was set up three years ago as a real effective and popular representation of every portion of this vast metropolis. Before resuming his seat he would endeavour to answer the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), who had asked what were the powers conferred by the Bill, and what the nature of the rate to be levied under it. The rate was what might be termed a sewers rate; and no alteration was made in the nature of it by the Bill. The power which was given to the Board to raise that rate would be retained. He believed that it was what was known in common parlance as a landlord's rate, and that when paid by the tenant would be recoverable from the landlord unless his lease contained a special provision to the contrary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the noble Lord laboured under some misapprehension as to the temper and inten-
1718
tion of the remarks made by previous speakers. The noble Lord seemed to think that they partook of the nature of complaint or crimination against the Government for a proceeding precipitate on their part. Having listened to the debate, however, with great attention, it appeared to him that the speeches in question were not speeches of accusation against the noble Lord or his colleagues, but were, on the contrary, honest and ingenuous confessions of the difficulty in which the House found itself placed when called upon to assent to the principle of a Bill containing provisions so sweeping as to be out of all proportion to the amount of knowledge and information possessed by hon. Members. He himself was much impressed with that sentiment. He felt distrust of all great measures which derived their immediate impulse from momentary causes, and especially did that feeling prevail with him when the momentary cause out of which any measure took its birth, was of a nature that appealed to the senses in a manner so direct as that with which they were now unhappily so familiar. It was obvious that an atmosphere such as that which had recently prevailed was not favourable to the deliberative character of the House, and that it was hardly compatible, indeed, with the exercise of that circumspection and that careful consideration which a question of this kind on general principles would demand. He agreed with the noble Lord in some most important principles which he had laid down, and which appeared to be placed almost beyond dispute, even in a matter in which much remained that was uncertain. For example, his noble Friend had declined to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), that the Government should take this matter into its own hands. He agreed with his noble Friend that the time had not come for such a step, because if the Government were to undertake the main drainage of the metropolis that would amount to a proclamation of the absolute incapacity of London for the management of its own affairs, and he confessed that, notwithstanding the difficulties in which the question was now involved—difficulties so serious as not to be without some scandal and discredit to the country—he did not abandon the hope that we might see a larger and much more effective application of the valuable principle of municipal self-government to the metropolis than any that had

1719
hitherto been made. He agreed with the noble Lord, too, that the charges of this work and of such other works as might be necessary for the metropolis ought to be borne, generally speaking, by the property and inhabitants of the metropolis itself. Again, it was impossible to doubt that the principle of popular representation ought to be the basis of the constitution of any body which, on the part of the inhabitants of the metropolis, was to be intrusted with the execution of this work. So far it was not difficult to see their way, but the moment they attempted to go further, they were surrounded by such impediments, and doubts, and obscurity, that he, for one, was disposed to plead guilty to a general uncertainty upon the point, whether the House was at this moment ripe for a final decision on the important question raised by the Bill. He would refer to one or two of these points. In the first place, it was undoubtedly true, that if the money of the inhabitants of the metropolis was to be expended upon the purification of the Thames, it ought to be expended by a body elected upon popular principles; but the application of popular principles to the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the joint operation of the existing Act and the present Bill, was so watered, filtered, and strained, through so many media, that he was afraid they had lost all that was valuable in those principles in the complicated process they had established. They wanted to have a real responsibility on the part of those who were to expend the money to the persons out of whose pockets the money was obtained; but that responsibility, under the existing Act, was much less direct and stringent than one could desire. For the purposes of responsibility—above all, for the purposes of responsibility in the expending of money—there was all the difference in the world between direct and indirect representation. The members of the Metropolitan Board of Works were not chosen by the ratepayers of the metropolis, but by the vestries of the different parishes, bodies not appointed to discharge municipal functions at all, but simply and solely for the performance of parochial business. Hence the relations between the Metropolitan Board of Works and those who were to pay the proposed tax were, after all, indirect and circuitous, and now the House was asked to weaken the principle of responsibility still further, because the Bill proposed to empower the Board of Works to appoint from among its own members a
1720
small Committee of six, and to leave to that body the exercise of all its powers and functions with respect to the execution of this great scheme. Therefore, without casting any discredit upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, or imputing to them anything either for what they had done, or for what they had left undone, he was disposed to think that, although the principle of popular representation was recognized in the theory of their constitution, yet the application of it was not so direct and palpable as to give them the weight, influence, and vitality which they ought to possess. There was another difficulty which he might notice. In the Metropolitan Board of Works as it stood there was no representation of the property of the metropolis, and in correspondence with that circumstance was the correlative one that it was not proposed that any portion of the rate should be borne by the landed proprietors of the metropolis. The whole charge was to be laid upon the ratepayers or lessees, and no part of it upon the ground landlords. That arrangement, they were told, was conformable to the principle upon which leases had been given in London for building purposes, because they contained express provisions that the ground rents should be free of all local rates and burdens. The difficulty, however, was not got rid of altogether by that consideration, because leases containing such provisions generally dated from a time when there was no idea entertained of burdens of a character such as those the House was now asked to impose, and it was evident that the covenants in leases, which were fixed by long usage and tradition, referred to the ordinary charges with which they were all familiar. But now they were going to make great retribution for the past, and great and costly provision for the future—to meet in fact a great crisis in the history of the metropolis. They had discovered a great neglect; they had found a great blank and void in their arrangements; they were called upon to repair the fault of former generations, and to supply the wants of generations yet to come. It appeared to him, therefore, that a proposition like the one before the House raised questions with regard to the liability of parties that were entirely different from those which were connected with the ordinary local charges of the metropolis. Then came the question whose was the permanent interest in the property of the metropolis? It was not the interest of the occupier nor that of

1721
the lessee; and it seemed to him that what they ought to desire, if practicable, should be that, on the one hand, the proprietors of London should be represented in the body that was to make this great expenditure, and that, on the other, their proprietary interest should be made to bear a fair proportion of the charge. It might be urged that the matter was one not easy to settle at a moment's notice. The tenures in London were different from those in the country in general, and it might not be easy at once to suggest the right provisions. Still they should endeavour to throw upon the right parties the burdens of the scheme. Looking at the framework of the Bill, he confessed that it raised a good deal of doubt and difficulty in his mind. He wanted to know who was to be ultimately responsible for the payment of this money. There was no doubt that the Bill provided, or appeared to provide, that the charge should be borne by the metropolis; but at the same time the public, through the medium of the House of Commons, often became involved unawares in pecuniary obligations. He wished, therefore, to look at the framework of the Bill, to see how far it was calculated to secure the ultimate avoidance of such responsibility, or whether it might not have certain latent tendencies, in possible contingencies, to bring responsibility upon the public. There were cases in which the House of Commons had not thought fit to assume minute and particular responsibility for the details of a measure. There had been reports of Ecclesiastical Commissions, and statutes of importance had passed at different periods, wherein the House of Commons had confined itself to the functions of assenting to plans recited in the preamble of the Acts. Now, he did not object abstractedly to the principle of a public guarantee in a matter so important as the present; but he thought it fair that the application of that principle should be watched and scrutinized with the utmost jealousy, for he knew no single class of measures which ought to be watched with greater care, except, indeed, propositions for grants of money, than measures for giving a public guarantee. He wanted to see the responsibility of the body to which it was proposed to give the guarantee, and he wanted to avoid possibly slipping into a position in which it might be said that all was really done on the authority of Parliament, and it was vain for Parliament to think of avoiding to pay for it. He
1722
concurred with the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) in not thinking that this was a case in which they were dealing with a popularly elected representative body, which, possessing the confidence of its constituents, and being a competent judge of the subject, had come forward and represented that it simply desired pecuniary aid in the shape of a guarantee for the economical execution of the work. He did not find that set forth in the Bill; but, on the contrary, he found that Parliament seemed to be made in the main the absolute author and projector of the scheme. It was perfectly true that, it was hopeless for hon. Members to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on engineering and technical questions by the force of discussion in that House; but, though they could not arrive at conclusions themselves on those points, they might reasonably wish to have the best assurance that those points had been adequately considered and authoritatively and competently decided on by those with whom they were dealing. He must confess that the state of the discussion, the pamphlets and publications which had appeared, did not carry conviction to his mind that the question had arrived at such a state of ripeness and maturity as would give the House a hope of satisfactorily dealing with it. There was the great question with respect to the restoration of a large bulk of water to the Thames, at or near the metropolis, which by no means, within his knowledge, had been brought to a settlement. They were not called upon to stand either on their own convictions or on the convictions of those with whom they had to deal. The noble Lord told them it was hopeless to expect to arrive at any conviction of their own. Well, then, let them arrive at the conviction of somebody else. But that was not so. The Bill did not even state that the Metropolitan Board of Works had approved the scheme which the Bill was to sanction. In the first few clauses the Bill contained a recognition and sanction of a plan which was understood to be the plan of the Metropolitan Board, but the Bill promulgated that plan on the authority of Parliament. That was a fact of the utmost importance with respect to the question of ultimate liability. It was all very well to have an estimate of £3,000,000; but human nature was fallible generally, and in no respect more so than in the concoction of estimates. It was quite within the limits of probability that these

1723
estimates might fail; and suppose they did, and suppose that this plan proved not to have been the best plan, and that the £3,000,000 proved insufficient, what would be the position of that House in respect to the inhabitants of the metropolis? Would the inhabitants be able to point to the present Bill and say that it was not by their wish, by direct petition or representation that that House assumed to deal with the matter; that the time was not chosen by them, but by the Members of that House, when annoyed by the stench of the Thames; and that the provisions of the Bill were not dictated by a regard for popular principles or by matured convictions, but were the result of a restless haste on the part of Members of Parliament to escape from personal inconvenience? Still, taking all matters into consideration he did not complain of the Government—on the contrary, if his noble Friend understood the question, and felt the ground secure under his feet, he congratulated him on his lofty position; but, for himself, he felt he was not in that position, and from the discussion he felt there were others like him. He, hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would excuse him, and not consider that it was any imputation upon him if he (Mr. Gladstone) confessed it would be a comfort and satisfaction to him if some further time were allowed before the Bill was sanctioned.
MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTsaid, he could not but admit that the House was in a difficulty, as there was such a short time allowed for deliberation on this important measure; but still the circumstances were so urgent, that if the House were to separate without sanctioning some plan they would merit the censure of the country. He had no doubt that if the powers contained in this Bill were conferred on the Metropolitan Board of Works they would be able to satisfy all the requirements of public opinion. The only objection he had to the Bill was one which could be amended in Committee. It related to the proviso that if the sewage was readmitted into the Thames above Barking Creek it must be deodorised; but he would ask if the sewage could be deodorised below London, what was to prevent it from being deodorised in London itself? He had no doubt that the work of deodorisation could be accomplished in London. What he should like would be, that the Board of Works should carry out any scheme they pleased, taking care that the river should be made free from all pollutions. A good deal had been
1724
said about the composition of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but he could tell hon. Gentlemen that there were members of that Board who would do credit to those benches. It was said that that Board contained no scientific or engineering skill. He maintained that there was both; but at the same time he reminded the House that what was wanted was, not a board of engineers, but a body of men of general intelligence, competent to make a wise selection of their officers—men independent in position and of general business habits. His authority had been quoted for having said on a former occasion that 80,000,000 of gallons were pumped up out of the Thames for the use of the water companies. He ought to have said that half of that water came from the east and half from the west. But still the general fact remained that the condition of the Thames between Westminster Bridge and Richmond was one from which great inconvenience had been felt, and therefore they must be careful how they further diminished the volume of the stream. He hoped in conclusion, that the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, where such alterations as might be necessary could be made.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he confessed that he felt considerable alarm at the prospect that the drainage of the metropolis might be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose scheme ignored, he believed, the two great principles of the modern system of drainage—the utilization of the sewage by applying it to the soil, and the separation of the sewage from rainwater by a double system of tubular drainage. The Government referees, in a letter addressed by them to the First Commissioner of Works, had shown that with regard to many points the scheme proposed by the Metropolitan Board must fail to effect its object of purifying the sewage, so that the surplus water might be carried into the Thames. It was also an extraordinary circumstance that while the Board proposed to deodorize the western portion of the sewage they proposed to carry away the eastern portion by tunnel. Now, if deodorization would suffice for the west, why should it not suffice for the cast also? A friend of his, Mr. F. O. Ward, in a very able letter he had addressed to him on this subject, made the following observations:—
"Now, consider the effect of a sudden rainstorm falling on London, and pouring through these overcharged subterranean receptacles, Suppose

1725
it only to sweep into the river nine or ten days' accumulation of filth, to what do you imagine that is equivalent? It is equivalent to the simultaneous discharge into the river Thames of the mass of excrement produced in one day by the entire population of Great Britain, numbering 21,000,000. And to such eruptions of filth we should still be frequently liable, even if the great tunnels for mixed rainfall and sewage were built. The money loss on every such occasion would be in ammonia only, without reckoning phosphorus, nearly £16,000. Besides, after every such discharge the tidal river would remain discoloured, and in hot weather putrescent for several days. Such would be the operation of the colossal tunnels on which we are invited to lay out millions; such are the evils consequent on the mingling of rainfall with sewage. The obvious conclusion is, that the tunnel scheme propounded by the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the sanction of Mr. Stephenson and his party, not merely ignores, one-half of the problem in hand—namely, the agricultural utilization of the sewage, but is inadequate to accomplish the moiety which alone it contemplates—namely, the purification of the river. Indeed, by their last vote on this subject the Metropolitan Board resolved to pour the sewage of the western district of London, more or less deodorized, into the Thames above Westminster Bridge, and to reserve the proposed great tunnels for the conveyance of the remaining sewage only. Of deodorization, the mainstay of this scheme, I will only here remark, that while at best it is a costly and imperfect palliative, it becomes quite impracticable precisely when most needed—i.e., when heavy showers are sweeping from the sewers the largest masses of putrescent filth. Independently, however, of this objection, the two parts of the scheme are manifestly inconsistent. For, if deodorization suffices for the west, why is interception necessary for the east? And, contrariwise, if miles of tunnel are required to convey far off the eastern sewage, how can it be right to pour the western sewage into the river above bridge? Surely, the principle must be false that leads to such illogical conclusions. The principle to which, by these and other considerations, my friends and I have been gradually led is shortly this—that the whole of the rainfall is due to the river, the whole of the sewage to the soil. The adoption of this principle s, we believe, as essential for the perfect purification of the Thames as it is for the economical utilization of the sewage. That this may be obvious to you, pray keep in view that when sewage and rainfall are once mixed, whether in the Thames itself or in the minutest of the filaments that feed it (in a street-sewer or in a house drain, for example), those mingled waters can never again be separated. In polluting the smallest of its tributaries you virtually pollute the Thames; and, as it has been said, 'Take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves,' so I venture to say, Purify the tributaries, and the main stream will run pure of itself.' If, now, we trace in each house the course of the rain from roof and area, and the course of the sewage from closet and sink, till we come to the point at which the separate pipes conveying these two distinct streams meet in a single drain, we arrive at the precise boundary line between possible and impossible in this matter of Thames purification and sewage utilization. For, up to this point, and before this meet-
1726
ing of two waters, we are free to apply each streamlet to its proper use. We can send the unpolluted rainfall to scour the river, and the undiluted sewage to fertilize the land. But directly this junction point is passed, directly the daily runlet of cistern-water, rich with its freight of ammonia and phosphorus, meets and mingles with the casual rainfall, the two waters become, as we have seen, a worthless, unmanageable mixture, equally unfit for agricultural and urban use. Not only do they cease to be our property, and pass beyond the control of art, but they revert to the domain of nature, spoiled even for her simple service. For this error we are punished by pestilence. I say, therefore, that the battle of interception is to be fought, not on the banks of the river, but in the basements of the houses; not with monstrous tunnels, but with modest tubes; not by the diversion of variable rainbrooks, alternately dry and torrential, but by the diversion of uniform cistern supplies, always moderate and manageable; not at a profitless cost of many millions, yielding no return, but at a profitable outlay of a few millions, producing an ample return—probably half a million per annum. This tubular purification of rivers and fertilization of lands is, indeed, but the logical extension of the tubular drainage of houses and streets which my friends and I have succeeded in establishing after a ten years' struggle with the engineers. And, as our tubular sewers, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Mr. Stephenson and his friends, are now working successfully by hundreds of miles, not only in provincial towns, but in the metropolis itself, so also, I am confident, will the tubular purification of the Thames ultimately supersede the monstrous tunnel project, which, if adopted, would cost us many millions, and turn out a gigantic failure after all.…. I have only to add, in conclusion, that the purification of rivers and the utilization of sewage are, in my judgment, but two aspects or incidents of a sanitary organization comprising several other elements, each indispensable to the perfect working of the whole. This complete organization cannot, however, be suddenly accomplished; nor can even its several parts be simultaneously prepared. But in the development of such portions as we may be able presently to undertake the others may be kept in view; and this is in the highest degree desirable, in order that the sanitary works of our day may serve, not as a bar, but as a transition to the more perfect institutions of our successors. Should the monstrous rain and sewage tunnels proposed by the Metropolitan Board be built, they would indeed oppose a serious obstacle to such ulterior progress. But of this I have little fear. Those subterranean rivers are already beginning to be regarded by the ratepayers as a costly and colossal blunder, and, unless I am much mistaken, they will be obsolete before they are begun."
He (Mr. Coningham) warned the House against plunging into a scheme which would prove a colossal failure, and which involved a direct attack upon the pockets of the metropolitan ratepayers.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works had observed that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who

1727
had formerly loudly called upon the Government to take some steps for the purification of the Thames, were now prepared to throw over the whole question. He (Sir B. Hall) begged to assure the noble Lord that he was not one of those who desired to throw over the question, but that, on the contrary, he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill if a division took place. He thought it right, however, to state the one reason, and the one reason only, which induced him to take that course. He would not enter into the details of the various plans which had been proposed for the drainage of the Metropolis, for nearly all the hon. Gentlemen, who had addressed the House were disposed to adopt different plans if the matter were left to their decision. He thought, however, it was essential that, with a view to the purification of the Thames, the Metropolitan Board of Works should be entrusted with those powers of raising money which were proposed to be vested in them generally by the Bill of 1855, and which the present Bill proposed to confer upon them in a more detailed form. There were, however, some clauses in this Bill which required careful consideration, and to which he hoped strong opposition would be offered. Reference had been made to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissions appointed to inquire into the Corporation of London, presented in 1854, and a right hon. Friend of his had stated that the Act of 1855 was not strictly carried out in accordance with the recommendations of those Commissioners. This was quite true; but the general views of the Commissioners had been embodied in the Bill when first introduced; the details could only be determined when it became necessary to enter upon the subject of metropolitan legislation, with a view to the introduction of a measure which was to effect that great and long-desired object. The recommendations to which his right hon. Friend had particularly alluded were these:—
"We suggest the creation of a Metropolitan Board of Works, to be composed of a limited number of Members deputed to it from the Council of each metropolitan municipal body, including the Corporation of the City. We propose that the management of public works, in which the metropolis has a common interest, should be conducted by this body. At present, works of this sort can only be undertaken either by the Corporation of London, from its own peculiar funds, or under powers created for the purpose by special legislation, or by the executive Government out of Parliamentary grants. It is manifest that a power of executing
1728
public works of general metropolitan importance, such as the contruction of bridges over the Thames, or the opening or widening of main lines of streets, accompanied by a power of metropolitan taxation, would, though founded on a basis of popular election, require efficient safeguards for its prudent and useful exercise. We, therefore, think that the plans of the works to be executed should be submitted to a committee of the Privy Council, and its consent obtained before they are carried into effect. We may add, that cases may arise where public works may be executed in the metropolis partly out of the metropolitan fund and partly from Parliamentary grants, and that in these cases a control of the executive Government such as we have proposed would be indispensable. The Commissioners recommended in their 29th suggestion, that in the event of a division of the metropolis into municipal districts being made, a Metropolitan Board of Works be created, composed of members deputed to it from the Council of each metropolitan municipal body, including the Common Council of the City."
He had endeavoured to frame the measure he had introduced for the local management of the metropolis as closely as possible in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, but he did not mean to say that it was perfect in its details. It would be almost impossible to frame any measure embracing such important objects, and containing no less than 250 clauses, so as to ensure perfection. He had, however, the satisfaction of knowing that, notwithstanding some questions had necessarily arisen, no legal decision, or at all events scarcely a legal decision, had been given contrary to the spirit and intention with which the Legislature adopted that measure, and he thought that circumstance showed that it had been framed with great care. He might be allowed to state what had been his intention and that of the Government when they proposed the measure to which he had referred with respect to the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and more especially the person who might preside over that body. They were of opinion that he should be a person well acquainted with engineering works, and qualified from his antecedents to supervise their construction, and this was considered essential on introducing the Bill in 1855. He (Sir B. Hall) made use of these words according to the Report—
"With respect to the chairman, he proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should select three names not necessarily from their own body, or from any district board, but that they should have power to select from the whole length and breadth of the kingdom three persons, any one of whom would be fit and proper to occupy the high office he would be called upon to fill and thoroughly qualified to discharge the im-

1729
portant functions attendant upon it. These names should be sent to the Secretary of State, and the latter should erase two, the remaining one to be the president of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He proposed that the chairman should be paid a salary of not less than £1,500, and not more than £2,000 a year, and that he should hold office during good behaviour. This body would have power to levy rates for improvements, and also, when necessary, to take land out of their district for the purpose of outfall works, as at present it was not possible to carry out the drainage of the metropolis, because there was no power to make the arterial drains beyond a certain limit. This Board would have power to make intercepting sewers for the purification of the Thames, and would be empowered to borrow money from the Treasury, to be paid within fifty years."
Such was the scheme which he proposed, and he wished it had been fully carried out, but it was the pleasure of the House to alter those provisions so far as to empower the Board to elect their own chairman, without any such reference as that proposed which they did by selecting one of their own body, and the House refused permission to obtain money through the Treasury; and it now became necessary to re-insert the latter provision. With respect to the measure before the House it was desirable that the discussion of details should be reserved for Committee; but there was one point to which he was extremely anxious to call attention. In the second clause the points of outfall were defined, and it was provided that, if they discharged the sewage at Barking Creek and a point opposite, they were to deodorize the sewage for six months of the year. He should not now discuss the propriety of fixing these points of outfall so near to the metropolis, but he strongly objected to the proviso added to the clause, which enabled the Board, if they thought fit, to discharge the sewage in any part of the metropolis. It was very true that, if they did this, they were bound to deodorize the sewage throughout the whole year; but the evidence adduced before the Committee, which concluded its sittings that very day, showed that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish deodorizing works within the metropolitan area at the outfalls of the various sewers. He hoped, therefore, that if they went into Committee the Government would consider this question, and, before giving the Board power to erect deodorizing and manure works in the densely populated parts of the metropolis, would first ascertain whether the system of deodorization was so perfect as to be capable of application to such a place as London. The works at Leicester had
1730
been quoted, but the case of Leicester did not bear any analogy to the metropolis. The works at Leicester were in the open country, not in the town; but this could not be in London, and he thought such a power would be a very dangerous one to entrust to the Board, useless it was strictly guarded so as to prevent the possibility of a nuisance being created in the densely populated portion of the metropolis.
MR. KENDALLsaid, Government were blowing hot and cold. He could not understand how the Government could lay claim to activity, when, at the moment the House were willing to give full powers to the Government, they sought to get out of the difficulty by throwing the responsibility on to other shoulders. A Bill had been introduced the effect of which was to grant £3,000,000 for an object respecting which Parliament would have no sort of control or responsibility. But would £3,000,000 be sufficient? The best report ever written on any subject of this kind was that of the referees employed by the late Commissioner of Works, which was characterized by great accuracy and by consummate ability. That report showed that instead of £3,000,000, they might with the greatest safety read £6,000,000, and probably £9,000,000 or £12,000,000 would be much nearer the mark than £3,000,000. With respect to Barking Creek, the evidence adduced before the Committee went to show that they would merely send the sewage there to have it returned to London, and the nuisance would be as bad as ever. As to the Leicester plan, Mr. Cook, who had given his evidence with great clearness and precision, declared that he could erect works which would completely deodorize the sewage in a place of 100,000 inhabitants at a cost of £6,000, and could carry them on for £1,200 a year; and he added, that he was quite sure the plan was applicable to the metropolis, and that he would undertake to establish works for deodorizing the sewage of London at a cost of £100,000, and carry them on for £38,000 a year. He (Mr. Kendall), of course, did not know whether these plans could be carried out, but Mr. Cook was backed up by Mr. Stodart (who was, he believed, known to the noble Member for Tiverton) and by another eminently practical man. He did not wish the House should be under the impression that the Committee had been able to hear one-half of the evidence which might with advantage have been adduced, and he was of

1731
opinion that the question under discussion might with advantage be still further considered before any legislation with respect to it should take place.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, whatever might be his own opinion as to the best plan for carrying out the objects of the Bill, he thought that as this was a Bill for raising money, a Bill much more simple in its details would have answered the purpose. He could, also, bear testimony to the fact that there were many engineers of eminence who maintained that the scheme to which the House was virtually asked to give its assent was not that which it was most expedient to carry into effect, and he might further observe in reference to the expenditure, that some of the engineers and some of the parties examined before the Committee, had coupled with the expenditure for drainage that necessary for works of which the House had at present no knowledge. Those other works, he believed, would be attended with considerable expense, and it was to that he would direct attention. With respect to the system of deodorization which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) seemed to think was not calculated to work well, he could only say that some most important witnesses had given it as their opinion, that places where such a process might be put in operation might, without causing inconvenience to the inhabitants of the metropolis, be erected anywhere upon the banks of the Thames. Would it not, then, he would ask, if that were so, be better, instead of expending £3,000,000 in taking down the sewage to Barking Creek, deodorizing it there, and thus abstracting a large quantity of water from that portion of the river which flowed by the metropolis, be better to subject it to the process of deodorization upon the spot? He threw out that suggestion not so much upon the faith of his own opinion upon the subject as upon that of the evidence which had been laid before the Committee; and he might perhaps be permitted in conclusion to observe, that there having been considerable doubts expressed with respect to the success of the proposed scheme, it would be advisable that the Bill before the House should have simply guaranteed the £3,000,000 of money on the credit of the Imperial Exchequer instead of mixing Her Majesty's Ministers up in any manner with any scheme whatsoever. He agreed with the hon. Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Kendall), that they had not yet had suffi-
1732
cient evidence to enable them to say which, under all the circumstances, was the best scheme for the perfect drainage of the metropolis
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had expressed a wish that the Bill had not indicated any plan, but had simply guaranteed the money. That was exactly what the Bill did. The Bill laid down no specific plan, but left it open to the Metropolitan Board of Works to fix upon such a scheme for the attainment of the end which the measure proposed as they might deem fit. They might construct intercepting sewers or not as they pleased; all the Bill provided being that they should get rid in some way or another of a great nuisance, and that the means of enabling them to do so should be afforded. With respect to the opinion which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), to the effect that the process of deodorization should not be resorted to in crowded localities, he need merely remark that, while there was a clause in the Bill giving power to the Board of Works to avail themselves of that process, yet that there was another which provided that no nuisance should be created, and a sufficient security was therefore furnished that no works would be constructed in places surrounded by houses. In reference to the scheme which it might be most expedient to adopt, he was of opinion that the less said the better, inasmuch as that was a point upon which no two hon. Members seemed likely to agree. The simple question seemed to be this. Some two or three years ago Parliament had decided upon intrusting the power of doing this very thing to a local authority. For some cause, however, nothing had been done. Various plans had in the course of the last three years been laid before the public. They had been during that period well thrashed out, but the process simply tended to establish the fact, that no two men could be found to concur in anything. But because no two men could agree in anything, was that a reason why they do nothing? The two chief reasons, he thought, why nothing had been effected by the Metropolitan Board of Works during all that time were, that they had not the power of raising a sufficient amount of money, and that authority to place a veto upon any scheme which they might suggest rested with the Government. When they submitted a plan to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, for

1733
instance, he at once procured competent men to pronounce an opinion upon it, and when there were competent men upon the side of the one party and of the other they were, as a matter of course, sure to differ. The result had been that one set of competent men had drawn up reasons in opposition to the scheme of the others, and that nothing had been done. The Thames' nuisance had gone on meantime increasing in intensity, until it had at length arrived at such a pitch that it might any fine morning give rise to a pestilence. Now, if we were to wait to remove that nuisance until "competent authorities" should agree Among themselves as to the best mode of carrying that object into effect, it was, he thought, perfectly obvious that we might be called upon to wait till Doomsday. That was the position in which the question stood, and it was in order to obviate all the inconvenience which had in consequence arisen, and to effect something, that the Bill before the House had been introduced. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) seemed to object to the term sewage rate as contained in the Bill; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the term was one not unknown to the law of England, and that there were many places in which a similar tax was levied at a higher rate than 3d. in the pound. It was quite obvious, too, he thought, that none of the inconveniences which had been mentioned would result from the imposition of such a rate, inasmuch as its payment would always form a matter of contract between the landlord and the tenant, rendering the one or the other liable to its payment as might be agreed upon between the two parties. Objections had been raised as to the mode in which the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected, and it had been argued that it did not fairly represent the metropolis. The question was discussed about three years ago, and that objection was not then raised, certainly not in the sense in which it was now urged. After what they had heard against the election of councils by large constituencies, he thought it could not be seriously recommended that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be elected by the entire body of ratepayers in London. He was not aware that any objections had been made on the part of the metropolis to the Metropolitan Board of Works being intrusted with the carrying out of the drain-
1734
age plans. If the country at large were willing to pay for the works, then the matter might be left to the Queen's Government; but if the country refused to pay, or to assist in paying, for those works, then it ought not to interfere in the construction of them. They had already had some experience in this matter. There could be no doubt that the veto of the Government had brought matters to a dead lock, and with regard to the drainage of other towns, past experience must have taught them that the interference of the Government was neither agreeable nor useful. Therefore, as he believed that whatever scheme might be adopted, it would tend to abate the nuisance which now existed, and as delay would not advance their acquaintance with the subject, he hoped the House would consent to proceed with the Bill as speedily as possible.
MR. STEPHENSONthought the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) would not have said the subject of the drainage of London was thoroughly threshed out had he been so long occupied in considering it as he (Mr. Stephenson) had been. About eight years since he became a member of the Metropolitan Sewers Commission, and commenced an earnest and continuous study of the difficult question of the sewage of London and the best means of disposing of it. He acted in conjunction with some very able men, and formed an opinion which, although it had undergone some modification since that time, had not been essentially changed. He was called upon at that time to examine 150 different plans which had been sent in by various individuals, in compliance with the advertisements of a previous Commission, which presented every possible variety of scheme for the drainage of London. These plans he studied with great care and considerable anxiety, and came to the conclusion that nothing would effectually meet the evil but an intercepting system. The right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had objected that that system was not adapted to any increase in the population of London beyond three millions and a half; but nothing more inappropriate than that objection could be conceived. The intercepting system divided the sewers of London as they at present existed into a series of zones each intercepting sewer would deal with the zone immediately above it; and, therefore, any extension of London would only require the construction of a new intercepting sewer for each

1735
additional zone without interfering with anything that had been done in the interior of the metropolis. One of the chief recommendations of the intercepting plan was its capability of expansion without involving any interference with the existing drainage. Upon the occasion to which he had referred, after the 150 plans had been examined, plans were drawn up with great care and referred to Government; but when it came to obtaining money for carrying them out it was found that the hands of the Commissioners were tied, and the Government disregarded their applications. Therefore, as the minor sewerage of the metropolis could be constructed under the ordinary superintendence, the Commission resigned. A new Commission was subsequently formed, comprising many eminent men of his own profession, who, after deliberation, came to the same conclusion as he had; and their having done so, without any communication with him, was another strong argument in favour of the intercepting system. This Commission also failed, because the Government refused every application for money. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton sent them a letter, very brief and very dictatorial, stating that the Commission ought to carry out the scheme of a gentleman recommended by himself. That led to the resignation of the Commissioners. They could not carry it out, and they felt it would be absurd to identify themselves with such a scheme. Objections had been taken to the Metropolitan Board of Works as the body to execute the proposed works, but he could not see the justice of the objection. What other body possessed the information necessary for the performance of such a task. Any other body must acquire and rearrange all the information of which the Metropolitan Board of Works were now in possession. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last in doubting the advantage that would arise from any interference on the part of the Government. The House was arguing in ignorance of the course which this question had taken. If they were to recommence the argument five years hence the debate would assume precisely the same character as it did at present. The right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) seemed to object to the mode of levying the tax, as falling unfairly upon lessees and occupiers, and proposed that proprietors themselves should be taxed. But when a bargain was made it must
1736
hold, or in cases where the lessees derived a doubled or tripled advantage there must be a rearrangement of terms. Those were matters that could not be dealt with by Parliament in legislating upon a matter of this description. He hoped the House would decide in favour of the Bill, unless they intended to postpone legislation altogether, and leave things just as they were. He did not think any one would agree to that. If the intercepting system was not absolutely a perfect system, yet still it would be better to adopt a plan that would do some good than to allow another year to pass away without doing anything to remove the existing evils. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said that the Bill did not bind the Board of Works to any particular plan; but he apprehended that that House ought not to advance money unless they knew for what it was advancing it. As a man of experience, he advised the House to insist upon a considerable portion of the intercepting system being adopted, and recommended that the work should be commenced by the construction of the high level sewer for the interception of the storm waters.
MR. LOWEexplained that he had not said that a system of intercepting sewers would necessarily be limited to any amount of population, but that the plan of the Board of Works, which he understood was to be carried out under this Bill, was professedly limited to a population of 3,500,000.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that having sat upon the Commission of Sewers which succeeded that of which the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson) was a Member, he could confirm the statement of that hon. Gentleman as to the labours of these Commissions. He might also add that the majority of the Commission of which he was a Member agreed with its predecessor in preferring the system of intercepting sewers to any other which had been devised. He thought that it would be well to begin with the high level sewer in order to get rid of the storm water. If they waited for any further inquiry, then, after all the delay which might arise, they would only come back to the point at which they had already arrived. Although the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) said that there was nothing in this Bill which bound the Government to any plan, he thought that the first clause bound them to the adoption of

1737
the system of intercepting sewers, and that was one reason why he should support it. He was also pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that no works would be put where they would be a nuisance; but who was to determine what was a nuisance? That point ought not to be left in doubt. With regard to deodorization, he reminded the House that though Mr. Cooke, of Leicester, who gave evidence upon that subject, was undoubtedly a man of great intelligence, he was the chairman of a company which was very anxious to sell the produce of deodorizing works of which they had hitherto been unable to dispose. The only fear he had with regard to the Bill was its giving power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to have the outfalls within the metropolitan area. It was hardly fair that although, if the outfalls were within limits of the metropolis, the sewage was to be deodorized all the year, if they were just without, that process was insisted upon during only six months. He should, however, vote for the second reading of the Bill, because it removed the great difficulty under which the Board of Works had hitherto laboured—that of obtaining money; and he hoped that in Committee provision would be made that the outfalls of the sewers should not be within the metropolitan area.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that having been one of the Commissioners upon whose Report the constitution of the Board of Works was mainly founded, he was anxious to say a few words before this Bill was read a second time. The principle of this measure he understood to be that this great work should be executed not by the Government, or by a Board appointed by the Government, but by the Metropolitan Board of Works. To that principle be gave his unhesitating assent. The Government were undoubtedly right; and if they had acted upon a different principle they must have been prepared to ask that House to furnish funds for executing the work; but having proceeded upon that principle they had rightly cast upon the metropolitan rate-payers the duty of providing the funds. They had, he thought, gone quite as far as could be expected in giving a guarantee for all the money which it was said would be required for the work. There was one provision with regard to the guarantee to which he entertained a strong objection; he meant that by which the Government took power to appoint a
1738
superintending inspector. He viewed with the greatest jealousy the imposing upon the Government any responsibility, or giving them any power of interfering with the local authorities, which if the plan was unsuccessful, if mistakes were made in carrying it into effect, or if the funds were insufficient, would justify those authorities in saying to the Executive, "You, by your inspector, had had cognizance of what was going on, you tacitly approved our proceedings, and you are therefore bound to share with us the loss which has been incurred." He trusted that the Government would not take upon itself any more responsibility than was absolutely necessary for the protection of the guarantee which the State was to give. Having assented to the principle of the measure, he must add that the Bill upon the face of it seemed to be inconsistent with the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley). That right hon. Gentleman said that it would be competent to the Metropolitan Board of Works to adopt any plan they might think fit, that the Government would not be responsible for the adoption of any plan or the preference of any one practical principle over another.
MR. HENLEY: What he said was, that the Government were not bound to any particular plan, and that it was quite open to the Board of Works to carry out any plan they thought fit, but he made no reference to principles.
SIR GEORGE LEWISunderstood that the Government had expressed no opinion in favour of any plan, and that it was quite open to the Board of Works to adopt any one they pleased. If that was the case, why was the House called upon to assent to this precise sum of £3,000,000? How did they know that £3,000,000 would be adequate to carry out a scheme which perhaps had yet to be conceived, and which was certainly at present unknown? How was it known that a rate of 3d. in the pound for forty years would be sufficient to defray the cost of these works? If it was true that no plan had been selected—if the field of choice were quite open—how did they know that the Board of Works might not fix upon some scheme which would require the expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to carry it out? One of two things—either the Board of Works had fixed upon some plan, and the Government, adopting and approving it, had proposed

1739
this £3,000,000 as the sum which it was thought would be required for its execution; or this £3,000,000 was a mere guess—any other amount might as well have been inserted in the Bill—and the House had no security whatever that when a portion of these works had been completed that amount would not be found to be insufficient, and they would be called upon to guarantee a further loan. This was his only difficulty in assenting to the second reading of this Bill; and, if it received a satisfactory explanation, he should, without hesitation, consent to the measure passing that stage.
MR. JOHN LOCKEremarked, that if the difficulty he felt at the bringing in of the Bill was great, it was much greater now that he had the measure before him. The Government said that they had no plan at all, but the Bill contained regulations as to the point of outfall. Did that foreshadow a plan or not? If they had a deodorizing plan, no stipulation as to the point of outfall would he necessary. It was clear, therefore, that the Government must have some plan, or must, at all events, have decided upon the principle to be adopted. The House had heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Whitby and Honiton (Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Joseph Locke) than whom it would be impossible to consult higher authorities; but the opinions expressed by those hon. Gentlemen had only added to the perplexities by which Parliament was surrounded. The hon. Member for Honiton's bias was clearly in favour of deodorization; but the other hon. Gentleman was decidedly against that plan.
MR. STEPHENSONsaid, he was not opposed to the deodorizing system. He was only opposed to relying for the drainage of the metropolis upon deodorization. He quite admitted that some parts of the metropolis could not be drained except by deodorization.
MR. JOHN LOCKEresumed: When doctors differed in this way the House was placed in a most unfortunate position. He had certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman's plan was the zonal system. The hon. Gentleman would divide the metropolis into zones, and he understood from his evidence that he was against adopting the plan of deodorization for London. They were called to guarantee £3,000,000 for nobody knew what. The Government said that they had no system, and that the Board of Works might do what they liked,
1740
and still the Government had shadowed out a system of intercepting drains. He regretted that although the sewage might be put in a state of solution, the question of the drainage of the metropolis did not appear to be capable of solution. They were called upon to legislate in the dark. The supporters of the Bill did not seem to have a definite idea of what they were supporting. However, it was not for him, after the speeches of the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone, to oppose the second reading of the Bill, though he had no hope that it would be sufficiently altered and amended in Committee.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he would not enter upon any of the engineering questions that had been alluded to. He disclaimed any notion of being enamoured of this Bill, which was founded on no clear principle. It neither threw the entire responsibility of the drainage of the metropolis upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor, on the other hand, did the Government undertake the responsibility of dealing with the question. They proposed to appoint an inspector—they laid down conditions as to the principle of drainage and the point of outfall, and they limited the guarantee to £3,000,000, but they assumed no direct responsibility for the works to be carried out. He had, for his own part, no confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed that the landowners of the metropolis were inadequately represented in that body. It was composed of too large a number of members, and from its unwieldly size was unequal to carry out such large and extensive works as the drainage of the metropolis; and he would submit to the Government that, as it would be only fair that the State should, in fairness, contribute something to metropolitan works, so the Government should undertake the responsibility of nominating a smaller and more working body than this large representative council, under whose auspices there would be greater reason to hope for a speedy and economical solution of the present difficulty. He repeated that he was not sanguine respecting the well-working of the present measure, while the Government, who brought it in, would be held responsible by the inhabitants of the metropolis for the failure of the measure, if that failure should afterwards be found, as he felt it would, both signal and costly.
MR. CLAYsaid, in his ignorance of engineering science—an ignorance shared

1741
by most of those present—he thought the duty of the House on this occasion was confined to a very simple point. All that the House had to determine was, whether it was worth while to expend a large sum of money to remove the nuisance of draining into the Thames, whether the work should be undertaken immediately, by whom the money was to be paid, and in what way the work was to be carried out. It appeared to him that those points were settled by the Bill before the House. The right hon. Member for Oxford University seemed to think that the Members of that House were legislating under the pressure of a bad smell, and that they reasoned as they appeared disposed to pay, through the nose. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter should be further considered, not, however, by the engineering capacity of the House of Commons, as they had that evening shown their own incapacity for doing so. There was no body more capable of doing so than the body they had themselves created for that purpose. It had been complained that that body had done little or nothing. They had, however, accumulated a large mass of useful and necessary information on the subject, and if they had done little the fault lay with the House of Commons, which declined to give them the necessary power, and then shackled them with the Government veto. If proper power had been lodged in the proper hands, this work would have been undertaken long since. The future consideration which the right hon. Member for Oxford University had spoken of, should be given by the body charged to carry out this measure. If they should prove incapable, he believed it would be because the thing could not be done. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.
MR. PULLERsaid, he agreed that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had hitherto proved a failure it was because Parliament had not entrusted it with sufficient powers. He thought that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the House for grappling with a subject of enormous difficulty, but he thought that they had produced the wrong measure. At the same time he must deny that the charge of inaction could justly be brought against the House of Commons if they did not sanction the present Bill. That House was not the proper or a competent authority to decide on the value of competing schemes, and therefore, he must
1742
protest against any attempt to throw upon them the responsibility of the question. The Bill in effect said, that the plan of Mr. Bazalgette and of the Metropolitan Board of Works should be carried out. Now, that scheme professed to be capable of being carried out for £3,000,000, but to require an annual expenditure of £150,000. The scheme of the Government referees would require for its execution five or six millions. When, therefore, the Government proposed to lend the Metropolitan Board of Works £3,000,000, it was clearly implied that the cheaper but less comprehensive scheme was to be carried out. If, at the end of a few years, the Metropolitan Board of Works came to Parliament for a larger advance and were met with a proposal to lay an increased rate on the metropolis, they would reply that the Government had forced them into the adoption of a bad plan, and that they ought, therefore, to defray the additional outlay thus rendered necessary out of the Consolidated Fund. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Amendment, for want of a seconder, fell to the ground.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, because its rejection would postpone to an indefinite period the possibility of applying a remedy to an evil the magnitude of which it was almost impossible to exaggerate. He spoke not merely of that evil which the members of that House had in their persons recently experienced, but of the more general and growing evil which arose from the pollution of the waters of the Thames; for, in proportion as the metropolis increased and drew a larger supply of water for its requirements from the Upper Thames, in the same proportion the Thames became from year to year nothing but a great sewer, and like a sewer stank, and would be the source of disease and pestilence. Therefore it was a matter of the utmost importance to prevent for the future the discharge of the sewage into the Thames. He knew that many people said that no doubt it was disagreeable to smell this stench, and that persons were sometimes made sick by it, and were unable to eat white-bait dinners when they went down to Greenwich. He hoped that the members of the Government would not be so situated on Saturday next. Nevertheless, there had been no great amount of disease,

1743
for, fortunately, there had been no epidemic in London; but, if there had been the cholera at the time this stench arose, would any man say that it would not have aggravated to an intense degree the disorder? Hon. Gentlemen were not aware of the amount of misery and suffering endured by a large proportion of the population of this great metropolis from the imperfect drainage of the localities in which they resided. When he was at the Home Office it was his lot to hear from persons who resided north of the Thames, in the neighbourhood of Hackney Brook, descriptions of the sufferings they endured from the stench which arose from the sewer, and also from the flooding of their dwellings when there was a heavy fall of rain. On the southern shore of the Thames, also, there was a vast population living in a district where there was no drainage at all, and where there was no outfall, except during a very short period at low water. Whenever there was a heavy fall of rain the sewers of that district were inundated; abominations of all kinds were driven back from the sewers into the basement stories of the houses, and an amount of suffering and discomfort was caused of which hon. Gentlemen who had not received communications from those who had endured it could form no conception. These evils could not be cured by deodorizing tanks, which required great outfall tunnels. Hon. Gentlemen must not imagine that there was any remedy for the great evils now experienced in the metropolis, except from intercepting sewers communicating with tunnels which would carry the drainage down to some lower level of the Thames. He confessed he thought the Bill was defective with regard to the subject of intercepting tunnels. In his opinion Barking Creek and the opposite shore were too near the metropolis, and money expended in carrying tunnels to those points would, to a certain extent, be thrown away. Complete relief would not be afforded to the metropolis by the expenditure of 3,000,000; and if tunnels were constructed to Barking Creek the Metropolitan Board of Works would have to come to Parliament and say, "You sanctioned this work, but by limiting the expenditure you forced us to adopt a plan which is essentially and radically defective, and therefore, on the part of the public, we call upon you to assist us by grants of public money to carry the sewerage to another point, in order to accomplish the
1744
object we wish to effect." He thought, therefore, it was most unfortunate that the Government should persist—if they meant to do so—in limiting the outfall of the intercepting tunnels to a point so near the metropolis as Barking Creek and the opposite side of the river. There was another point not immediately entering into the arrangements of the Bill, but to which he must express his hope that the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works would be speedily and successfully directed; the possibility of converting to agricultural purposes, as manure, the vast amount of matter which was now discharged into the Thames. There could be no doubt that, if the proposed system were carried out, a great quantity of fertilizing matter would be thrown into the stream of the Thames, with the view of being carried out to sea. It must be admitted that hitherto no process had been suggested by which that fertilizing matter could advantageously and profitably be applied to b agricultural purposes, beyond a very narrow limit of space, but he entertained a hope that before long some practical mode might be discovered by scientific scientific chemists of converting into a source of great national wealth the matter which it was now proposed to throw into the waters of the German Ocean. He trusted that the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, and that Her Majesty's Government would attend to the suggestions which had been made with reference to the modification of some of its clauses.
MR. COXsaid, that as a metropolitan Member, representing a district, the residents in which would have to pay a very large proportion of the rate, he wished to say a few words with respect to this Bill, although he did not mean to oppose the second reading. He thought that a revision of the area of rating was absolutely required, because under the Metropolitan Local Management Act very extensive districts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis derived benefit from the existing law, and would enjoy the advantages of the Bill before the House, although they were entirely exempted from any rate. He did not wish to mention any particular districts, but he might state, that in the neighbourhood in which he resided there was a very large parish, the sewage from which passed through the metropolitan district, and was discharged into the Thames, but which, not being comprised within the metropolitan

1745
area, was entirely exempted from rating. He believed also that the Bill, in its present form, might lead to disputes between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commission of Conservancy of the Thames with regard to the mode of dealing with the foreshore; but that was a point which might be more conveniently considered in Committee.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that in his opinion the only chance of anything being done was to allow the second reading to take place, and make the requisite alterations in Committee. He would, however, suggest, that as the Bill proposed the appointment by the Treasury of an engineer to control the expenditure of money upon the works, and he would suggest that the appointment of a Government inspector to prevent the creation and continuance of nuisances would be attended with great advantage. He must also object to the proposed plan of sewage, on the ground that, owing to the proximity of Woolwich to the point of outfall, the tide might carry the sewage to that town. This, he thought, would not be unattended with danger.
MR. BUTLERSaid, he deemed it most unfair that his constituents and the heavily taxed ratepayers of the metropolis should alone bear the enormous cost of purifying the Thames—the principle was a just one, that those who contributed to foul the waters of the Thames should be rated for its purification. Why, for instance, should not the inhabitants of Richmond, Brentford, and other districts bear a fair proportion of that rate? In his opinion, the area of rating prescribed by the Metropolitan Local Management Act was most unjust, and he hoped the injustice would be remedied in Committee.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  On the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Ways and Means,
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had given notice that he would call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, as he had intended to press upon the Government the propriety of appointing a Royal Commission for the purpose of concluding those inquiries which the Committee did not feel itself competent to enter into. He understood, however,
  1746
  that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) did not object to grant this Commission, and he would not, therefore, waste the time of the House at that late period of the Session by making any lengthened remarks on the subject at present.
  SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, he had read the interesting and important report presented by the Committee over which the hon. Gentleman had presided, and thought the reasons adduced in it were quite sufficient to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission. The hints contained in the report were of extreme value, and could not be fully or satisfactorily acted upon without the assistance of a Royal Commission to inquire into the exact locality of the harbours, and fix upon their sites. It was, therefore, the intention of the Government to appoint such a Commission.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, there were the circumstances of trade at various ports, and the capabilities of different places, which must all be accurately weighed and considered before the Commissioners could come to any decision. The limits within which the Committee had confined its inquiries were too narrow, and the principles it had laid down not sufficiently clear and comprehensive to serve as a useful guide to the proposed Commission. He therefore hoped the Order of reference would be large and full, and that the Commissioners would not be restricted from taking that evidence which was necessary to enable them to arrive at a fair and just decision with regard to the different localities where Harbours of Refuge were thought to be required. The subject in itself was of immense importance. A thousand lives a year, and a million and a half of property were lost on our coasts through causes which were in the main preventible. One grave question for the Commissioners to settle was, whether the saving of life and property would be better accomplished by the construction, at a large expense, of one or two new harbours, or by making advances for the improvement of a larger number of existing harbours.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he was glad, as a member of the Committee in question, to hear that the Government would agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission. He trusted the Commissioners would be most carefully selected, and that no person who had been examined before the Committee would be appointed a member.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to ex-

  1747
  press his gratification at the readiness of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this important subject. At the same time, he would beg to remind the Government and the House of the necessity of considering the state of our southern and eastern coasts, which, being opposite to the northern coast of France—the latter being well supplied with forts and arsenals—required the most careful attention. The harbours recommended by the Committee differed from those, the construction of which had been previously suggested by Commissions, in this, that they had almost exclusively in view the protection of our commercial marine from the dangers of shipwreck. The Committee, therefore, recommended that a portion of the expense should be borne by the shipping interest itself; but he hoped their views would not be allowed to interfere with or postpone the works at Harbours of Refuge which were intended for the protection of our coast in case of war, and which were already in progress.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he participated in the satisfaction felt by the House at the consent of the Government to grant a Commission. He feared, however, that there was some ambiguity in the recommendation of the Committee. They recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the best situations for Harbours of Refuge within the limits indicated, but those limits were not clearly pointed out, and for that reason he thought it incumbent on him to impress on the Government the necessity of issuing their instructions to the Commission in the clearest and most comprehensive terms.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had abstained from making a statement to the House upon the subject under discussion that evening, simply in order to facilitate the despatch of the business upon the paper. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members would refrain from expressing any opinion with respect to the question until he was enabled to bring it more fully before the House.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he entertained a similar view in favour of the postponement of the discussion.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought it very likely the members of the Committee up-stairs present that evening were as numerous as they would be on any future occasion when the subject might come on for discussion, and that there
  1748
  was, therefore, no good reason why they should refrain from at once expressing their opinions with respect to it. For his own part, he must express a hope that the Commission about to be appointed should consist of the most competent persons, and that the order of reference should be of a more extended scope than would seem to be warranted by the evidence which was taken before the Committee, and which was of a most imperfect and desultory character. There were three branches of the question of Harbours of Refuge, all of which required full consideration. There were military harbours, being those which were erected solely for strategic objects; harbours for the shelter of commerce, and harbours for the protection of our fisheries, and unless funds were granted sufficient to construct Harbours of Refuge in these three branches, it was of little use issuing a Commission. It was quite appalling to think that there were lost annually on our coasts more than 800 lives and two millions of property, the greatest portion of which might be saved by the expenditure of a sum which was really a trifle as compared with the result expected. The great increase, too, in the shipping of this country—an increase of about 130 per cent within the last few years—added much to the urgency of the question.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that this most important question was always trifled with in that House. He did not mean anything disrespectful to the members of the Harbours of Refuge Committee when he said that although they had been sitting for the last two years, yet, from the fact of the majority of them not being conversant with nautical affairs, they were not in a position to come to a sound conclusion on the matter referred to them. There was an enormous amount of life and property sacrificed every year for want of proper Harbours of Refuge, and yet year after year the House was going on appointing Committee after Committee. This was nothing short of a broad farce and a trifling with the lives of thousands. He hoped that the Commission now about to be appointed would be one competent to deal with the subject, so that something satisfactory and definite might result from its labours.
  MR. DUFFsaid, he would strongly support the recommendation that no person who had given evidence before the Committee should be appointed on the Commission.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREexpressed a wish to know whether the Government meant to persevere with the Chinese Emigration Bill, and a hope that if such were the case it would be brought on this week, as it was likely to lead to considerable discussion.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he trusted the finance accounts would for the future be laid upon the table of the House at a period of the Session when they could be more conveniently discussed than had hitherto been the case.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Arrangements have already been made in order that the necessary financial accounts may be laid upon the table as early as possible; but as preparation and an alteration in arrangements which have long existed must precede the production of these accounts, I cannot speak with certainty on the matter. Her Majesty's Government have given their earnest attention to the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee; and these recommendations will lead to alterations in the transaction of public business. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, I must observe that the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to come from the Lords, and our attention must, I think, be devoted in the first place to those Bills which have to go up to the Lords; but I think I may say that we shall not press that Bill on the attention of this House this Session. There is another measure of great importance, which I regret to say I cannot ask the House to decide on this Session, though I shall take the earliest opportunity of asking them to sanction it next Sesssion—that is, the Superannuation Bill. I promised the hon. Member for Devenport (Mr. Wilson) that I would communicate with him with respect to this measure; and I take this opportunity of informing him that I shall not press it at present. There is another Bill which is of importance, and which I trust will be, on an early occasion, brought before the House, but which, I think, I cannot, consistently with the rules laid down by the House of Lords, ask this House to proceed further with this Session—the Irish Police Bill. These are the only announcements I have to make with respect to the public business.
  Resolutions agreed to.

CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, that the reason he objected to this measure was that its real object was quite different from that professed by its title. The subject ought to be regarded in two aspects: first, in reference to the Crown revenues; and secondly, to the great foreshore question, which had created much agitation throughout the country for many years. In his opinion the Bill was calculated to increase the great dissatisfaction that had been felt in consequence of the manner in which the claims of the Crown had been pressed in the mining districts. He some time ago moved for the production of the arbitration and the documents upon which the decision of the arbitrator was founded, and the Secretary of the Treasury of that time promised, as soon as a third point, which was still pending, was decided, they should be produced, and it was also stated that no legislation would be attempted in the meanwhile. Nevertheless the documents laid upon the table included nothing but a few letters of reference with comments, and contained none of the statutes, charters, cases, or arguments upon which Sir John Patteson had founded his award. He contended that without such information the House was not justified in confirming the arbitration of any individual, however eminent, which took away from the Crown valuable property in which the public, during the present reign, at all events, had a beneficial interest; and also that other persons, whether bodies corporate or individuals, who might have to enter into similar contests, had a right to have the benefit of knowing on what evidence the Crown claimed, particularly as that evidence had been collected at the public expense. The Bill spoke of mines between high and low-water mark; but property of a much more extensive and valuable character was involved. It was said that the right to such mines involved the right to the fundus or bed of the river or estuary, and the power of disposing of the foreshore, so that the probability was, that the minor right would be held hereafter to carry with it the major. This had been done before; and in the case of the Keyham Docks, where the public had rights of fishing and other rights, those

  1751
  rights had been taken by the Crown without compensation. There were many similar instances where public rights had been invaded, and indeed it was only last year that the Duchy of Cornwall derived a considerable income in this way. It was remarkable that they never heard anything about the rights of the Crown to the bed of a river, or to land between high and low-water mark on the shore of the sea, when there was anything to pay, but only when there was something to be received. If improvements were required the public had to pay for them; but if advantages were to be had, the Crown claimed them. Again, he must demur to the position that minerals in the bed of the sea belonged to the Crown, because it had been settled that anything which was found upon the surface, although under water, belonged to the finder. It also had become a serious question whether the wastes on the sea shore and in estuaries ought not to be considered in the same light as waste lands, and be treated in the same manner; for where there were wastes in a manor in which the public had certain rights, Parliament always gave a compensation when it deprived the public of their rights. Judge Bayley and his commentator Mr. Woolrych, both laid it down that the foreshore was placed in the hands of the Crown, not for its own benefit, but as a trustee for the use of the public. He was moreover inclined to think that the present Bill contemplated something more than mere mineral rights, from what he observed in the 9th clause, where he found this expression—that mines and minerals should comprehend all mines and minerals, and all quarries, veins, beds of stone, and all substrata whatsoever. Now, that, he thought, was an acknowledgment of a right which would be very prejudicial to the owners of property on the sea shore. He had taken up this question solely on public grounds. Scarcely anybody in Cornwall knew anything of the provisions of the Bill, not even legal gentlemen, and he asked the Government whether it was just to bring in such a Bill at the fag-end of the Session. There could be no damage to any one from delay, and he would therefore move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this Bill, to declare and define certain rights of
  1752
  the Crown, in the beneficial interests of which the Public are concerned during the reign of Her Majesty, as part and parcel of the hereditary revenues, ought not to be proceeded with till such times as Copies of all the Documents, Cases, and Opinions of Counsel submitted to Sir John Patteson, and on which his arbitration is founded, are laid on the table of this House," instead thereof.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he should be wanting in courtesy to the hon. Gentleman if he did not explain the history of the measure, which was simply as follows. Primâ facie, the whole of the soil, and every thing under the soil, between high and low water mark on the shores of the kingdom, belonged to the Crown; and in numerous instances that right had been granted away, or passed to individuals by adverse possession against the Crown. In the case of the Duchy of Cornwall the difficulty had been this—that very large grants were made of the soil and shore to the Prince of Wales in the time of Edward III. by charters, and great difficulty had always arisen with regard to the construction of those charters. That doubt had been further increased by innumerable dealings which had since taken place between the Crown and the Prince of Wales in the shape of statutes, other charters, and deeds of various kinds. In consequence it had in recent times become matter of extreme uncertainty whether, as regarded the soil between high and low-water mark, and even below low-water mark, in the Duchy of Cornwall, the rights to minerals was in the Crown or the Duchy. In the year 1856 it was considered desirable that these doubts should be resolved, for it was found that the existence of doubts had had the effect of putting an end to various kinds of improvement, and checking mining operations. The consequence was that the mines along the shore of Cornwall remained entirely unproductive. In this state of things Lord Cranworth, as representing the Crown under the late Government, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh, as representing the Duchy, considered that it would be unseemly for the two interests to enter into litigation in the ordinary courts of law, and they agreed to request Sir John Patteson to take the very great trouble of reading over all the documents in this case and give his award. Sir John undertook the task, in February 1856, and from that time to June, 1857, when he made his award, he paid to the subject the most unremitting attention; all the charters, grants, and other records extending over many thousands of folios, and which the hon.

  1753
  Gentleman, not content with results, was anxious to have laid in extenso upon the table of the House, being examined and considered by him. On reading over the award, however, it was found desirable before final arrangements were made for carrying it out, that a further question should be submitted to the arbitrator and settled. In February this year this point was also decided. The rights of the relative parties were determined—those of the Crown to the soil of the bed of the river and the minerals below, and those of the Duchy to the shore between high and low water mark and the minerals below. But as to reach the mines of the Crown it was necessary to pass through or over the property of the Duchy, Sir John Patteson suggested that an arrangement should be made for that purpose, which arrangement this Bill proposed to carry out. The hon. Member said there was no great pressure on the subject, and that it might be delayed till the next year. He could assure the hon. Member that there was very great pressure, as the mines were now remaining wholly unproductive, and besides there were scores of men who were anxious to purchase these rights or to settle disputed claims. He could also assure the hon. Member the rights of no single individual in the kingdom were affected by this Bill; it concerned the rights of the Crown and of the Duchy alone, and there was a saving clause most carefully drawn securing the rights of every person except those in dispute between the Crown or the Duchy. But then the hon. Member said that the Crown sacrificed its own rights. Now the Crown had given up no rights except such as Sir John Patteson declared it had no right to possess. The Consolidated Fund lost nothing, for, in fact, in consequence of these disputes, the mines in question had remained all along unproductive; but now those rights that had been awarded to the Crown would be made available, and their proceeds brought into the Consolidated Fund. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not offer further opposition to the Bill.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he thought the explanation of the Solicitor General was perfectly satisfactory, and he believed if the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out the promise he made on a former occasion with respect to it, that it would prove of great benefit to the county of Cornwall.
  Question, "That the words proposed to
  1754
  be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

JEWS' BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the House going into Committee, but he wished to made a few observations on the strange and anomalous position in which they found themselves. If the House of Lords were desirous of agreeing to the admission of Jews to Parliament, it would have been better if they had agreed to the Bill which that House had sent up to them. He had opposed the clause in that measure relating to the Jews, but he must say that if the question was to be conceded, he thought it could not have been done more satisfactorily than by the adoption of the courteous and conciliatory clause proposed by the noble Member for the City of London, and he regretted that that clause had not been accepted by their Lordships. Instead of that the House of Lords had sent down this queer odd measure—this sort of Irish compromise—in which one party conceded everything and the other gave up nothing; and which left everything as unsettled as ever. The House of Lords in fact said, we are as opposed as ever to the unchristianising of the Legislature, but if the House of Commons wish to do so they may; and they sent down to that House this Bill, and at the same time, which seemed to be the climax of absurdity, they sent down five excellent Reasons why the Bill should not be passed, and having done so they washed their hands of the whole business. It seemed to him that this was a position which was wholly untenable. He might as well give a latch key of his neighbour's door to a well-known burglar and point out the way to the plate chest, and think himself free from responsibility because he react him a holy homily on the heinousness of breaking the eighth commandment. He should be sorry to go before a British jury in the hope that he would not be considered an accessory before the fact. In his opinion, the House of Lords were in the position of accessories before the fact. When a foreign nobleman came to that table as a representative of the City of London, and took an un-Christian

1755
oath, the guilt and responsibility would rest upon the House of Lords. Of course with the consciences of the House of Lords he had nothing to do, but he objected to this Bill, that it settled nothing. The House would no doubt see Baron Rothschild take his seat this Session, but the Resolution which permitted him to do so would last only during the present Parliament. He was convinced that when another appeal was made to the country the question would all be unsettled again. It appeared to him that the House of Lords had only carried a hypothetical Jew Bill, and having abandoned the whole question of Christianity, it was idle to fight for a shadow. Supposing that Her Majesty should summon Baron Rothschild to a seat in the House of Lords, he would have sat in the House of Commons as the representative of the greatest city in the world, and he would go up to the bar of the other House with the patent of the sovereign in his hand; would any one tell him that the House of Lords could refuse to admit him? Would the free admission given to the choice of liverymen of London be refused to the choice of the sovereign? Suppose the House of Lords refused to admit Baron Rothschild, the only result would be a direct collision between the Crown and the other House—the thing of all others in the world most to be deprecated. He would say that if they conceded the whole principle that Members of that House might take the oaths at the table without the words "On the true faith of a Christian," the Bill did not go far enough in the cause of civil and religious liberty, for he did not see why, if Jews were admitted to sit in Parliament, Mahomedans should be excluded. They believed the whole of the Old Testament; and, more, although they denied the divinity of our Saviour, they believed him to be a good man and an inspired prophet; whereas the Jews believed him to be an impostor; so that if there was to be any distinction it ought to be made rather in favour of Mahomedans. He was opposed to all measures for admitting Jews to Parliament, but of all the measures with that object, that which had received the sanction of the Earl of Derby, the Prime Minister of England and the leader of the Conservative party, was in his opinion, the very worst that was ever submitted to the consideration of the House.
MR. GILPINsaid, that he had no
1756
doubt the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were shared by a large majority of that House. He regarded this Bill as a miserable compromise, and he only accepted it as the best that could be got, and as for the present answering the purpose of those who wished to admit the Jews to Parliament. Those who were desirous of admitting the Jews to Parliament advocated their claims as a question of principle, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed it as a question of principle, and now there was thrown among them, with an entire ignoring of principle, this miserable subterfuge, and he was not sure that it was creditable to any party to accept it. If he had not felt that there was something more than personal feeling, at stake, he should not have thought it worth while to accept it even rather than to get nothing. He was almost inclined to prefer to postpone this question to another Session, and fighting it out upon principle, instead of agreeing to this unsatisfactory mode of settling such a question. All that could be said was, that it was a little better than nothing.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) with respect to this Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this was the best Bill that could be got; and if so, considering the great majority by which it was carried in both Houses, bad was the best. As so little had been said on this measure—as they were about to un-Christianize the Legislature without discussion—he should like to ask one or two questions. Did the House recollect that this was no settlement of the question at all? Every time a Jew came to the table to take the oath there must be a new Resolution passed, and in every new Parliament the question must be revived. He was not urging this as an objection to the Bill, because he believed the result would be that before many years, when the people were fairly represented in this House, there would be a vote in this House against the Jews; but he would say that the present proceeding was neither satisfactory nor creditable to the House. They had heard a great deal of the determination of this House not to be dictated to by the House of Peers. But what was the position of this question now? The House of Peers told the House of Commons—"We re-

1757
tain all our objections to the admission of Jews to Parliament; we believe that they are not fit to sit in the council of the nation, and we will not admit them to our House; but if you, the House of Commons, choose to un-Christianize your benches, we wash our hands of the matter, and leave you to make the best of it." Was that a dignified position for this House to be placed in? What, on the other hand, was the position of the Jews themselves? The House of Lords told them—"We will not admit you to our House, but if the House of Commons choose to allow you to contaminate them"—[cries of "Oh!"]—he was merely giving expression to the sentiments which would seem to be conveyed in the proposition of the House of Lords, and not using language of his own—"if they choose to admit you, they may do so." Could anything be more insulting to the Jews; It was an aggravated insult both to the House of Commons and the Jews. What he objected to, and what he regretted, was the want of consistency and foresight of those in "another place" in thus dealing with this question. The argument which was urged in favour of that inconsistency was, that if the Jews were any longer excluded from Parliament, there would be a danger of a collision between the two branches of the Legislature. That, however, was an argument which, in his opinion, was absurd, as he did not believe that there was any such danger. He believed the House of Lords might have gone on for a century to come rejecting the claims of the Jews; and if they had persevered in that consistent course, not only would there have been no feeling in the country against them, but their views would have gained ground; for he believed that the feelings of the people were not represented in the House on this question, and that the feeling of the great majority was decidedly opposed to the admission of the Jews to a seat in Parliament. There was another point which he would not pretend to argue, but he looked on this proceeding as a gross infringement of the rights of the Crown, and he should like to hear that point argued by persons competent to deal with it. Another class of persons were unjustly dealt with by this measure, and a clause had been handed to him with a request to move it in Committee; and his only reason for not wishing to do so was, that he did not desire to mix himself up in a matter so little creditable to all con-
1758
cerned in it. Otherwise he believed that the clause would be accepted by those who were in favour of civil and religious liberty by acclamation. It proposed to give the same liberty to all classes, and it proposed to add to the first clause the following words:—"Be it further enacted, that the provisions of this Bill be extended to all Turks, heretics, and infidels of every grade." [Cries of "Move!"] As he had said, he was not prepared to move at all in such a discreditable matter as this, but he would be ready to vote for such a clause, as he contended that the House was bound in justice to include Turks and heretics, and infidels, in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to perceive, from the manner in which that sentiment was received, that the clause was likely to be so popular, and he should gladly place it in the hands of any of those hon. Members who cried "Hear, hear!" In conclusion, he would compliment the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the part he had played in this matter; and he only hoped the noble Lord's own reflections, and the part he would play in the eyes of posterity in relation to this question, would be as satisfactory as he could wish.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the House was placed in a most extraordinary position. They were asked to go into Committee on a Bill in favour of which no one had said a single word. On the contrary every one had condemned it. The noble Lord opposite said it was not his Bill, and only agreed to it because it carried out the object he had in view. What was that but saying that the "end justifies the means," and was that to go forth to the country as the principle on which that House acted. This measure was a great disgrace to the other branch of Parliament, and an insult to the House of Commons. The other House asked this House to agree to a measure every word of which they reprobated, and which was only accepted because it carried out the object in view. If the Jew came into Parliament he did so with the declaration of the House of Lords, that he was "morally unfit" to legislate for the country. It was strange that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not favoured the House with his views on the constitutional part of the question. The noble Lord ought not to have been silent on that point after the challenges he had received. He would ask the noble Lord whether it was constitutional for one House of Parliament to ignore the other? The House of Commons

1759
had not been consulted in the matter. It was dangerous for the two Houses to begin to act separately by Resolution; and no one knew where such a course was to end. He particularly wished to hear, and he hoped the noble Lord would state, whether according to his views of the constitution, they in that House by themselves and without the consent of the upper House and the Crown, could take on themselves to say who was to sit in that House. In Committee he should move an Amendment to the first clause, reserving to the Crown the right of "veto," and enacting that every Resolution of this nature should be submitted to the Crown for its sanction.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that at the request of the hon. Member, and for no other reason, he would state his view of the question to the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the House was now bound to proceed by a Resolution of its own and to seat Baron Rothschild or any other Jewish member without any authority of law. Now, if this Bill passed, the House of Commons would clearly be acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament which the House of Lords had already sanctioned, and to which they hoped the Crown would also assent. In the case of Mr. Pease there might be some doubt, but in this instance there could be none Whatever. It was not for him to defend the Bill of the House of Lords; but he did think the Earl of Derby, as the head of the Conservative party, was entitled to more respect than he seemed to receive from many Conservative Members in this House.
Motion made and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
The House divided—Ayes 144; Noes 40; Majority 104.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to ask whether the object of the Bill could not be accomplished by better means than those proposed in the Bill? In the early part of the Session they had followed what he thought was a bad precedent inasmuch as the Oaths Bill they had sent up to the Lords did not afford to Roman Catholics the same advantage which was intended for Jews. In 1849 he had proposed to make one form of oath, but was then met by the argument that it would be imprudent to mix up the Roman Catholic question with the Jewish question. As the Bill now stood, taken in conjunc-
1760
tion wih the Amended Oaths Bill, there must be a fresh Resolution for each person, whereas he thought that it would be preferable to have one general Act applicable to all cases. Any other course would be only giving a veto to that House, to admit favourite persons, and would not be carrying out the principle of religious liberty, for which they were contending. For they did not maintain that there was any great advantage in having five or six gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion in that House. If this was to be considered a bargain with the Lords, he should not ask the House to break it, for he was desirous to see the Jews in this House, though he would rather see them introduced in some other manner than that they should be smuggled in in this manner. But if there were no such bargain, he would suggest that they ought to make the Resolution one which should be applicable to all cases. In conclusion, he would suggest that the words referring to the Oaths Bill should be struck out, and that the noble Lord should not press the notice he had given in reference to the Lords' Amendments of that Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, with respect to the objection that the form of oath did not apply to Roman Catholics, he would remind the Committee that that House bad decided against such form as he wished to adopt. As to the necessity of a fresh Resolution being passed in each case, he did not at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the contrary, he believed that when any Jew came to the table to be sworn and declared he had a conscientious objection to the form of oath, it would be in the power of the House to declare that thenceforth every Jewish Member might take the oath without the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The words in the present Bill were framed upon the Oaths Bill as sent to the House of Lords, and if they were to be framed according to the Oath of Abjuration, objectionable terms relating to the Pretender must still be continued. He considered that the object they had in view would be attained by this Bill, and that any Jewish Member duly elected might come to the table and avail himself of the provisions of the Bill.
MR. WILSONremarked that the Bill was not in the same state as when it passed the second reading in the House of Lords. In the original Bill the words were:—

1761
"That if any person professing the Jewish religion shall have a conscientious objection to take the Oath of Abjuration in the terms required."
On the third reading, for the purpose of compelling this House to accept another Bill, which it had already refused, and which it could not accept without assenting to reasons which were inconsistent with the step which it was now taking, these words were substituted:—
"Objection to taking the Oath which by an Act passed, or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been or may be substituted for the Oath of Allegiance."
He did not think that the course which the noble Lord now proposed to adopt would get rid of the difficulty, because, if they accepted a Bill which they had once rejected, they would make themselves parties to the Reasons which were given for its acceptance; and he should be quite prepared to vote for any Amendment which would restore this measure to the shape in which it stood when it was read a second time by the House of Lords.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that as the Bill originally stood it provided that a person professing the Jewish religion might omit the words "and I make this declaration on the true faith of a Christian." It was truly observed that these were not the words contained in the Oath of Abjuration as sent up from this House, those words being "I make this acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian." To remedy that inconsistency the House of Lords might either have put in the words which actually were in the Oath of Abjuration or have referred to the Bill. They adopted the latter alternative, and as that oath had been adopted by this House after considerable discussion, and he thought that any question as to its simplification might well be deferred, he could not admit any such Amendment as that suggested by his hon. Friend.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he moved a Proviso at the end of the first clause. If this Act passed, a Resolution of one House of the Legislature might in future become law without being liable to the veto of the Crown. He admitted that the Crown might give its veto to the Bill, but if that were not done, the power of placing a veto upon a Resolution of that House would be gone. The present appeared to him to be a most unconstitutional proceeding; and he hoped that some of those who
1762
had the constitutional duty and privilege of advising the Crown would point out to Her Majesty the danger of such a principle as that which this clause laid down. As a protest, he would move the insertion of the following proviso, at the end of the clause, without, of course, under existing circumstances, any expectation of its being adopted:—
"Provided always, that such Resolution shall not be acted upon until the consent of the Crown be signified to both Houses of Parliament."
Proviso negatived.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he wished to give notice that upon the Report he should call attention to the fact that the provisions contained in this measure were made dependent upon the passing of another Bill.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose, not to trouble the House with any formal Motion, but to state some objections to the structure of the Bill, and upon a matter of principle to which he attached great importance. This measure constituted a Royal Government in New Caledonia without free institutions, and then provided that at a future period Her Majesty might, if she thought fit, establish such institutions in the colony. There were two opposite ideas as to the proper mode of founding colonies from this country, one of which was true and the other false. The true mode was that which was historically the oldest. It was that upon which our earliest colonies were established, and which was only abandoned when exceptional circumstances began to mark the origin of our Colonies—when they were founded for the purpose of receiving, not free colonists, but convicts. It was natural enough that in such colonies there should be an absolute Government; but, unfortunately, having taken to this defective principle in deference to necessity, we extended it to cases in which it had no application, and, instead of limiting it to penal colonies, made it a model and founded all our Colonies upon that rule.

  1763
  Hence grew up a miserable spawn of most mischievous opinions with regard to our colonial policy generally. The opinion prevailed that as it was natural, or at least useful, for a child to be carried in the arms of a nurse for twelve months, so it was natural for a colony to be dandled for a term of years in the arms of the Imperial Government, in order that it might, by a process which was called education, be fitted for freedom; the fact being, on the contrary, that the longer you applied a government of that sort to a society of free men the more you unfitted them for freedom. He had hoped that the controversies of the last twenty-five years, and the Bill passed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty in 1852 for the government of New Zealand, had exploded these fallacies; and he was sanguine enough to believe that the next time we dealt with a colony of free settlers by Act of Parliament we should, like our ancestors in the seventeenth and even in the eighteenth century, recognize it as a free and self-governing society. He regretted that in this instance that mode of procedure had been departed from, and that this Bill began by establishing a society which was not free, and then provided that at a future period free institutions might, if it was thought fit, be introduced into it. He wished the Government could be prevailed upon to embody in this Bill the principle that we were about to establish a free society. It might be said that in this colony of New Caledonia we should have a mixed and promiscuous population, of irregular habits, uncertain objects, and various origin, and that on that account it would not be right that the colony should be founded with free institutions at the outset. He was sceptical with regard to the gist of that argument, because he was afraid that if it was difficult to maintain the public peace in this new colony, if there was likely to be a considerable charge attending its foundation, the evils would be greatly aggravated by placing the responsibility in the hands of the Executive Government, especially when we considered the enormous distance at which they were to wield their powers. At the same time he was prepared to repose confidence in the Executive Government upon that subject, and to throw upon them the responsibility of suspending, if they thought fit, the establishment of free institutions. But he wanted that that should be done in deference to a distinct necessity, of which the Executive Govern-
  1764
  ment were to be constituted the judges, and with respect to which Parliament should hold them responsible, and require them hereafter to show for every year and every month during which free institutions were not established that there was an absolute necessity for postponing them strictly connected with the exceptional circumstances of the colony itself. If, therefore, the Government had chosen to frame their Bill in such a way that it should begin with the establishment of free institutions in principle, and should then grant to the Crown a special discretion, strictly limited to peculiar circumstances and a sufficient cause, of suspending their action, he, for one, would not have objected; but that was not a course which had been adopted. Anybody who read this Bill, knowing nothing of our colonial history, would suppose that it really expressed our normal ideas with respect to the foundation of a colony, and that our notion was that a colony should be founded as a community unfit for freedom. Moreover, the power given to Her Majesty to establish free institutions was expressed in a manner so vague that it did not imply any special duty in the Crown or the Minister to give an early development to freedom. He could not help expressing regret at the form in which this Bill had been conceived and framed. Although for a length of time we had been steadily advancing with regard to our colonial policy, and although the public mind at home had arrived at something like a general settlement as to the true principles by which it ought to be regulated, new, when an Act of Parliament was to be passed recording our present ideas, it was one which, instead of carrying them forward, actually appeared to carry them backward.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he fully agreed in the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that the practice of allowing a colony to start with free institutions and grow up with them was the best means of insuring its prosperity. When in office he had acted on that principle in the case of Vancouver's Island. There was at that time so small a population that free institutions were but a name, but he thought that as population increased that name would become a reality. It was doubtless not necessary to remind the right hon. Gentleman that an Act of Parliament was not necessary for the establishment of free institutions in our Colonies. By the common

  1765
  law of England, an Englishman carried the constitution with him everywhere, and the constitution existed in every colony. The three estates were represented—the Crown by the governor, the Commons by an elective body, and the Lords by a nominated council, and that form of government he believed to be the best. But really, under circumstances so very peculiar as those of the colony of New Caledonia, they must not shut their eyes to the dangers that would arise from giving free institutions at once. The main attraction was the gold, which was about 300 miles from the coast. The population, which would there be established at a distance from all communication, would be the outpourings of California itself, not a very regular society. Not long ago free institutions had to be suspended in California, and it was only by a sort of Lynch law that any sort of order was maintained. There was also great danger of conflicts with Indian tribes, which were used to find their rights respected, and the settlers would not be of a class likely to respect those rights. The colonial government of England had been often blamed, but most unjustly, for he questioned if any other country in the world ever had a better system. In the colony of Victoria, peace and order prevailed, whereas, in California, under a Republican form of Government, the Executive was almost powerless and in such a state that Lynch law had to be established. A comparison, therefore, between that State and Victoria, where, under our more liberal system, there was very little disturbance, and that little speedily quelled, they would afford a strong argument in favour of our old-fashioned colonial institutions. With regard to the frame of the Bill itself, he thought great credit was due to the Government. They had provided wisely for times of emergency and he should feel it his duty to give them his support. He wished, however, to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the third clause, which purported to give Her Majesty in Council power to establish any constitution which she might think fit in New Caledonia. Now it was one thing to give the Queen, under special circumstances, power to establish something like an arbitrary government there; it was altogether another thing to give the Queen in Council power to establish any constitution she might think fit. As he read the clause it appeared to give the Queen in Council power to establish institutions, which should be
  1766
  permanent institutions, for the colony, by order in Council, without coming to this House. That, he thought, would be most objectionable. He thought it ought to be either the old constitutional form, or one which should be submitted to Parliament and approved by them.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought that a mistaken notion was entertained respecting the peculiar power of the Crown. The Crown had authority by charter to give what power it pleased with respect to government, so that, in fact, the Crown, without the aid of any Act of Parliament, could give any institutions it pleased to the colony. That could be shown by past history. He might take the cases of Maryland and Rhode Island, in the latter of which there was one Council, and in the other two Councils, while in Carolina a complicated system of government laid down by Locke was established by charter, but afterwards abandoned. The present Bill would expire in four years, and therefore the Colonial Secretary would be bound to provide for the expiration of the Bill. It was probable that by that time New Caledonia would contain a large population. In 1849 he proposed to frame a Bill with the view of laying down general principles as a guidance in respect to colonial government. That proposition was rejected by the House, but he thought that they would have done well to lay down some general principles beforehand. In the present Bill there was nothing that might not be done without it, and he therefore thought that the House was spending time to no purpose in discussing it. The Bill stated that certain institutions might be given to the colony, but he conceived that it would have been better to make it imperative that at the end of three years representative institutions should be given, so that nothing might be left to the Colonial Office. Not having done that, the Bill did nothing. It would be much better to give the colony free institutions to-morrow than to leave a doubt as to when it should have them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was under a mistake when he drew a comparison between California and Victoria. California had a peculiar population drawn from all parts of the world. The whole ragamuffin population of the whole universe went there; and, notwithstanding that, if the right hon. Gentleman turned his attention to the constitution they drew up for themselves he would be struck with its great wisdom. It was a model constitu-

  1767
  tion, and the only difficulty consisted in the population. There would be the same population in New Caledonia,—quite as bad, if not worse,—and he would warn the Government to be prepared with a stringent force to coerce the population there, and then to be prepared, also, with a constitution for their government.
  SIR BULWER LYTTONsaid, that whatever fell from the right hon. Member for Oxford University was deserving of consideration, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of expressing his views on this subject. It would, however, have been a fairer course to have done so on the second reading of the Bill, or at any rate to have given an earlier intimation of the important alteration he had suggested, for the present was not an optional experiment in colonial legislation. The intelligence received from the colony of New Caledonia was such as to leave the Ministry no choice but to endeavour to establish, as soon as possible, a Government for a district which was threatened with great danger, and which, up to this moment, had no legal Government at all. The necessity for this measure manifested itself in a few days after he acceded to office; and his anxious desire, seeing the great perils which surrounded the district, had been to frame a measure that should pass as rapidly as possible, and conciliate all opposition. Well, the Bill he brought in was supported by hon. Gentlemen of great weight in the House, who had taken much interest in the foundation of the colony. It went through a first reading with the general approval of all the hon. Gentlemen who spoke; passed a second reading with equal unanimity; in Committee received one or two verbal alterations only; and would have been read a third time had it not been recommitted to allow the right hon. Gentleman to express his opinion upon this clause. After the Bill had gone through so many of its stages with indulgent favour, the House could hardly go back and accept a proposition that would entirely change its complexion and character, and reverse the provisions which had been so unanimously agreed to. Their first object must necessarily be to give all the power they could to the only authority at present in the colony—the Governor; but if he were to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, the consequences would be that the Governor would not have the same power that he had under this Bill. Con-
  1768
  sidering the great uncertainty which prevailed with regard to this colony, the next consideration was to make the Bill as pliant as possible to meet all the necessities of circumstances which we could not perceive. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) objected to the third clause. Now, it certainly was the object of the Government that the colony should receive representative institutions within four years, if there were materials for creating them in the colony. Supposing, however, a settled population were rapidly formed, the Government might then be advised to constitute an elective chamber or council, and by Order in Council it could at once be established. He felt the force of what the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said with respect to the importance of maintaining a snfficient military force in New Caledonia, but that force must necessarily be to some extent limited by the accommodation and the provisions which could be procured for the troops, and under such circumstances he thought it was of more importance that that force should be efficient than that it should be large. He should have some observatious to make on this subject at a subsequent period, but he hoped that as the Bill had been so far favourably received, the House would give a further assent to the measure by allowing it to pass through Committee.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, an hon. Gentleman had asked the other night what the colony would cost. In his opinion it ought to cost nothing, and he believed that if certain portions of the colony were surveyed, if a site were selected for a town near the gold diggings, if town and country lots were planned, and if they were offered for sale in London, a sufficient amount would speedily be obtained for the maintenance of the colony.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  In reply to a question from Mr. BUTT,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill provided that the laws established by the authority of the Queen should continue in force for a period of four years; but if free institutions were established, it would be in the power of the colonial assembly to alter, amend, or abrogate any laws which might have been established by the Royal authority.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3,
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to know whether he understood this clause

  1769
  aright, that it gave to the Crown the power of establishing any constitution it might think proper without the sanction of Parliament. If so, he thought it was a novelty and one of a very unconstitutional kind. He quite understood and approved of the arbitrary Government, if he might so call it, which this Bill established in the first instance, but the Crown could establish no other. By the common law every Englishman carried with him to the most distant colonies the representation of our own constitution, and nothing short of that could be established except under the authority of Parliament. He thought the clause should be struck out.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreminded the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill established in the first instance, as he said, an arbitrary Government, and what this clause contemplated was an abrogation or relaxation of those arbitrary powers. But the short answer was, that all that was done under this Act would be liable to be revised and reconsidered when it came to expire four years hence.
  MR. ROEBUCKcontended that, supposing this clause were struck out, the Queen would still have the power to give a constitution by charter, and without coming to Parliament, and in proof he referred to the constitution of Rhode Island, which was constituted by Charles II, with only one legislative chamber. He was not aware that either Act of Parliament or custom had since taken away the right of the Crown, which had been exercised so lately as the settlement of the colony of Georgia, the last of the American colonies that was planted by this country.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understood to say, that the Crown certainly might grant a charter and appoint a Governor and Council, but the power of taxation should come from the people to be in accordance with the constitution of this country. After four years, if necessary, Government might come to Parliament to establish any other constitution which the Governor and Assembly might agree to recommend.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was quite impossible, after the expiration of four years, to establish a constitution under this Act, as powers were given only during the continuance of the Act, the Crown could grant any form of government which it thought fit by charter, but it could not grant the power of taxation by charter. This Bill was framed upon the Acts relat-
  1770
  ing to West Australia and other colonies, in which, under the same words, the right of taxation was conferred. It was one of the reasons why the Government came to Parliament; but there was another reason which seemed to have been overlooked by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—namely, that at present Canada possessed certain jurisdiction which would clash with the jurisdiction given by this Bill.
  Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.

CIVIL BILLS, ETC. (IRELAND), ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, the effect of which was to prevent assistant barristers being removed by an Order in Council. Superior Judges could be only removed by an Address from both Houses of Parliament, and he proposed to place the inferior Judges in the same position.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment was out of order. They were dealing not with the superior Judges, but the assistant barristers.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would, of course, take the law from the Chairman.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to know what was meant by the words "permanent infirmity."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Act provided a retiring allowance to assistant barristers in the case of permanent infirmity; and the meaning of these words was incapacity to discharge the duties of the office personally. The phrase occurred in an existing Act; but he would alter the clause, so as to give the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incompetent to perform his duties on account of a permanent infirmity; and to make the Lord Lieutenant in Council, after hearing counsel for the barrister, to decide on the question of his removal.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that he still feared that there might be vague and uncertain

  1771
  decisions, under the clause, of what constituted permanent infirmity.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the definition was well understood, and that no difficulty would arise.
  MR. P. O'BRIENobserved, that he preferred the constitutional remedy of removal by an Address.
  MR. BUTTremarked, that it was much more humane to the individual for the Lord Chancellor to certify that an assistant barrister was incapacitated by permanent infirmity, than that his physical and mental incapacity should be brought before both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, the penalty held over the head of the assistant barrister was, after all, not a very terrible one. At the worst a man could only be sent into retirement with two-thirds of his salary.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the Bill only gave the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incapable of performing his duties, and the Privy Council was then empowered to take steps for the removal of the individual in question. Now, there might be an unscrupulous Lord Chancellor in Ireland, and as the Privy Council was summoned at will by the Government of the day, there was no sufficient provision for the independence of the Judge. He did not think, therefore, that this was a tribunal that Would conciliate the confidence of the public.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved, that the case put was worthy of consideration. He had no objection, in such a case, that the clause should be so amended as to require that on such an occasion all the members of the Privy Council should be summoned.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, as the opinion of the people of Ireland was opposed to this change, he hoped that this provision would not be insisted upon. At present, no Bill was necessary to remove incapable Judges, as the Government already possessed the power to do so.
  MR. COGANsaw no reason why this power of removal should not be extended, so as to include the superior Judges. He wished to have an instruction given to the Committee to that effect. And in order to effect his object, he moved that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that such an instruction could not be given to the Committee.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the Government
  1772
  ought to be satisfied with carrying the Bill with one clause; and in a short time there would be no danger of having incapable men sitting upon the bench in Ireland. Give a man the certainty of retiring with two-thirds of his salary, and there would be no danger of any man in a state of infirmity remaining on the bench.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he regarded the office of assistant barrister as altogether an anomaly, and on that ground he was wholly opposed to the Bill, as well as for the reason that the House was increasing the pensions of the old and effete as a bribe to get rid of them.
  SIR, WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the clause, as he believed that there was scarcely a single argument having reference to the assistant barristers which had not equal reference to the Judges.
  Motion for reporting progress negatived.
  MR. COGANsaid, he would move an Amendment to the effect that seven days' notice of meeting should be given to the members of the Privy Council.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 98; Noes 50: Majority 48.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 struck out.
  The House resumed.
  MR. COGANproposed a clause to allow the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments from barristers of seven years' standing, instead of ten years. This would assimilate the law to that of England.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the Government could not accept the clause.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDadvised that the clause should be withdrawn and brought up again on the Report.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, that on the bringing up of the Report he should move the recommittal of the Bill, in order that it might be extended to the Judges of the Superior Courts.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

POLICE FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.

  WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for resuming adjourned debate [8th July] read.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to ask for the production of the correspond-

  1773
  ence affecting the character of Mr. M. O'Ferrall
  LORD NAASsaid, he was surprised to hear that it was supposed that any aspersion was ever cast, or intended to be cast, on Mr. O'Ferrall. Had there been any imputation upon that Gentleman, there would be no objection to the production of the correspondence, but as none had ever been made or intended, it would serve no purpose to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to give notice that early next Session he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Dublin police force.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL—CONSIDERATION.
Order for consideration read.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether there would be any objection to extend the exemption from toll now accorded to foot passengers on Sunday to Easter Monday and Whit Monday?
LORD JOHN MANNERShad no objection to the proposition.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3oTo-morrow.
House adjourned at half-after Two o'clock.