Commons Sitting of 27 January 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Highways; Probate and Administration (India); Municipal Corporation Mortgages, & c.; Saint Mary in Rydal Marriages Validity; Newspapers, & c.; Roman Catholic Charities.
ATTEMPTED MURDER IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. It was stated in The Times of that day that a Mr. Dunne had been murdered at Tullamore, the county town of King's County, where there was a stipendiary magistrate, an inspector of police, and strong constabulary force; that he was fired at about ten o'clock at night, and that, notwithstanding the large force of Government officials there, they had no knowledge of the outrage until the morning after its commission. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend if he knew whether that statement was correct; and, if he did not know, whether he would direct inquiry to be made into the matter?
  MR. CARDWELL: I am happy to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the person who was fired at is still living; that he has identified the person who fired the shot, and that that person has been arrested and committed for trial.

AUSTRALIAN MAILS.—QUESTION.
LORD A. CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the annual subsidy granted to the Egyptian Government for the transit of the monthly mail to and from Australia; and what is the anticipated increase to the Post-office revenue consequent upon the additional penny charged upon all newspapers sent by way of Southampton and Suez to the Australian colonies; and also, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in deference to the expressed wish of the Australian colonies, to relax the recent impost of an additional penny upon news-papers?
MR. LAINGsaid, that the amount paid to the Egyptian Government for the transit of the postal service across Egypt, was £12,000 a year, but that included the charge for the Indian as well as the Australian mails. It was impossible to distinguish the exact amount paid for the Australian service alone. It was difficult also to give any precise estimate of the revenue which might be received from Australian newspapers; but as nearly as he could get at it, the additional penny on newspapers to Australia might be roughly taken as likely to contribute £5,000 a year. With regard to the latter part of the question, the determination to impose the additional penny was taken by the late Government, and it was not the intention of the present Government to propose any alteration. On the contrary, seeing that this country paid £70,000 a year for the conveyance of the Australian mails, and that newspapers were conveyed by the same vessels 12,000 miles across the ocean, including the delivery, for one penny, he thought the additional penny to meet the charge imposed by the Egyptian Government was by no means extravagant.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had to ask the President of the Board of Trade Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure during the present Session founded on the Report of the Committee on Railway Accidents which was laid on the table of the House in the year 1858?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Report to which the hon. Member referred had been carefully considered. It no doubt contained many useful suggestions for the prevention of railway accidents; but with re-

221
gard to that part of the Report in which the Board of Trade was specially concerned—namely, the recommendation that Parliament should be asked to confer additional powers on the Board of Trade for the investigation of railway accidents, he might state that they had not found railway companies at all backward in affording facilities for investigating such accidents, and therefore it was not thought necessary to ask Parliament for any increased powers to the Board of Trade for that purpose. There was accordingly no intention at present on the part of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject.

DELHI AND LUCKNOW PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any and what steps have been taken towards effecting the payment of the prize money due to the troops engaged in the capture of Delhi and Lucknow, and when it is probable that the money will be forthcoming?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, with regard to the Delhi prize money they had not yet received from the Indian Government a statement of what the amount would be. A question had been raised, as to certain property which had been taken, whether it legitimately came under the description of prize money or not. Till that was settled the Indian Government were unable to tell what was the amount of prize money to be distributed. As soon as this was known, however, the necessary measures would he taken for declaring the prize. With regard to Lucknow, information had very lately been received of the amount of prize money captured there, and formal measures were now in progress for making the usual application to Her Majesty.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he could say when it is the intention of the Government to introduce their promised measure for a more equitable adjustment of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDreplied that he was not able to specify the day on which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland would ask for leave to introduce this
222
Bill; but as he knew that his hon. and learned Friend felt considerable interest in the subject, it would be gratifying to him to learn that the Government plan on the subject was matured, and his right hon. Friend proposed to take the opportunity of bringing in the necessary Bills some time before the approaching assizes.

PROMISSORY NOTES IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has under his consideration any plans or proposals for authorizing and regulating, by means of a bank or otherwise, the issue of promissory notes payable on demand in India?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the question was one which had been for some time discussed in India, and last year a despatch was received from thence making some suggestiens on the subject. Those suggestions, however, were not exactly such as he could approve of, and before adopting any measure of the kind it was determined that nothing should be done till a report is received from Mr. Wilson, than whom no one is more conversant with the subject, and who has recently been sent to India for the purpose of giving his able assistance in all financial and commercial matters. He could not, therefore, say that he was prepared with any measure for the purpose of establishing a paper currency in India, although he readily admitted that it was exceedingly desirable to do so.
  On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next:—

FRENCH TROOPS IN LEGHORN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in a French paper, that 30,000 French troops are expected at Leghorn, and whether he has reason to believe that the French Government has any intention of taking any such step for the purpose of preventing the annexation of the provinces of Central Italy to Sardinia, which their constitutional representatives have voted as their final determination? The statement to which he referred appeared in The Salut Public of Lyons, a French paper of good repute, and it had received corroboration by many

  223
  circumstances that had occurred. First of all, the other French journals had been desired not to copy the paragraph. This was an exercise of power on the part of the French Government which they were very much in the practice of resorting to, and in his opinion it was extremely significant. It was clear from that fact that the French Government were aware of the existence of the rumour, and that they were desirous of suppressing it. Another significant circumstance was, that a number of English newspapers which contained the statement—The Morning Herald, Daily News, Globe, and others—had been seized and confiscated by the French Government. Again, an ordinance of the Minister of War appeared on the 23rd of January, in the Moniteur de l'Armée, the official organ of the Government on military matters, giving orders which would enable the equipment of the army to be provided immediately upon the occurrence of any emergency. Not less than 100,000 uniforms were to be kept in store, and regimental arrangements were to be made by which 60,000 uniforms would be made in a month. The Moniteur de l' Armée said,—
  "The result during peace will be in reality an excellent investment. Rumours of war and war itself may then arise; it will no longer be necessary to apply for extraordinary credits, and thus uncover one's game, when it is requisite that the greatest secrecy should surround the first preparations. Europe has not beheld without astonishment the rapidity with which the French army passes from the peace to the war footing. It has been decided to apply this principle to the regimental workmen, who will be able in case of need to turn out 80,000 uniforms per month."
  A letter from the private correspondent of an English paper also stated:—
  "I am able to confirm in every point the important news I sent you yesterday respecting a portion of the Imperial Guard having received its campaign equipment. The regiments at Versailles are ready to march at four hours' notice. The officers are puzzled, but, of course, anticipate Italy."
  Taken in connection with the rumour in question, these changes were sufficiently significant and were sufficient to justify the first part of his Question. If he were asked what justified the second part of his Question, and the imputation of the intentions there mentioned to the French Government, it might be sufficient in reply to review the proceedings of that Government since the House last met. On the 11th of July the treaty of Villafranca was signed, which contained that sagacious
  224
  project of a confederation of Italy under the presidency of the Pope. That plan had been brought forward on many occasions, and whether it was even now abandoned might almost seem doubtful. At any rate it was entertained up till a very recent period. But the second, the most important feature of the treaty of Villafranca was, that the two emperors, who had just terminated a sanguinary war, entered into a deliberate engagement to restore the Grand Dukes to their possessions in Italy. This certainly justified Austria in the expectation that their forces were to be employed in obtaining the restoration. On the 22nd of July a question was put to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in that House as to the intentions of the French Government. The noble Lord gave a satisfactory answer to that question on the part of the French Government. The engagement then given, which was the only cable that had held firm amid all the changes that had taken place, was, that no interference by force of arms in the internal affairs of Italy would receive the sanction of the English Government, or would be attempted by the Emperor of the French. He must in honour declare that the French Government, and particularly the remarkable man at the head of that Government, had faithfully observed that pledge. While, however, there had been no armed interference in Italy, every endeavour had been made to turn the flank of that engagement, so to speak, and to induce the populations of Central Italy to accept some other solution of the difficulty than that which they proclaimed to be their deliberate election. M. Pietri was despatched to Italy, and after him Prince Poniatowski, and deputations were received by the Emperor of the French from the Italian populations. On the 10th of September a remarkable document came out in the Moniteur, to the publisher of which it was sent direct from St. Saviour. The concluding paragraph was as follows;—"But let not Italy be deceived. There is but one Power in Europe that wages war for an idea. That Power is France, and France has accomplished her task." On the 9th of September the Constitutionnel, a semi-official organ of the French Government, scolded The Times for being adverse to the claims of Prince Napoleon, but shortly afterwards the Moniteur rebuked the supposition that the French Government desired to see Prince Napoleon King of Etruria and Central Italy

  225
  in these words: "To refute these rumours it suffices to remind the public of the acts and words of the Emperor before and after the treaty of Villafranca." On the 28th of September, Lord John Russell made his speech at Aberdeen, in which, if correctly reported, he laid down the proposition, which appeared to him (Mr. Griffith) of rather too broad a character, that subjects had a right to rise against their rulers, and also repeated his pledge that no interference would be permitted in Italy to contravene the wishes of the people of that country. The Constilutionnel of the 6th of October affirmed that "France offered advice, but would not dictate orders." On the 17th of October the treaty of Zurich was signed. A few days afterwards the Emperor of the French said at Bordeaux, that in his opinion "the temporal power of the Pope was not incompatible with the liberties and independence of Italy," an opinion which he had apparently since had occasion very considerably to modify. The Emperor added, "But French troops cannot remain indefinitely at Rome." On the 29th of October appeared the letter from the Emperor of the French to the King of Sardinia, in which a proposition was made whereby the fortresses of Peschiera and Mantua were to be federal fortresses, although he had never heard that Austria had assented to that arrangement. The Emperor went on to say,—"So far as the interests of France are not opposed to it, I shall be happy to serve the cause for which we have combated together." The Emperor thus acknowledged that the cause for which they had combated together might be adverse to the interests of France. On the 10th of November Prince Carignan was elected Regent. That election was peremptorily stopped by an order from Paris, and the Moniteur of the 12th of November set forth that the election of the Prince tended to prejudge the decision of the Congress. On the loth, Buoncompagni was substituted malgre France. On the 29th of November the invitations to the Congress were sent out, which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) thought it well for his own part not to refuse, He did not entend to question that decision. He was opposed upon principle to a Congress to settle the affairs of Italy, which ought to be allowed to work out her own freedom without being indebted to any other Power. When, however, the noble Lord was told that if he obstinately refused to give the Italians the benefit of his protest against
  226
  interference the Congress would go on without him, the noble Lord perhaps had no resource but to accept the invitation; and if he had been in the noble Lord's situation he should, no doubt, have done the same thing. On the 13th of December, Rome and Naples gave in their adhesions to the Congress. On the 22nd of December appeared that most remarkable pamphlet, Le Pape et le Congres, bearing all the marks of official inspiration, advocating the separation of the Provinces of the Legation from the Holy See, and enunciating principles very dissimilar to those contained in the Emperor's speech of the 11th of October. Immediately after that Count Cavour was appointed to represent Sardinia in the Congress; and on the 31st of December was published the letter of the Emperor to the Pope, which fully confirmed the supposition that the pamphlet on the Congress had expressed his views. The Pope did not hesitate to denounce the pamphlet as a "signal monument of hypocrisy and an ignoble tissue of contradictions." Count Walewski resigned, and the Congress was postponed. On the 17th of January the Pope refused to cede the Romagna, and on the same day Count Cavour had been reinstalled as the Minister of Sardinia. The policy of that statesman was notoriously at variance with that of the Holy See; all prospect was therefore at an end of establishing an Italian Confederation under the presidency of the Pope. To show the uncertainty that prevailed in the councils of the Emperor, he might mention that only the day before yesterday he had received deputations from the Marches and Umbria, and gave thereby his apparent adhesion to the policy of taking away other Provinces besides the Legations of the Romagna from the Holy See. With these facts before them, he thought that was sufficient justification for anxiety as to the intentions of the French Government, and he was confident the House would see how desirable it was that Italy should be relieved from the uncertainty of the last five or six months, and that the Emperor of the French, if really bent upon conducting himself as the Liberator of Italy, should carry out the principle of non-intervention and at once withdraw his troops from Italy. There would then be an end to the apprehensions which now prevailed that Leghorn was to be occupied by French troops, like Milan and Genoa, and that England, unwilling to resort to war, would find remonstrance ineffectual before the fact of actual possession.

CASE OF THOMAS SMETHURST.

  APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES—QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would not detain the House many minutes, while he directed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of the Home Department to one or two facts connected with the case of Thomas Smethurst, who, it would be in the recollection of the House, was tried for and convicted of the crime of murder in the course of last year, and subsequently pardoned by the Crown. He was sure he need not apologise to the House for bringing it forward on account of the deep importance of the case, and the serious way in which it was calculated to affect the criminal jurisdiction of the country. In the few remarks he was about to make he begged to say that he had not the slightest desire to cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on account of the pardon which he had advised Her Majesty to grant to Thomas Smethurst, in which he believed the right hon. Gentleman was actuated not only by motives of humanity, but by those of the strictest and most impartial justice. But he wished the House to consider what would be the effect of this anomalous system of reversing a sentence, after a public trial, on private and ex parte evidence, which the public had no opportunity of knowing, and on which the verdicts of juries were reversed without the public or the jury knowing on what grounds they were reversed. If these proceedings were allowed to go on, and no public court of appeal were established, juries would become careless and indifferent as to the verdicts they gave, and the mode in which they discharged that most anxious duty of coining to a decision in trials for murder. For those simple reasons he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to one or two facts which occurred after the trial of Thomas Smethurst. These facts were simple. On the 15th of August Thomas Smethurst was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to be executed. The trial was conducted before the Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, one of the most humane Judges who ever adorned the bench, and from the range of his attainments singularly well qualified to deal with a case which depended very much upon a close scrutiny and careful analysis of the medical testimony. After the conviction, however, the attention of the country and of the press
  228
  was directed to serious doubts that were raised as its propriety, and representations were made to the Secretary of State on the subject, the result of which was that, at his request, as he (Mr. James) collected from letters in the newspapers, a most able and elaborate report was drawn up by the Judge who presided at the trial, containing probably an expression of his opinion of the case. Various statements by other parties with regard to the case were made to the Home Secretary, and on the 15th of November there appeared in The Times a letter from the right hon. Baronet who held that office to the Chief Baron, which, he had authority to say, was not sent for publication by his Lordship. The letter of the Home Secretary was to the effect that the Chief Baron's report upon the trial, together with the whole of the medical evidence, had been referred to Sir Benjamin Brodie, who had given it as his opinion that, though the facts were full of grave suspicion against Smethurst, there was not absolute evidence of his guilt; but that his (the Home Secretary's) advice to Her Majesty to grant a free pardon to the convict did not arise from any defect in the constitution and procedure of the legal tribunals, but from the difficulty of ordinary citizens dealing with matters which puzzled the most experienced medical men. The jury who had given their anxious attention to the subject during the five days of the trial thus found their verdict set at nought; but though the evidence upon which the jury arrived at that decision had been fully published, neither the report of the Lord Chief Baron nor the report of Sir Benjamin Brodie had ever been revealed. In point of fact, the public had had no opportunity of judging of the medical testimony upon which the verdict of the jury had been reversed and the convict pardoned. In making these observations he was not blaming the Home Secretary, who, under the existing system, could hardly have done otherwise than he did; but he felt that the responsibility of acting under such circumstances was too great to be thrown on any single individual; and he hoped to prevail upon the right hon. Baronet to introduce some measure for the purpose of removing so great an anomaly. He was far from wishing to trench on the prerogatives of the Crown in the right of granting pardon. That prerogative might well consist with the existence of a criminal court of appeal, because there might still be good reason to preserve to the Crown the right of granting

  229
  pardon on evidence which would not be admissible by a court of law, on a motion for a new trial. He thought the question was one well deserving the attention of the House and of the Government, and he would press it upon the Government that if they were not themselves prepared with any measure on the subject, they might at least accede to some rational and well-considered measure proposed by others for some court of appeal where pardons might be granted in such a way as would make patent to all the grounds on which the sentences were pronounced. In conclusion then he wished to ask, whether the Government contemplate the introduction of any Measure to give the Right of Appeal to persons convicted of capital and other crimes?

OUTRAGES IN AMERICAN SHIPS ON THE HIGH SEAS.—QUESTION.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office would not be surprised at his rising to ask him what effect had been given to the Address presented by this House to Her Majesty in August last, in respect to the cruelties and murders committed with impunity on board American ships engaged in the traffic between the United States and this country. He would ask the House to allow him to state one or two additional facts which had occurred since this Address was presented. The picture, he regretted to say, had been considerably darkened since that time, and acts of gross and cruel murder had been added to the catalogue of crime. A few days after the Address was presented an American sailor, named Antonio, died in the Liverpool Hospital from the effects of the cruel treatment he had received. An inquest was held on the body, when a solicitor appeared on the part of the American Government, who denied altogether the jurisdiction of the court, and stated, not without considerable acuteness, that it was an American transaction, committed on board an American ship, and with which nobody but Americans had anything to do. If, he added, he had died on board, the case might have been one of murder or of manslaughter; it would have been a case for American jurisdiction. But as he had died in Liverpool in consequence of injuries inflicted in the course of the voyage, the jury could find no other verdict but "Found dead," and that verdict was returned accordingly. There were other cases with which he
230
would not trouble the House, but he must advert to the case which was probably fresh in all their recollections, as it occurred only on the 14th of the present month. Two American mates of the barque Anna were brought before the magistrates of the Isle of Wight on a charge of having done to death no less than six sailors in the course of a voyage between America and England; for having put to death, under circumstances of great cruelty and violence, the half of the whole crew of the vessel. With the two men there appeared before the bench of magistrates a solicitor of the name of Stokes, who represented himself as an agent of the American Government, and who questioned the jurisdiction of the Bench. He claimed these men as American subjects, with whom the British magistrates had nothing to do; that the murders which were alleged to have been committed were done on the high seas, the only death on which a question could arise having occurred more than a league from the British coast. The magistrates had been blamed, but he thought very unjustly, for discharging the prisoners; but in point of fact they had no jurisdiction. It was wrong to say that the mates were guilty of the horrible crimes charged against them, but it was a very significant fact that a smile passed over their faces when the non jurisdiction of the Court was established. Surely the state of the law required alteration, and he should be rejoiced to hear that in the considerable interval that had elapsed since the Address was presented her Majesty's Government had done something to remedy so great a scandal. There was no doubt that the impunity with which these grave crimes were committed wore telling most detrimentally upon our own merchant service. In a case of great violence the other day it was given in evidence that the captain said, "How I regret I am under English law! If I were under American law I could do anything I chose to my men." He hoped, therefore, that something had been done to remedy this state of things, which he was sure was felt to be a scandal, not only in this country, but still more by that great community across the Atlantic. The American Chamber of Commerce, he knew, had made strong representations to their countrymen at home on the subject. Great interest was felt upon the subject in America, and no doubt the American Government would co-operate with the English Government in trying to

231
find a remedy for a grave and growing evil. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not one likely to lack zeal in the cause of humanity. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was no tyro in matters of international legislation, and between the two he trusted something would be accomplished. He therefore wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs what measures have been adopted with regard to the Address presented to her Majesty on the 2nd of August, 1859, by that House, praying Her Majesty to enter into negotiations with the United States of America for the purpose of preventing the assaults and cruelties committed on merchant seamen in American vessels.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL:—With respect to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), he will not, I think, expect me on this occasion to enter upon a discussion of the affairs of Italy. But with respect to the questions which he has asked, I will only say that I do not believe there is any truth in the statement which he has seen in a French newspaper, to the effect that 30,000 French troops are expected at Leghorn. I have certainly no reason to believe that the French Government has any intention of taking any such step for the purpose of preventing the annexation of the Provinces of Central Italy to Sardinia. On the contrary, I consider the statement is highly improbable. My hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes) has asked me a question upon a subject of great interest and importance, with regard to which he brought forward an Address last year, which was adopted by this House. When that Address was agreed to I immediately communicated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I believe it was his opinion that it would be of advantage if the negotiations were conducted in this country with some lawyer of experience from the United States. Accordingly, I wrote to Lord Lyons, and he received an answer that it was the opinion of the American Government that the negotiations could not be entrusted to better hands than those of the able and enlightened representative of the United States in this country, Mr. Dallas. My right hon. Friend has therefore had interviews with Mr. Dallas on the subject. They felt anxious, as every man in this House, and I have no doubt in America also, must feel,
232
that some remedy ought to be found for a state of things so shocking, and that an attempt should be made to punish the authors of these acts of outrage and cruelty which take place on board American vessels. They were agreed as to the principle upon which that remedy should be applied, and there is now drawing up the draft of a convention with a view to carry their views into effect. I think it would be premature to enter into the details of that convention at the present moment; but when it is agreed to and ratified, as I trust it will be speedily, no time will be lost in bringing in a Bill to obtain the object which my hon. Friend has so properly advocated.

THE DIVORCE AND COMMON LAW COURTS.—QUESTION
MR. BOVILLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any alteration in the constitution of the Courts of Probate and Divorce? The subject was of importance, no so much to the legal profession as to the public at large. In the last Session of Parliament, in order to facilitate the operations of the Court, an Act was passed authorizing two Puisne Judges to make with the Judge Ordinary a full Court for Divorce, in substitution of the previous provision, which required the Judge Ordinary, a Chief Justice or Chief Baron, and one senior Puisne Judge to constitute a full Court. The consequence of the withdrawal of two Puisne Judges to sit frequently in the Divorce Court had been seriously felt, and the suitors in the Courts of common law had during the last term suffered great inconvenience. In the Court of Error, where there should be a large attendance of Judges to decide appeals from the Courts in which they were not Judges, there were very seldom more than five or six Judges; so that in the case of a division of opinion they might have had three Judges, or a majority, overruling the unanimous decision of five Judges in either of the three common law Courts. The inevitable result must be to increase the number of appeals to the House of Lords. But there was the further difficulty that, as the Court of Error was prevented from disposing of the business before it in December, and the Judges would be summoned to the House of Lords now that Parliament was sitting, it would take many months to clear off the

233
arrears which had been created. Amongst other cases which were in consequence postponed, was the important case respecting the Shrewsbury estates. Unless some remedy were speedily applied arrears would increase, and the greatest inconvenience be caused. Considerable inconvenience also arose from the constant changes of Judges in the Divorce Court. It was not possible to have any settled practice, and two Judges coming fresh into the court might overrule the decisions of the Judge Ordinary, who sat there regularly. In consequence of the great increase of business in the common law Courts of late years the demands on the time of the Judges had greatly increased; and though it was immaterial to them where they sat, the interests of the public necessarily suffered. It was not for him to point out what was the proper remedy for the evil; but it was clear that the subject was one which called for the consideration of the Government, in order that they might effect some improvement in the existing system.
MR. BOWYERsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman announced the question he wished to make one or two observations on another great evil attending the Divorce Court. The operation of this Court had justified all the apprehensions expressed at the time of its creation. The reports of the proceedings were a standing scandal to the country. They polluted the columns of the newspapers to such an extent that it was really difficult to allow a newspaper to lie on the table in any decent house. If the principle on which the Court was formed were persevered in, and the business went on increasing at its present ratio, it would very shortly be necessary to give the County Court Judges power to grant divorces, a result which would be most deplorable in its effect on the morality of the country. But what he wished more particularly to direct the attention of the Government to was, the system of gross collusion which went on in that court. Proceedings were taken there which had been arranged beforehand, and the Judge had neither power nor machinery to prevent them. Unless some remedy were applied the court would become in a short time a sort of Encumbered Estates Court for the transfer of women. The name originally intended to be applied to it was the "Court of Marriage," but really a far more applicable title would be the "Court of Adultery," Some steps ought certainly to be taken for the prevention of this collusion.
234
In his opinion, the only way of meeting the evil was by the appointment of an officer with a competent staff, whoso duties it would be to see that all suits were properly defended—to support the validity of marriages, and to prevent divorces being improperly granted. In every other country where there were courts for the dissolution or voiding of marriages there was an officer of the sort, whose duty it was to prevent collusion. Without some such official the Judge of the court might he made the instrument of doing much that was unjust and improper. His objections to the court and to divorces à vinculo matrimonii, which he considered contrary to the law of God, still continued unchanged; but if the court was to exist some steps ought to be taken to render it as little injurious to the morality of the country as its nature would permit.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The House is no doubt aware that by the constitution of this Court a portion of the business is transacted by the Judge Ordinary alone, and for the other portion, the presence of two Judges from the common law Courts is necessary. On the establishment of the Court a new official was created—namely, the Judge Ordinary—but with regard to the associated Judges, reliance was had upon the attendance to be obtained from the Courts of common law. The business of that Court has been considerable—probably greater than was anticipated at the period of its formation, and demands have been made upon the common law Judges to a greater extent than is altogether consistent with (he convenient despatch of business at certain times, more particularly when it is desired to form a Court of Error, where the presence of a number of Judges is necessary. To a certain extent, therefore, there is doubtless ground for the complaint made by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford. The matter has been under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, but acting on his advice, the Government are not prepared to recommend an increase in the number of the common law Judges, or the appointment of a now Judge for the Divorce Court. They think that it may be practicable to enlarge the class of business to be disposed of by the Judge Ordinary alone, and to render unnecessary the presence of other Judges except in cases of peculiar difficulty and importance. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) respecting the ex-

235
pediency of enabling the Judge to exclude the public from the Court in certain cases, a noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) has given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill for this purpose, and it would therefore be prematurely taking up the time of the House in the miscellaneous Friday evening's debate to enter into the subject. I must decline, also, to enter into the general policy of the Divorce Act, unless some specific Motion be made on the subject. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), I hope it will be distinctly understood, both in the House and in the country, that the Courts of England have no jurisdiction in regard to offences committed in a foreign ship on the high seas, however grave that offence may be, or however excited may be the feelings of the people of this country when the persons who have committed the offence land here. Our tribunals are utterly powerless in such cases, and I do not believe there is a single case in which any criminal Court here can take cognizance of such offences—except the case of treason may be considered an exception. The only way, therefore, in which an English magistrate or policeman can deal with such offences is under an extradition treaty. We have such treaties only with France and the United States, and I am happy to be able to inform my hon. Friend and the House, that this very day I have signed an order under the extradition treaty for the delivery to the proper authorities of the two mates of the ship Anna, in order that they may be sent to the United States, to take their trials before the tribunal of the country, which alone has jurisdiction over them. Turning now to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James), I will just remark that a Bill was the other day introduced into this House with reference to criminal appeals. I believe that Bill has not yet been circulated, but an early day has been fixed for its second reading. When it comes on for discussion, I shall he ready to express my opinion upon the whole subject. With regard to the particular case of Thomas Smethurst, the hon. and learned Member admits that he does not wish the prerogative of pardon to be abolished, but he speaks of the anomalous proceeding of pardoning a criminal without the knowledge of the jury who found him guilty, and upon a private and ex parte examination. The course which I followed in this case was precisely that
236
which has been taken, time out of mind, I may say, by the Secretaries of State for the Home Department who have preceded me'; therefore the term "anomalous" can only be applied with reference to some new system of practice which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to introduce. The course which I adopted was to call for the shorthand writer's notes of the trial, to hear everything which could be alleged on the part of the prisoner by his friends or legal advisers, and to refer all the papers which were brought before me to the learned Judge who tried the case, and it was not until the learned Chief Baron, after long consideration of the subject, made a very full report that I took any steps in the matter. In that report the Judge recommended that the matter should be referred to some eminent medical practitioner; and I accordingly placed his report in the hands of Sir Benjamin Brodie, whose eminence and fitness will, I think, be universally admitted. In a conversation which I had with him, in order to obtain his permission to the reference, he assured me that he had but a superficial knowledge of the subject, and had formed no opinion whatever with regard to the case; and therefore I believe that it would be impossible for me to find a more impartial referee. After full consideration, given, I can assure the House, with the utmost attention of which I was master, and after hearing an infinite variety of opinions from different persons, I came to the conclusion that the proper course for me to adopt was to advise the Crown to grant a free pardon; and I can only say that nothing which has occurred since I gave that advice has made me entertain any doubt as to its rectitude. I think it right to state that the Chief Baron expressed an opinion that the prisoner ought not to be executed, and he subsequently made the suggestion that Smethurst did not administer drugs to Miss Isabella Banks with a view of taking her life, but possibly with a view of procuring abortion. That was the hypothesis which a consideration of all the evidence had suggested to him, but it was a hypothesis wholly different from that which was adopted by the prosecution at the trial, or from that which was submitted by the Judge to the jury, and it is impossible for me to say whether, if that view of the evidence had been submitted to them, they would have found a verdict of guilty. I think the House will be of opinion that, consistently with the opinion of the learned Judge which was formed after the maturest

237
consideration, this was not a case in which Her Majesty could have been advised to commute the capital sentence into one of penal servitude. The hon. and learned Gentleman succinctly stated the course which was taken with regard to the published letter; and I am glad that he does not propose to move for any document on that subject. I shall be ready to give, in general terms, any information which the House may desire, but, with reference to the Royal prerogative of mercy, I must be allowed to express my opinion that great inconvenience and great embarrassment would arise in the exercise of an extremely (delicate and painful duty if confidential I papers of this kind were called for.
MR.DIGBY SEYMOURobserved, with regard to the question which the right hon. Gentleman had previously answered, that he had lately seen an extract from The New York Times from which it appeared that during the last year there had been no less than forty-nine complaints by seamen against captains and officers brought in the American courts, and only in one instance had there been a conviction. The great majority of these cases had broken down for want of evidence. He begged to remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that, by one of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, any captain of a vessel was competent to call upon the captain of another vessel to take on board a person accused of an offence of this description, and to carry him to a port where he might be tried, under a penalty of £50. He would suggest that, under the extradition treaty, this provision might be extended to American ships. It was a provision which might well be adopted by the American Legislature. At the same time he might add that the same Act contained provisions for taking the depositions of witnesses who could not attend at the place of trial.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn to Monday next.

MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred.
Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION (INDIA) BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill, which was very simple in its character, and consisted of three clauses, applicable to India. The first of these had reference to Indian Stock, of which a great amount was held in this country, and it had become a question whether, when the holders died, their legal representatives were not bound to take out probate in India as well as in England. Such a proceeding would, of course, be very inconvenient to the parties; and the object of the Bill was to declare that probate, if taken out in this country, should be deemed sufficient. A similar law had been passed some years ago with reference to Scotch and Irish railway stock falling into the hands of persons in this country, and great benefit had been experienced from that Act. The next provision of the Bill which he proposed was one by which the necessity of sending bonds to the India House to be examined and registered would be obviated. At present they were passed from hand to hand, and great inconvenience and delay were thus occasioned. Under the new method of transfer which it was intended to establish it was expected that the character of the stock would be improved. The provision would entail a small expense on the revenue of this country, but not more than £90. By the third clause he proposed to extend the powers taken by the Act of last Session to Indian Bonds; this would render them repayable in this country, if the payment were desired. The powers taken by the Act of last year had proved most successful.
  MR. BAILLIEobserved that the Law of Property and Trustees' Relief Act of last Session contained a clause empowering trustees to invest trust-money in India Stock, but when an application was made to the Lord Chancellor to give authority for trust-money to be so invested he declined to do so, upon the ground that the Act was passed just at the close of the Session, and that the clause was introduced at the last moment, contrary to the wish of the promoter of the Bill, who had ex-

  239
  pressed his intention to bring in a Bill this Session to repeal that clause. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Government intended to have that clause repealed, because, as it appeared to him, such a clause looked very much like taking the first step towards making this country responsible for the Indian loan, which was very objectionable.
  MR. CRAWFORDasked, whether the effect of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Secretary for India would be that parties could take out probate of wills either in this country or in India?
  MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to correct a mistake into which his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie) had fallen. No Lord Chancellor would have refused to administer the law according to an Act of Parliament because it happened to have been passed at the close of the Session. In the case referred to nothing more was decided than that the stock, authority to purchase which was applied for, did not fall within the definition contained in the clause in the Trustees Relief Act. He hoped the Government would be very cautious how it pledged itself to repeal the provisions of the Act; he believed it a wise one. It was the duty of trustees to manage the affairs of their wards, as prudent men manage their own; and he could not imagine anything more absurd than a law compelling men who were continually investing their own money in Indian Stock to buy any trust money into the Three-and-a-half per Cents. As to the power given by the Trustees Relief Act being the first step towards obliging this country to adopt the liabilities of India, he could not see what connection it had with them. Indian Stock was secured on Indian revenue alone, and if that failed parties purchasing such securities would only have their own want of foresight to blame; but that they could consider the revenue of this country bound to make up any loss he could not understand.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he wished to know why the powers of the Bill proposed by the Secretary for India were extended to some kinds of Indian securities and not to others. Why, for instance, were they not extended to the Rupee Loan?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was a very necessary and simple one. The Government of India issued promissory notes, which constituted the public debt there. The interest of those notes was formerly payable in some part of India, but within the
  240
  last year it had been made payable in this country, so that in one sense the property was Indian, and in another it was English. In order to get rid of that anomaly the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) proposed to make notes, so circumstanced, subject to probate in England. There could be no reasonable objection to that, and he (Mr. Ayrton) thought the Bill would prove a very useful one.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he considered it of great importance that no misapprehension should be permitted to exist as to the nature of the securities in Indian loans, which were not of the same nature as Indian Stock. From the fact that the machinery of the Bank of England was used in regard to both, great misapprehension had arisen in the public mind as to the nature of the securities. It would be a great misfortune if Parliament had not made up its mind whether it would or not give a material guarantee in regard to the securities for the Indian loan—that a misapprehension should exist. He did not wish to express a premature opinion upon the Bill, but he certainly thought that, with respect to the Act of last Session, the nature and value of the securities should be clearly defined.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he apprehended there could not be the slightest question as to the construction of the Act of last year. The Lord Chancellor had held that the recently created Indian Stock did not come under the same denomination as the original Indian Stock. He decided that the expression used in the Act of last Session, applied to the old Stock of the East India Company, and not to Indian loans. The Government had no intention at present of interfering with that Act. The sole object of the Bill he (Sir C. Wood) now proposed was to relieve the executors or trustees of the holders of East India Stock from the necessity of taking out probate in India.
  Leave given.
  Bill to regulate Probate and Administration with respect to certain Indian Government Securities; to repeal certain Stamp Duties; and to extend the operation of the Act of the twenty-second and twenty-third years of Victoria, chapter thirty-nine, to Indian Bonds, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES WOOD and Mr. BARING.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

HIGHWAYS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for

  241
  the better management of Highways in England. The House was aware that highways, according to legal phraseology, meant roads which were not included in Turnpike Acts, and which still remained as parish roads. In order to show that the Bill he asked to introduce dealt with an interest of great magnitude, he would state the amount of money raised and expended in England in the maintenance of those roads. The House was aware that those roads were chiefly maintained by a highway rate, which was levied substantially on the same class of property as the poor rate, aided by some other slight sources of revenue. The expenditure was divided, on the one hand into highways in rural parishes, and on the other to highways in the nature of streets in towns. In 1850 the expenditure on the ordinary-highways amounted to £1,026,000, and on streets in towns, under local Acts, to £828,000, making a total of £1,854,000. In 1857, the last year for which there was a return, the expenditure on the ordinary highways amounted to £1,148,000, and on streets in towns to £970,000, making a total of £2,118,000, which was more than £200,000 greater than that of 1850. It was, therefore, not only a large, but a growing expenditure. The Bill he asked to introduce was substantially, with one exception, identical with that introduced by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) when he held the office of Under Secretary for the Home Department. That Bill itself was not only framed in a great measure on the model of previous Bills which had been submitted to the House, but it appeared to him (Sir George Lewis) to be arranged in a very convenient form, and to be expressed in unambiguous terms, and he had, therefore, taken it as the model of the one he now sought to introduce-Under the operation of the existing general Highway Act, the justices of quarter sessions had the bare option of uniting together a certain number of parishes into a district for the maintenance of highways and the appointment of a paid surveyor, and might, if they thought proper, make an order to that effect. The power thus possessed was, however, one to which they scarcely ever had recourse, inasmuch as their action depended in the first instance on the decision of a single parish. The system had, in consequence, been found to be for the most part inoperative, and his noble Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Lord Emlyn), in order to remedy the
  242
  defects of that system, had a few years ago introduced into Parliament a Bill the object of which was the compulsory establishment of a series of districts for the maintenance of highways in the six counties of South Wales. That Bill had become law, had been in operation for some time, and he (Sir George Lewis), being a resident in one of the counties to which it applied, could bear testimony to the satisfactory manner in which it worked. It had, in fact, brought about a most efficient repair of the highways in those counties without, at the same time, creating any in-crease of expenditure which could afford reasonable grounds of complaint to a class of ratepayers who were on the average considerably less wealthy than the majority of those who were resident in England. The principle, then, he might briefly state, upon which the Bill which he held in his hand was framed was, that the magistrates of quarter sessions should be empowered to divide counties into districts of parishes for the repair of highways; that they should form districts and appoint the number of way-wardens which each should return; that the board of way-wardens should be elected by the ratepayers in a manner similar to that in which the Poor Law Boards were constituted, and that the resident magistrates of the district should be entitled to have a seat at those boards. He might add, that when the Court of Quarter Sessions should have made the order to which he had alluded they should be considered as functi officio, and neither possess nor exercise any further interference in the matter. Local Boards having been called into existence in the way which he had described would have the power of appointing paid surveyors, and selecting the other officers whose services would be required. The machinery by which their proceedings would be directed would be of a most simple character—quite analogous, in short, to that which had been in operation for some years for the relief of the poor. There was every reason to hope, therefore, that it would work in an efficient and satisfactory manner. With respect to boroughs, he proposed that the town-council should have the same powers as he would confer upon the magistrates at quarter sessions in counties. Such was an outline of the Bill which he was about to ask the House for leave to introduce; but before he sat down he might observe that it differed in one material particular from the Bill which had been brought in

  243
  last Session upon the same subject, and which he trusted would facilitate its adoption in the present Session. The House could not fail to observe that the construction of railways had to so great an extent altered the comparative importance of former lines of communication throughout the country, that some of the main lines of turnpike roads had sunk into a position of inferiority in that respect to some of the parish roads. Now, it happened that there was no law in existence which provided for the due repair of those great highways, and considerable inconvenience was in consequence experienced in different parts of the kingdom. That inconvenience would, he believed, be removed by means of the machinery which the present Bill would bring into operation; but while he was of that opinion, he was, nevertheless, alive to the fact that there were certain counties in which a strong opposition to the passing of any such measure was manifested. To the want of unanimity which prevailed upon the subject was, indeed, to be attributed the obstacles to the success of any legislation with regard to it with which it was surrounded. What he proposed, therefore, to do—departing in that respect from the Bill of last Session—was to make it optional with the magistrates of each county whether or not they would set the machinery which he had provided in motion in that county. He proposed, in short, that the justices of quarter sessions should, in the first instance, be enabled to make a provisional order; that the consideration of that order should be postponed until the following quarter sessions; that if it were then confirmed it should be taken to be a compulsory order, but that its sanction should be the voluntary act of the magistrates and the town-council. If, then, the inhabitants of any part of the country desired to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill they might do so without difficulty, while, upon the contrary, the machinery which it provided would not as a matter of course be brought into action in those counties where there was an objection to its introduction. Having made these observations it simply remained for hurt to express a hope that the scheme which he had shadowed out would meet with the sanction of the House, and to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the better management of Highways in England.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that a Bill similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman asked for leave to introduce had, Session
  244
  after Session, been brought forward in that House, and yet that no Minister had ever informed the House what was the real reason of its introduction, or who it was by whom such a measure was required. He had, indeed, been told that the predecessor in office of the right hon, Gentleman had been under some pledge to certain Gentlemen to bring in such a Bill, but that not having remained long enough on the Treasury Bench to redeem that pledge he had left the promised measure in some pigeon-hole and had entered into an engagement with his successor to proceed with it. Now, whether that statement was strictly accurate or not he (Mr. Bright) could not say, but he could assert with perfect truth that he had never seen a petition in favour of such a Bill, nor heard outside the walls of that House a single human being complain that he was aggrieved by the system by which highways were at present regulated, or that he wished to see a departure from that system. The right hon. Gentleman had begun his speech by dwelling upon the magnitude of the interest concerned in this question, and he had pointed out that a sum amounting to more than £1,000,000 per annum was expended upon the highways not connected with towns, while upon those 'which were so situated not less than £800,000 was annually laid out. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, drawn no inference from these facts, and he had not endeavoured to argue that in the expenditure thus incurred any waste of money was involved. The fact indeed was, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that in the various towns in which the outlay which he had mentioned took place there existed the most perfect system of local government which could be devised, while in the case of parishes unconnected with towns the whole management of their highways was vested in the individual occupiers, who appointed annual officers, by whom the £1,000,000 in question was expended. It was under those circumstances but natural that there should be no petitions laid before that House in favour of the Bill. Speaking generally, indeed, and leaving out of the question a few individuals who might be possessed by some crotchet on the subject, he believed no single ratepayer throughout the kingdom had asked the right hon. Gentleman to make any such proposal as he had that evening submitted to their notice. As for himself, he had in a for-

  245
  mer Session protested against the introduction from a Government office of any such scheme tending to disturb ancient arrangements. He had repeatedly protested against such a disturbance of ancient arrangements in a case in which no single individual asked for the change; and he should unhesitatingly assert, without fear of contradiction, that there existed in any part of the country no demand for the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that under the operation of the law as it stood there existed a power to unite parishes for the purpose of providing for the repair of highways, and had adduced that fact in support of his Motion, although he was obliged to admit that so little desire had been evinced on behalf of the inhabitants of the country to avail themselves of the power which they possessed, that the law was totally inoperative. Now, he (Mr. Bright) was aware that he would not be taking a proper course in that House in describing the Gentlemen who presided at quarter sessions in unfavourable colours, and he should refrain from adopting that course, because he did not think it was altogether justifiable, or that they deserve to be so depicted, hut he might at the same time be allowed to observe that those gentlemen were not the persons in whom the ratepayers in counties had the greatest confidence. They were appointed by somebody who was appointed by the Crown; the fact being that their appointment lay, in the county in which he lived, in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that in his neighbourhood a whole batch of them had, for political reasons, been nominated to the offices which they held. Every owner of land, in short, to the extent of 1,000 acres, was generally appointed a county magistrate, and those were the gentlemen to whom the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the power of making all the parochial arrangements for the repair of highways upon a principle analagous to that which prevailed in the case of the Poor Law Boards for the purpose of doing that which nobody asked for, and remedying grievances of which nobody complained. What was the state of things at the present moment? In some of the unions in England the magistrates formed an equal number with the elected guardians. In the parish where he lived there was, he believed, a majority of one, but on what side he did not know. If, however, they put into any Board a close body like the magistrates, who were not elected by the
  246
  ratepayers, and only an equal number who were elected by the ratepayers, the principle of election and representation in that Board would be virtually destroyed, and that system would be put an end to which had existed for centuries without complaint and without any reasons being assigned for the change. All the right hon. Gentleman said was that some one had brought in a somewhat similar Bill for South Wales, and there had been no complaint; it had not been productive of greater expense or a worse administration. But that was not enough: some stronger reason should have been given. He ought to have shown that it had given a better administration, and at less expense. Who asked for this change? It was just this, neither more nor less—the transference of a power which had existed for many generations in the hands of the ratepayers of parishes to take care of the repair of their highways to a body of magistrates not appointed by the ratepayers, and in no way responsible to them. That was a direct contradiction of every principle which the House ought to hold dear in legislating on matters of that kind. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to make it a much better Bill than that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, by making it optional—not optional with the ratepayers, or the population of the parishes who have the greatest interest in the maintenance of the highways and the expenditure of the money, but optional with the gentlemen of the quarter sessions: it was to be optional with them whether they would take more power than they had hither to enjoyed, of diverting, changing, repairing, or letting go out of repair the highways of their parish, just as it might best suit them, and it was precisely for qualifications of that kind that this Bill seemed intended to provide. He appealed to Gentlemen opposite, who were loth to make changes that were not asked. Now that the highways were better maintained than ever why should they this Session, when they had so much before them, be troubled with a measure so offensive and unnecessary, so needlessly innovating as this? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had the smallest affection for the measure; indeed, he could very well suppose, when he found it consigned to his care by his predecessor in the Home Office, language must have trembled on hislips—though he might not have uttered it—excessively unocmplimentary both to the Bill and to the person who drew it. Why, in the name of common sense, bring forward

  247
  this Bill again? Let the right hon. Gentleman for one Session free thorn from its consideration. Some such measure seemed by a kind of fatality to be brought forward year after year, and having undergone almost endless discussion was in the end rejected. But its life could not seemingly be destroyed, and it was revived the next Session. The right hon. Gentleman, he had no doubt, would have occasion to be glad if the Bill were rejected; and, although he did not like to object to the first reading—that would be considered not very courteous to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government—he would unite with any Gentleman opposite in opposing the Bill on a future occasion.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had unnecessarily cast some degree of condemnation on magistrates at quarter session and had misunderstood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. His proposal was not that the magistrates should assume the powers described, but that the way wardens elected by the parish should be the Board to manage, entirely separate from the magistrates, except that in the first instance the quarter sessions were to scheme out and fix the different districts. There would still be the way-wardens elected by the different parishes, to look after the expenditure and say if the improvements proposed were necessary. The hon. Gentleman must allow him to say that he did not understand the management of the roads in the country, though he might be well conversant with matters relating to towns. For the most part, the separate parishes now had, instead of a surveyor, a person who was changed every year, generally a farmer ignorant of the mode in which roads should be made; in very many instances he was changed just as he became acquainted with the duty, and the consequence was the roads were neglected, or not made in the best manner, and at a much greater cost than if a skilful person were employed to look after the work. This Bill, if carried, would be the means of improving very greatly the communications of the country at a less expense than they now cost, while the power would still be left in the hands of the ratepayers, who were to elect the way-wardens, who were to meet together and choose a skilled surveyor and a person to keep the accounts. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that, while the great communications with our large towns were not highways, but rail-
  248
  ways, it was of the utmost advantage to have roads made as feeders to the railways at important stations, and, as these went through parishes having in some instances eight or ten townships, each township with a separate surveyor of roads, it was of the greatest consequence that they should have a larger area and properly qualified surveyors.
  MR. HARDYsaid, that he could not help noticing the imputations which had been thrown by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) on those who had charge of Highway Bills as having some concealed motive,—some occult desire, in taking them out of the pigeon-holes at the Home Office, to gain some advantage for themselves. For himself, he begged entirely to disown such an intention. The hon. Member for Birmingham stood forth in a new character to-night. Who could have expected to see him appealing to them stare super vias antiquas? He only hoped, when the Bills came to be discussed which the hon. Member had alluded to, and to which he wished this measure should give way, he would still appear standing on the old paths. It was not for him to defend the gentlemen at quarter sessions. He would only observe that the duties committed to magistrates by this Bill were simply of an administrative character, and did not destroy the power of the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman, who had spoken from his knowledge of the towns in Lancashire, must be well aware, that in a great number of instances where the roads were well attended to, the duty was not performed by parish surveyors appointed year by year, but by Boards elected by the ratepayers, having paid surveyors under them. In this way repairs were carried out efficiently; but when the hon. Gentleman told them that the highways of the country were repaired efficiently, economically, and in consonance with the wishes of the ratepayers who used them, he told them what no man in the House who knew the facts could bring himself to believe. This was not a Bill that was likely to cause any great outcry pro or con in the country; but the Members of the House generally knew the opnions of those who lived in their neighbourhood were in favour of such a measure. When he was in office he brought in the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and since that time he had been constantly asked by people in the country whether nothing was to be done for the

  249
  better management of the highways. Those who really used the roads were most anxious for a change, and he believed that the farmers themselves were of the same way of thinking. In the districts where a system of management by Boards such as those provided for in this Bill was acted upon, the rates had been reduced and better roads formed, roads being made for the public advantage, and not for the benefit only of the surveyor. He bad an objection to the alteration in the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought the House,—if in a position to give an opinion that the country ought to be divided into districts for the maintenance of roads,—ought to dictate to the quarter sessions, and not leave the quarter sessions to dictate to others. He would give the quarter sessions a merely ministerial duty to do, and so leave the matter as it stood in the former Bill. If the hon. Member for Birmingham looked into the subject, he would find that there were small parishes burdened with forty miles of roads. Those small parishes would he greatly benefited by being associated with others, as they would thus be enabled to stop up a great many unnecessary roads. The hon. Member for Birmingham spoke of this Bill having been taken out of a pigeon-hole in the Home Office. There was no one who had a better right to take the Bill out of a pigeon-hole than the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis), as in 1849 he was the first to take the subject into consideration. If he now pressed the Bill firmly on the House he believed the House would go cordially with him, and that the result would be a better and more effective administration of our birth-ways.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, although seated on the Opposition side, he was in respect of the present Bill a reformer, and nothing had surprised him more since his entrance into this House as the strong terms of Conservatism he had just heard from the lips of an hon. Member who was supposed to be the essence of Reform. He believed that the ratepayers in the counties had confidence in the magistrates who act in quarter sessions, though it is possible there may be a different feeling among the ratepayers in borough towns. There is no Bill of this Sessions which, if it passes into a law, is likely to be of more benefit to the agricultural population, and the agriculturists ought to be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing
  250
  it in. Hon. Members cannot he aware of the state of the roads in his neighbourhood, and it is to be feared if they travelled over them, they would both lose their tempers and break their carriages. The hon. Member for Birmingham said the ratepayers were anxious to appoint their own surveyors, but that was against his experience, for out of nearly fifty surveyors in his district, not above five were elected by the parishioners, the rest being appointed by the magistrates. He cordially trusted that this Bill would be carried.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS,in reply, said he was always reluctant to treat a debate on the introduction of a Bill as if it were a debate on the second reading. The hon. Member for Birmingham had in his speech subjected him to this inconvenience, and had made it necessary that he should answer arguments applied to the principle of the Bill, when the Bill itself was not before the House, and hon. Members were consequently not in a position to judge whether the objections were valid. He would, however, confine his remarks within the narrowest possible space, reserving much that he had to say for the second reading. His hon. Friend had raised a sort of constitutional objection to the Bill, and argued that it was an unnecessary deviation from ancient customs and institutions, and, if not a dangerous, at all events a vexatious and uncalled-for innovation. He was afraid that his hon. Friend's constitutional studies in this branch of our laws had been somewhat limited. If be had looked into the nature of the Turnpike Acts passed since the middle of the last century, which abolished the ancient constitution of highways, he would have found that the very essence of the turnpike system was that it repealed the old laws with respect to highways, abolished the rights of ratepayers, and placed the management of highways under certain trustees, not appointed by popular election, but designated in the Acts of Parliament, being generally magistrates resident in the district. All the important roads of the country were placed under local Turnpike Acts, and, with regard to all the main lines of communication, the old constitutional system of highways was entirely repealed. And what he (Sir George Lewis) asked to introduce now was a system not less popular, but more popular than that which now existed. Nothing could be more accurate than the statement of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Sir B.

  251
  Leighton) that the surveyors of highways were practically appointed by the magistrates, and that the ratepayers did not exercise their functions in that respect. He proposed to constitute a Board formed of elected representatives from the parishes comprising the district, together with the resident magistrates of the district. The constitution of Boards of Guardians had been found to work in a satisfactory manner with a mixture of nominated and elected guardians; but if the hon. Member thought the magistrates should be omitted from the Highway Boards which he proposed, that was a question which he could raise in Committee. He maintained, then, that there was nothing in the Bill that sinned against the popular principle. But his hon. Friend said that there was no practical grievance. It was certainly true that the table was not covered with petitions on the point, but he (Sir George Lewis) could appeal with confidence to the experience of any person who lived in the country, and ask whether the present mode of repairing the highways was not in the highest degree unsatisfactory. Where a line of road passed through different parishes, and had different surveyors, there was great inconvenience experienced in keeping it in proper repair. The surveyor was usually a farmer, unskilled in road making, and very frequently it was found that the surveyor took special care of the roads near his own house to the neglect of those at a distance. This was not the popular system that his hon. Friend's imagination had conjured up, for a more imperfect, rude, and unsatisfactory mode of administration than was exhibited in the management of highways it was almost impossible to find. That was a practical grievance, and the remedy provided by the present Bill was wholly unobjectionable. If he had proposed to intrust the operation of the measure to certain Commissioners in London, or to the Secretary of State, he would have been told that he wished to introduce a system of centralization, to which many objections would be taken. He proposed, on the contrary, to make the Bill local in its operation, and to intrust it to the county magistrates who had no interests hostile to those of the ratepayers, and who were, in fact, interested in the economical management of the rate, since the highway rates were practically a deduction from their rents. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) said, it would have been better to adhere to
  252
  the Bill he introduced, and not to make the adoption of the Bill optional with the magistrates of the county. If the House chose to make this alteration in the measure, he had no objection. He should himself prefer a compulsory Bill; but he feared it might be found very difficult to pass such a Bill, and he thought it would facilitate the passing of any measure if its adoption were left optional with the magistrates. It was true, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hardy) had remarked, that he had proposed a Bill on this subject many years ago. He believed that the Bill was founded on a sound principle, that it would produce a more efficient repair of the highways, at less cost than at present, and he trusted that the House would give its assent to the measure now brought forward.
  Leave given.
  Bill for the better Management of Highways in England ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. CLIVE.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MORTGAGES, & c.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision concerning Mortgages and other dispositions of Property belonging to Municipal Corporations in England and Ireland, said that at present under the Municipal Act, a Municipal Corporation could not mortgage its property without the consent of the Treasury, which had no power to require a sinking fund to be set aside, or to make arrangements for the intermediate investment of the money and other matters. It would be for the convenience of the public and the advantage of Municipal Corporations that the powers granted by the present Bill should be conferred upon the Treasury, which was at present compelled to resort to circuitous and troublesome contrivances to effect its object. The Bill was not likely to meet with objection, and its details could only be understood when it was before the House.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. CLIVE.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till Monday next.