Commons Sitting of 10 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Votes at Elections; Railways (Ireland) Act (1851) Amendment; East India Stock Transfer, &c; Maynooth College; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Highway Rates Act Continuance; Weights and Measures (Ireland).
3° Dominica Hurricane Loan; Admiralty Court Jurisdiction (No. 2.)

NUISANCES REMOVAL AND DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th June], "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," read, and discharged.
  Bill Re-committed.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (How Expenses of Local Authority to be defrayed).
  MR. PERRY WATLINGTONproposed that after the word "expenses," there should be inserted the words "as are of a common nature."
  MR. AYRTONobjected to the clause, as it gave power to a Board to levy rates for the suppression of nuisances on any parishes. The effect might be that great injustice would be done to particular parishes, and works carried out without the consent of their representatives.
  MR. NORRISsaid, be hoped the clause would be retained in its present form, otherwise parishes which derived no benefit from the improvements carried out might be obliged to pay for them.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, difficulties would arise as to the levying of the money necessary for such expenses as could not be taken out of the common

  1659
  fund. Expenses that were in common should be raised in common, but he thought the power given to the Boards to levy funds for works done in particular parishes would require serious consideration.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he regretted that the Government should have gone back again to the Board of Guardians to take management of these financial affairs, considering the dissatisfaction that was caused by their management formerly. The proper course was to make each parish do its own work, and to compel the parochial authorities to act if they refused to do so. The truth was that the Poor Law Board and the Board of Health had nothing to do, and the consequence was that they were always ready to interfere in matters that did not require their interference. He thought the best thing the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) could do would be to withdraw the Bill altogether.
  MR. LOWEsaid, the necessity of introducing a Bill of the kind had arisen from the fact that the House had thought proper to destroy the central body which had formerly existed, and to transfer its powers to the local authorities. But the new system, it was found, did not work, as the local authorities were unwilling or unable to enforce the unwelcome authority which had been committed to their hands for the removal of nuisances. There were 14,400 places in which there ought to have been local authorities to carry out the Act; but out of these there were 12,500 places in which no inspectors had been appointed—that was to say, in which there was no authority at all to carry the Act into operation. It was necessary, therefore, to find some means of carrying out the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said the existing local authorities should be compelled to act; but this was utterly impracticable, as there was no way by which a man complaining of a nuisance was able to reach them, the local authorities not being corporate bodies. The proposal in the Bill was that the duty should be discharged by the Boards of Guardians, a body that could easily be communicated with, and easily set in Motion. As to the question of payment, the proposal was that each parish should pay the expenses of removing nuisances within itself; but that the expense of an inspector of nuisances, common to an entire union, should be paid out of the common fund of the union. The expenses of such inspectors must be exceedingly small, and that alone would fall upon the common
  1660
  fund. All the main expenses would be paid by each particular parish for itself.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was a necessity for this Bill. Practically, there was no sanitary authority in the small parishes; and there were only two ways of remedying the evil; one to compel the local authorities to act, and the other to transfer the powers to Boards of Guardians, as now proposed, and this last course he entirely preferred, especially as the Boards of Guardians would now act on their own authority, and not be the instruments of a central board. However, he did not see the necessity for a permanent salaried sanitary inspector.
  MR. PERRY WATLINGTONwithdrew his Amendment, and proposed in the same clause to omit the words, "common fund," and to add the words, "by means of an addition to be made to the rate for the relief of the poor of the parish in which the nuisance has arisen, and to be raised and paid in like manner as the money raised for the relief of the poor."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTexpressed his opinion that inspectors should not be permanently appointed, and that Boards should have a discretionary power in their appointment.
  MR. LOWEintimated that he would comply with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it now appeared that the Boards of Guardians were not to be compelled to appoint inspectors; but it might be found that the Boards were not quite so pliable as seemed to be anticipated, and in that case there would be no local authority to provide for putting down nuisances. It would be better to name in the Bill a particular official who should be bound to carry the Act into operation.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, to give to the Board of Guardians absolute control over the parishes, to make the parishes pay all the expenses, and to give no appeal against the decision of the Board of Guardians—no remedy, no power of revision whatever—was a proceeding which was never before proposed to the House of Commons. If any one disputed the jurisdiction, the officer was directed by the Act to take proceedings in the higher courts, and thus a parish would be involved in a most expensive kind of lawsuit, and would have to pay all the expense, although it might have had no part whatever in the proceeding, and might even have protested against it.
  Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill, as were also the remaining Clauses. Two additional Clauses were added.
  MR. FREELANDmoved the following Clause:—
  "No justice of the peace shall, unless objected to at the hearing of any complaint or charge, be deemed incapable of acting in cases arising under the said Nuisances Removal Act by reason of his being a member of any body hereby declared to be the local authority to execute the said Act, or by reason of his being a contributor, or liable to contribute, to any rate or fund out of which it is hereby provided that all charges and expenses incurred in executing the said Act, and not recovered as therein provided, shall be defrayed."
  Clause agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committe read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Stock to be Cancelled).
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Having held the position of Manager and Trustee of the Bath Savings Bank for a period extending to nigh thirty years, I may be permitted to express my opinion, which is shared in by that Board, that this Bill is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it leaves the administration of Savings Bank Funds nominally in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, but really in those of the Minister of Finance, who, although managing them as I unquestionably admit with great ability and integrity, is frequently beset with motives and necessities at variance, as it occurs to me, with what I consider a duty to the Savings Bank. The interests involved in these institutions are of such vast importance as to call for the appointment of a special Commission, who would watch over the funds as a public trust, see to their safe and profitable investment, and take steps to supervise and extend the sys tem and utility of Savings Banks throughout the country. And it appears to me that the 15th clause of this Bill, if passed, would at once render necessary an alteration in the existing rules and regulations throughout the country, whereas an intelligible Consolidation Act is expressly desirable which will embody all provisions
  1662
  for regulating the management of Savings Banks and the right of depositors.
  MR. AYRTONwished to remind the House of the recommendation made by the Committee that had been appointed to consider this subject. They recommended that a Commission, having some elements independent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (though he was to be a Member of it), should be appointed to undertake the management of the aggregate funds of Savings Banks, the object being to keep the funds of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies separate and distinct from the other funds under the administration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee wished the Commission to be Trustees for the Savings Banks, having funds either in Consols or Exchequer bills, equal to the charges that would be made upon them. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was that he should be a great State banker for the Savings Banks, with the power of administering the funds for the benefit of the depositors, but a banker in the novel position of having no securities to cover the charges against him. The question which they had to decide was, whether the recommendation of the Select Committee as to the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be adopted, and he hoped that issue would be fairly taken up by the Committee. He contended that, while the public sustained heavy loss, the result would be that in future they would be compelled to lower the rate of interest paid to the depositors of the Savings Banks.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the Committee would proceed to the consideration of the clause before it instead of discussing the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in his very discursive speech. One of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman—namely, the recommendation of the Select Committee, had been already decided by the House, when it was raised a few evenings ago by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham; and the other when the hon. Baronet moved the postponement of the first three clauses. He denied that he was making himself a banker for the Savings Banks. The truth was, that the State had already constituted itself a banker in that respect, and the arrangement was none of his. The hon. Gentleman complained that the public were fleeced now, and that the depositors would

  1663
  be fleeced hereafter by a lowering of the rate of interest. He would only say, passing by his reference to the present, that he totally disbelieved his prophecy as to the future. He knew no reason why the rate of interest paid to depositors in the Savings Banks should be altered, unless Parliament should choose to do so as a matter of policy. It would be a most unjust proceeding to lower the rate of interest in consequence of any real or supposed mismanagement of the funds. By the clause they were now discussing, it was proposed to cancel a large quantity of stock, and in the clause that followed they proposed to substitute for it a credit on the State deposit account. It was not intended to inscribe on the State deposit account the whole of the funds, but as much as they could fairly venture to do, retaining a certain amount to meet the demands of the savings-banks' depositors. Other arrangements for carrying out this object were provided for, and he hoped the clause would meet with the assent of the Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.

THE PUNISHMENT OF WHIPPING.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Secretery of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consider the propriety of recommending the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of a prisoner in Hertford Gaol named Williams, convicted at the last Court of Quarter Sessions at Hertford of simple larceny, and sentenced to imprisonment and whipping, so far as the remission of the corporal punishment is concerned?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, he would read a statement which had been furnished to him by the Marquess of Salisbury, Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, at which the prisoner in question was tried:—
  "The case of the convict Williams is as follows. He is a common tramp, without any home. He came out of an Essex gaol—I believe Chelmsford—into Hertfordshire, immediately committed some robbery, of which he was summarily convicted, and for which he was imprisoned, I think, for six weeks. At the expiration of his sentence he was dismissed from gaol with the usual allowance, and, his boots being in a bad state, they were repaired. He went to a lodginghouse at Ware (two miles only from Hertford), and the same evening at dusk
  1664
  he rang the bell at a shoemaker's shop, and, having ascertained by this means that no one was in the shop he went in and stole a pair of boots. The shopkeeper went to the door, but, finding nobody, thought the bell had been rung out of mischief. The next day Williams was detected in some other robbery by a policeman. He was taken to the gaol at Hertford. The warder who examined him on his entrance observed that the boots he had on were new, and not the same as those with which he had been dismissed from the gaol. From the shuffling answer he gave an inquiry was made, and the owner was found. The boots were identified by the shopman as having been in the shop on the preceding evening. Some other corroborative evidence was adduced at the trial before me at Easter Quarter Sessions, with which I need not trouble you, and Williams was found Guilty. There was a second indictment for the robbery which led to his apprehension. Both were handed up to me as true bills. I cannot say why I selected the robbery detailed for trial. I took no note of the other, but can of course procure it, as well as an accurate statement of the prisoner's history previously to the robbery for which he was tried before me. I sentenced him to three months' imprisonment and a private whipping. I submit that if ever there was a case in which whipping was a desirable punishment it was the present. The man evidently lived upon plunder. A gaol was no punishment to him, and I could not have sentenced him to the severe penalty of penal servitude without trying him for the second robbery."
  To show the House that the sentence was perfectly legal, the third section of the 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 29 (Sir Robert Peel's Consolidating Act for larceny), gave the Court of Quarter Sessions full power to inflict that sentence. It was a perfectly legal sentence, and it appeared to him that if whipping was to be ever inflicted by sentence of Quarter Sessions on an indictment which gave the opportunity of defence by counsel, and with all the solemnities of justice, the present was a most proper case in which it should take place.

KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether a portion of Kensington Gardens, which has recently been fenced off with iron hurdles in the shape and size of a "two-year-old course," is intended for the purpose of forming a road from Tyburnia to Belgravia; or whether the object is to afford accommodation to the equestrian portion of the population, to the exclusion of the pedestrian, in the most agreeable and most frequented part of Kensington Gardens?
  MR. COWPERsaid, when the public were admitted freely to Hyde Park and

  1665
  Kensington Gardens it was the wish of Her Majesty and her predecessors that that Park and those gardens should subserve the greatest amount of recreation and enjoyment of all classes, rich and poor, those using horses, and those who go on foot. Recently the accommodations had been greatly extended. Flowers had been planted along the sidewalks, seats had been provided for the public, and walks formed in all directions. But it appeared to him that there was one class whose comfort had been greatly overlooked; he meant those were in the habit of riding in Rotten Row. That class consisted of lawyers, doctors, and other professional men, who were obliged to take their exercise in a very short space of time. They had hitherto been confined to a narrow and dusty piece of ground, where they had to go backwards and forwards without the power of diverging to the right or the left, and he had thought that, without interfering with the proper recreation of pedestrians, a larger space might advantageously be appropriated to the use of those who rode. He had therefore arranged that there should be an entrance for horses at the west end of Rotten Row, between the two gates devoted to foot passengers. He did not believe that those who had heretofore walked there would have any ground of complaint if an avenue were set apart for riders; for Rotten Row was a narrow strip of only a mile and a quarter, while pedestrians had appropriated to them upwards of 600 acres in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. Moreover, the fences were so arranged that persons on foot would not be absolutely excluded from the place devoted to horse exercise. A passage would be opened for riders on the north and south, which would be a great convenience to many. These alterations had given great satisfaction not only to the persons who visited this road on horseback, but to many pedestrians, who thought the solitude of Kensington Gardens would be much enlivened by the presence of riders of both sexes.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any arrangement has been agreed upon between the Governments of Great Britain and France on the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries, and when the Re-
  1666
  port of the Commissioners will be laid upon the Table?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, an arrangement had been come to between the Governments of England and France relating to these fisheries. The subject had engaged the attention of his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but he would endeavour to ascertain for the hon. Gentleman how soon the Report of the Commissioners, and other papers connected with this question, could be produced.

ITALY.—SARDINIA AND NAPLES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has reason to believe that great pressure is being put upon the Government of Sardinia by that of France, to induce the former to enter into alliance with the Government of Naples, on the strength of the promise of a Constitution; and whether the British Government will afford its moral support to the Government of Sardinia, to enable it to preserve its independence and liberty of action, in respect to any such proposed alliance?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I received a communication the other day from Sir James Hudson, which enables me to say that no pressure has been put upon the Government of Sardinia by the Government of France, to induce the former to enter into an alliance with the King of Naples.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, by his acceptance of the proposed Conference upon the question of the Annexation of Savoy, in his Despatch of the 25th day of June, it is distinctly understood by the French Government, that the question of an efficient substitute for the neutralization of Savoy, by the cession of such "a military frontier to Switzerland as should comprise the southern shores of the Lake of Geneva and the Alpine passes of the Valais," as stated to be, in his opinion, necessary in his Despatch of the 15th day of May to Lord Cowley, is to be fully and freely submitted to the consideration of the proposed

  1667
  Conference, and is not to be presumed to be precluded by any declarations that may hitherto have been mode by the French Government in any quarter on that subject?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the subject for the Conference would be to put the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna in accord with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin. It would be competent for Her Majesty's Government, or any other Power represented at the Conference, to state in what manner they thought that object ought to be effected. Of course, it would also be competent for the French Government to make any objection it deemed fit to any such proposal.

  THE WHITWORTH GUN.—QUESTION.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any foundation for the report that the Government have purchased the patent of Whitworth's Gun?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the statement was not true that the Government had purchased the patent of Whitworth's Gun, though they had purchased many guns fabricated according to that patent.

NAVY (CHINA).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose, agreeably to notice, to submit to the House the grounds on which he claimed for the marines and the officers and men of the navy employed in China the same pay and allowances as were given to Her Majesty's troops. He would not now touch upon the larger question of the Chinese war, which was to be debated on Thursday or Friday, but would simply point out that from the first commencement of our unfortunate wars with China the army and navy had fought side by side, and had shared the same dangers and privations, but not the same hopes and rewards. It was most important, at the beginning of the present war, that there should not exist, during its prosecution, a feeling on the part of a sister service that injustice was done them. In all our operations in China, in the capture of Chusan in 1841, and in the subsequent attacks upon Canton, Shanghai, and Ningpo in the same year, during the last war (which was commonly called the lorcha war), and in the recent
  1668
  disastrous affair at the mouth of the Peiho river, the seamen and marines had shared all the dangers and difficulties of the troops, and had contributed as much as they had done to the success of our arms. Both Lord Gough and the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir Michael Seymour) had borne testimony to that fact; and the latter gallant Officer had urged upon the Admiralty the necessity of placing seamen in China upon the same footing as regarded pay as Her Majesty's troops. How had they been treated? And for that treatment he did not blame the Government or the Admiralty, but the system, especially that portion of it in accordance with which the Board of Admiralty was so frequently changed. The seamen and marines who played a principal part in the capture of Canton during the late war received only their pay, while the troops received a consolidated allowance in amount nearly double their regular pay. In the year 1842 the officers of Her Majesty's forces who went to China received an allowance of £100 each, but the officers of the Royal Marines got only £5 each. A precedent had already been established for giving extra pay to sailors, because those who were engaged in the Burmese war received six months' batta. He believed the best way to prevent dissatisfaction in the fleet and to insure the good conduct of the men was to prove to them that they were treated according to the principles of justice and humanity. We were beginning a war in China which would demand the most perfect union and concord on the part of the services, and under these circumstances he would implore the Government not to negative his proposition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to place the Officers, Marines, and Seamen of the Fleet serving in China on the same footing as Her Majesty's Troops, with respect to extra pay and allowances; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He did so on the ground set forth in the despatch to the Board of Admiralty to which the hon. Member had alluded. He admitted that the navy had no legal right to make the demand involved in the Motion, but, nevertheless, he trusted the House would give it their favourable consideration,

  1669
  as it was based upon justice. It was, always important that the seamen belonging to the fleet should have no reason for feeling that they were not sufficiently cared for or rewarded. He might add that at the close of the different wars with China, and of the Burmese war, additional pay in the shape of gratuities had been given to the seamen and marines who had served, but when at the close of the operations conducted in China under his command, he applied to the Admiralty for a similar giant, they refused to accede to his request. Even under ordinary circumstances and in time of peace, when sailors were employed away from their ships in operations in which there was likely to be any great wear and tear of their clothes, they received a compensation; and in this instance they had been engaged in garrisoning forts on the Canton river, and in conveying merchants from Canton to Hong Kong, the river being unsafe on account of the number of war junks that were upon it. During the recent operations in China he was reluctantly obliged to comply with the request of some of his best men to be discharged upon the completion of their term of service. They wished, they said, to better their condition elsewhere, and, although they were excellent seamen, he was constrained to dispense with their services. If gratuities or extra pay could not be given to the men, he would recommend that good service should be taken into consideration when calculating the term for a pension.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTcordially gave his assent to this Motion. He could not understand why the reward given to soldiers should not be extended to seamen who experienced the same vicissitudes of life, were subject to the same wear and tear of the constitution, and exposed to the same privations and dangers. This distinction between the two services was calculated to engender a heartburning prejudicial to that cordiality which was essential for the proper conduct of the services, and for the success and glory of their arms. Nevertheless the fact that it had not hitherto abated by one jot the gallantry of the seamen and marines, must impress on the Government the propriety of awarding to them the same justice as was awarded to the army. He could not comprehend how a naval officer could sit at the Board of Admiralty and neglect to perform, in this respect, the duty he owed the profession to which he had the honour to belong.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he felt indebted for the manner in which the present Motion had been introduced to the House, and for the interest which the hon. Gentleman had evinced for a service to which he did not himself belong. The hon. Gentleman, in alluding in terms of warm praise to the services of the navy during the late operations in China, and during former wars in that quarter, had not quite clone justice to the Governments of the time for their treatment of the officers and men. During all the former wars in China and during the late war in India they had had extra allowances granted to them in the shape of "donation batta." It was impossible that they could have allowances granted to them except at the end of any great operation. Firstly, he should have little difficulty in showing that to pay the officers of the navy as the hon. Gentleman proposed by his Resolution would be impossible, for the extra pay and allowances received by the army for services in India and China were, in fact, field allowances—field batta money—for services away from their proper quarters. Now, no person ever pretended that the navy would have any right to claim field allowances, though they might be granted recompenses for their services, particularly when they were joined with the army in operations. But to give them field allowances would be out of the question, because they did not live in the field. Even if they were serving on shore, and were wounded, or fell into any misfortune, they had a ship to be brought back to; in fact, they had a home, which soldiers had not. No doubt they encountered equal danger with the soldier, but they could not be said to experience the same privations. So much as regards the officers; and, with respect to the men, the additional allowances which the army got were in the shape of suspensions of stoppages. The men in the army had a certain amount of pay, and certain stoppages were made from their pay for their provisions. When they served in India or China those stoppages were lessened to a certain extent, so that, in fact, they received greater pay. Now, in the navy there were no stoppages of pay, for all the sailors received their provisions without any stoppages. Therefore, on that ground sailors could not be put on the same footing as the army, and it was impracticable to carry out the wishes expressed in the Motion, because the system of the navy was totally distinct from that

  1671
  of the army. In reference to the Motion two questions had to be dealt with—the past and the present. It was quite certain that if the present naval expedition to China were at a future time to receive a donation it would be necessary to consider the claims of those who took part in the last operations in China; and here he would observe that no services were more appreciated at the Admiralty than those of the gallant Admiral who had seconded the Motion (Sir Michael Seymour); they could not overlook the gallant conduct of those who were engaged under his command in the last war. The Government felt that the House of Commons would always he disposed to deal generously by the navy, and to pay regard to the services the officers and men performed during the latter operations in China, commencing with what was called the Lorcha War, and terminating with the treaty of Tien-tsin. For the purpose of rewarding the officers, seamen, and marines of the fleet engaged in the operations under his gallant Friend, the Government were preparing an Estimate framed in the same spirit as former Estimates for similar services. And with regard to those now engaged in China, he was positive, without saying anything about the amount or mode of distribution, that he might give a pledge, on the part of the present or any future Government, that at the conclusion of the operations a fair reward should be proposed for the gallant officers, seamen, and marines engaged in them. It was right he should inform the House that the Admiralty were now on the eve of distributing what was called the Canton prize money, in which both the army and navy would participate; and it was only in consequence of difficulties with other departments that the money had not already been distributed. In submitting the Estimate which he would shortly lay before the House he should enter into detail as to the principle on which they asked for this sum of money, and as to the amount of donation which they proposed to give to the officers and men of the navy. Further than this he could not go at that time, except to assure the House that the gallant services of the navy in China were duly appreciated. Under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would probably not press his Motion to a division.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was happy to feel that there existed between the officers and men of the two services the most brotherly feeling, and anything that might
  1672
  tend to the advantage of the navy would always be received with enthusiasm by the army. It appeared that many seamen and marines in China had been employed in garrisoning forts ashore, and, at all events, when they landed in this way they ought to receive the same pay and allowances as the soldiers. As an army officer he had risen to express a hope that the claim of the other service would be considered, and he might add that it would be more satisfaction to them to receive what they considered was their right than to receive afterwards what that House might consider them entitled to.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he could not allow that batta money donations were at all to be compared with field allowances. Batta money was originally a grant of money made by the East India Company to officers and men serving in their army. Considering that this was the origin of the grant, it was still more unjust that officers of the army should get a grant of batta money, but that seamen and marines on board ship should receive none. They wondered and complained that men were not to be found to enter the navy; but how was it to be wondered at, when it appeared that the men were paid differently from those serving in the army? It appeared that the Admiralty were going to reconsider the question of compensation two years alter the services which it was to reward. Now, compensation deferred for two years was no compensation at all. Sailors lilted to receive at once what they earned. The Admiralty were always "going to do" something. They delayed in everything. Why half the sailors engaged in the Canton operations were dispersed over the world—many were dead, and not one-third of them would ever get the grant; and those who did get it would have forgotten what it was for. The Admiralty had better mend their manners and treat the men properly. There ought to be no difference between the soldier and the sailor. He did not believe that this matter would ever have been taken up if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) had not brought it forward. What had the Admiralty done for his (Sir Charles Napier's) gallant relative, Admiral Hope, on account of his brilliant though unsuccessful operations? Nothing whatever. Nor had they done anything for the sailors under him. The services performed by them were of the most gallant description. Even when they were unsuccessful, and they

  1673
  were recalled to their ships, what did they do? Instead of at once returning to their ships, they in the face of enormous difficulties exclaimed, "Let us try another chance." But as yet, the men had received no recompense whatever, and he had been told of an unfortunate fellow who had lost an arm there, who had a pension of £16, limited to one year only. That was a new plan, which he had never heard of before. He hoped the statement was untrue, but he had it on excellent authority. In the face of such facts as these, no one need wonder that men did not enter the navy. They were not sufficiently well treated; and, as an additional instance of this, he hoped shortly to bring before the House the nefarious manner in which the funds of Greenwich Hospital had for the last seventy or eighty years been diverted from their proper channels. He hoped that his noble Friend would stir the Admiralty up to bring about a change in this state of things, and also to put both arms of the service on an equal footing.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought that as we had now been in a normal state of war with China for twenty years, with very little present prospect of a change, it was high time that the Admiralty should be prepared with a plan for putting the sailors employed in this war on a proper footing as to their pay and allowances. From the nature of the country the navy must always play a considerable part in our wars with China. The men were obliged to be away from their ships in the boats for a long time, and anybody who had seen, as he had, the discomforts and hardships which they had to undergo would agree that it was absolutely necessary they should have batta issued to them in the same way as the army. They had to perform very heavy work in the day time with a burning sun over their heads, and at night with the thermometer down to 35° or 40°. In the day they were burnt up or eaten by mosquitoes, and at night they were nearly frozen to death. It must be remembered too, that the seaman was a skilled artificer, ready to put his hand to anything. If the Admiralty would produce some practical plan for doing the navy justice in this respect, it would be more creditable to them, and more profitable to the country, than squabbling about cutting down the half-pay of their officers.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he did not wish to give any opinion upon the question brought forward because it was not
  1674
  in his department. But it should be recollected that the question was one which required very great care to decide upon, inasmuch, as the troops did not, as a matter of course and in all places, obtain the Indian allowances when in China. For instance, at one time they had a garrison of British troops in Canton, together with Native troops; and the Europeans, being brigaded together with the Indian soldiers, received the Indian allowances. But a few miles off, at Hong Kong, there being no Native troops there, the British troops only received Hong Kong or Colonial pay, which was less than the Indian allowances. The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) spoke of the impropriety of allowing sailors to reflect that they were not receiving as much pay as soldiers in the army. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Additional pay.] The word "additional" was very important. The ordinary pay which the army received was not very much more than half that given to the navy.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Clothing?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, sailors got clothing at first.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: For the last six months.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, a very large deduction was made from the soldier for his food, whereas he believed the rations were free rations on board ship.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEobserved that the illustrations of the right hon. Gentleman did not much affect the question—Hong Kong being, as it were, an English colony. With the hope, however, that a full and ample amount of recompense would be granted, he was willing to withdraw the Motion, reserving to himself the right of renewing the question before the close of the Session, unless upon the Estimates an ample amount for the past, and a guarantee for the future, were given.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  VOTES AT ELECTIONS BILL—LEAVE.
  FIRST READING.
  MR. WYLD,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the mode of taking votes at elections, said, it would be a mistake to confound his Bill with the Ballot. The system which he wished to introduce might be either open or secret. Hon. Gentlemen of all parties concurred in the desire to remove the stain of corruption from our electoral system, and all the evidence before the Select Committee which

  1675
  had sat lately showed that it was necessary that some alteration should he made in the mode of taking votes. He proposed that when a man presented himself at the polling-booth to vote his name and residence should be asked, and that, having satisfied the returning officer of his identity, a paper should be handed to him having his number on the register printed outside, and the names of the candidates printed inside. He should then go into an adjoining room, and strike out the name of the candidate for whom he did not vote. This might be done either secretly or openly. [An ineffectual attempt was made to count out the House.] His object was not so much to give an explanation of the Bill as to lay it on the table in order that it might be considered, and, perhaps, at some future time incorporated in a great Government measure. The system which he proposed was somewhat similar to the Australian ballot system. It might be said that they ought not to receive suggestions from Australia, but he took the liberty of saying that any suggestion was worthy of attention, no matter from what part of the world it came, provided it came from those who bad tried our legislative system. He begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the law and practice in taking votes at elections.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he under-stood that the Bill had mainly for its object the introduction of a system of voting papers as practised in our Colonies. That system was, in fact, engrafted on the Bill which was proposed by Her Majesty's late Government, and which was under the consideration of the House last Session. As that was the ease, there was no objection to the repetition of the proposition in the Bill of the hon. Member.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it must not be supposed that, in consenting to the introduction of the Bill, the Government would support it. It might well be imagined that under the misty covering in which the hon. Gentleman enveloped his proposal, a nucleus of the Ballot was contained within it.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, the noble Lord need be under no apprehension that he would be prejudiced by assenting to the introduction of this measure.
  Leave given.
  "Bill to alter and amend the Law and practice relating to the taking of Votes at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. WYLD and Mr. CHILDERS."
  Bill presented, and read 1° to be read 2° on 24th July, and to be printed [Bill 248].

GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. STANILANDsaid, when he told the House that this Bill directly affected property to the value of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, and prospectively affected an amount of property equal to half the amount of the national debt, he had said enough to insure the patient attention of hon. Members to the measure before the House. It would be necessary to detain the House somewhat at length in order to put them in possession of the facts of the case; but inasmuch as he sought the reversal of a decision of a Committee, which at all times was a most difficult task to accomplish, especially when that Committee sat twenty-one days, and was presided over by a Gentleman so universally and deservedly respected as the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), the House would see that he had undertaken no ordinary duty. It had always been the policy of the Legislature to encourage the investment of capital in national undertakings, securing on the one hand a fair remuneration for the capital invested, and on the other imposing such restrictions on companies as would protect the public interests. That was the principle which actuated their railway legislation in 1844. An Act then passed for encouraging the investment of capital in that description of property, which provided that if at any time after the end of twenty-one years from that period, it should be shown that railways on an average for the last three years had earned and divided 10 per cent, it would be competent to Government to cut down the rates, but, if they did, they should secure the maximum rate of dividend. In 1847, previous to which there had been extensive operations throughout the kingdom in gas and water, the Government introduced two measures—one applicable to gas, the other to water. The provisions of both were identical, making it competent to gas and water companies to earn and pay a dividend of 10 per cent, and if, after 10 per cent paid, and laying apart a sum equal to one-tenth of their capital

  1677
  to meet depreciation of their property, they still showed a surplus profit, the public might come in and participate by a reduction of charge. Various Acts of Parliament bad since passed applicable to particular towns and companies, and in these the Gas and Water Companies Acts had been incorporated. A very large amount had been expended in these undertakings—in gas companies no less than£18,000,000 had been invested in the United Kingdom, one-third of which belonged to the various Metropolitan gas companies. They had also a debenture debt of £1,000,000. £12,000,000 had been invested in gas companies in the provinces. In London water companies £6,000,000 had been invested, and in the provinces double that amount, so that, in these two cases of gas and water companies, a capital of not less than £36,000,000 had been invested on the faith of Acts of Parliament, under which proprietors were permitted, if the profits enabled them, to receive a dividend not exceeding 10 percent. That was the state of things at the present moment as regarded capital invested. When any of the old companies came to Parliament during the last three or four years for an extension of their capital, Parliament said to them they must submit in respect to their further capital to a smaller maximum dividend, but in no one case had Parliament interfered to cut down this maximum 10 per cent on the old capital, So recently as 1854 the Imperial Gas Company, with a capital of £1,250,000, came to Parliament for powers to borrow £600,000 new capital, and, finding their management good, and no complaint made of their charges, Parliament applied the same rate of dividend to the new as to the old capital. So recently as last Session another London company, the City Gas Company, came again to that House for further capital and increased powers; and, although Parliament did limit the price of gas to 5s. per 1,000 feet instead of 6s., they still continued the maximum dividend of 10 per cent. The companies had invested their capital, relying upon the guarantee of the Legislature, but now that guarantee was to be repudiated, and the capitalists who formed those companies were told that in future their dividend must be at a lower rate. Those companies which were well managed of course had large dividends, and their shares had been regarded as favourable investments even by trustees. He found that in one company alone, the Imperial,
  1678
  there were no less than 252 ladies shareholders, whose capital produced them an income of £13,900 a year. Those ladies had, no doubt, been recommended to purchase gas shares, because they were an advantageous investment, and were carried on under a settled arrangement with the Legislature. In 1857 there was a change of circumstances. In the Metropolis some persons had formed themselves into gas companies with no charter of incorporation, and without the sanction of an Act; and carried on their operations by permission of the vestries and local authorities. Those companies were not confined to any particular district, but extended their pipes in any district where they could get permission to open the roads; while the incorporated companies were limited to particular districts by the terms of the Acts constituting them. It was, however, found in 1857 that the extension of their pipes by the unincorporated companies had not diminished the price of gas to the consumer, although it had reduced the dividends of the shareholders. All the Metropolitan companies therefore agreed, in order to remove the grievance of continual stoppages in the streets arising from the laying down and repairs of pipes, and also for the sake of economy, that in future each company should take a particlar district as arranged among themselves. Immediately that arrangement was made there came an outcry from the vestries of London—not from the consumers—against what they called monopoly. He understood monopoly to mean the exclusive right to deal in an article, and in consequence of that exclusive right furnishing a bad article at a price above its value. If that were a correct definition of monopoly, then he contended that the Metropolitan gas companies were not open to any such imputation, because, in assigning districts to each company, they did not attempt to exclude any capitalists who might choose to start fresh companies from entering those districts. The cry of monopoly was a dishonest, unfounded, and purely vestry cry. What had been the results of the arrangement he had described? It would naturally be supposed from the continual outcry of monopoly against the gas companies' that the latter had raised their charges to the maximum price permitted to them by Parliament—6s. per £1,000 feet; but the fact was that since that arrangement not a single company bad increased its rates. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Public lights?] He could enlighten the

  1679
  Committee on the matter to which the hon. Member referred. Public lights consumed an enormous amount of gas, which was charged for at a very low rate, quite disproportionate to its value. He could state that the companies lost money by every public lamp they lighted. But out of 13 Metropolitan companies only two had advanced their charges for the public lights, and the whole additional charge throughout the Metropolis did not exceed£300 a year. When he added that the Bill now before the Committee would give those companies power to charge a still higher rate, he thought he had succeeded in disposing of the cry of monopoly, which was a dishonest cry, got up by interested parties in order to deprive property of its rights.
  In the last Session of Parliament a petition had been presented by various gas consumers of London. A Committee was appointed to investigate the charges set forth in the petition. The charges were, that the companies supplied bad gas of insufficient illuminating power; that they charged more than was necessary to produce for them the maximum dividend they were allowed to earn; that the streets were continually disturbed; that the companies were capricious in their mode of cutting off supplies, and that they were in the habit of requiring an incoming tenant to pay the arrears of his predecessor. Not one of those memorialists, however, had the courage, or he might say the audacity to ask the House to interfere with the rate of dividend permitted by the existing Acts of those companies. The Committee arrived at no conclusion, and consequently the same parties came this year to Parliament with the Bill under the consideration of the Committee. On the face of the Bill there was no attempt openly to interfere with the maximum rate of dividend fixed by previous Acts of Parliament, but it sought to do so indirectly by reducing the uniform price of 4s. 6d. per thousand feet of gas to 4s. The Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and which bestowed an unusual amount of pains on the subject, was presided over by the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Estcourt) than whom nobody was more desirous to deal fairly between man and man, and after an inquiry of twenty-one days the measure assumed its present objectionable shape. It ought to be mentioned that the promoters previously circulated, in innumerable shop windows throughout London, a document which might be characterized
  1680
  as a wholesale solicitation to gas consumers to prefer accusations of every sort and kind against the Metropolitan companies. Of the grievances and complaints thus collected a liberal use was doubtless made before the Committee; yet on the 10th day of the investigation the Chairman said the Committee could have nothing to do with the crimination of the gas companies, having no grounds to suppose they had gone beyond the terms of their Acts. On the 13th day, when the counsel for the promoters had concluded their case, the Chairman intimated that the Committee had pretty well made up their minds upon certain points. Among those points was the substitution of inspectors for the existing tribunal for receiving complaints. The Committee also agreed that it was indispensably necessary to affirm distinctly by a clause of the Bill that which was to be the basis of all future operations namely,—not monopoly, but the "districting." The Chairman also admitted that 10 per cent should be the maximum standard of profit, observing that the Committee only wished that the guarantee which Parliament had given to the capitalist as to the rate of dividend should be continued to him. On the faith of this intimation of the views of the Committee the counsel for the Opposition to the Bill subsequently assented to the preamble. Pour days later, however, on going through the clauses, the Committee announced that they had seen reason to "resile" (to quote their own expression) upon the heads which they had laid down for the provisions of the Bill; in other words, that they wished to depart from almost every point which they had before indicated as essential to the measure. For the dividend of 10 per cent they substituted one of 8 per cent. They also wished when the 8 per cent was earned to reduce the price from 4s. 6d. to 4s., the effect of which would be to diminish the dividends of the whole of the London companies by 4 cent at a single blow. They further proposed to give the inspectors such unheard of and inquisitorial powers as no company could possibly submit to. On the 19th day of the investigation the opponents of the Bill withdrew from the Committee, adopting that course, as was stated by Mr. Serjeant Wrangham, because certain propositions which had emanated from the Committee, and in consequence of which they had not opposed the preamble, had been departed from in such a direction and to such an extent that they were led to

  1681
  fear that the magnitude of the interests at stake was not duly appreciated by the Committee, or at all events, that the inevitable results of legislating upon such principles were not foreseen by them. From that time the Committee were left in the hands of the promoters of the Bill, and the consideration of the clauses was proceeded with. How those clauses were settled was well illustrated by what took place in regard to the reduction of the maximum dividend of 10 per cent, which Parliament had repeatedly guaranteed,—to 8 per cent. The Chairman first referred to the amount fixed in the Gas Works Clauses Act of 1847, and after some conversation with the Parliamentary agent and others said, "In the Gasworks Clauses Act it is 10 per cent: how would it do to put it at 8 per cent?" How would it do! This question was put to an agent who appeared there ex parte. Could hon. Members doubt what was his reply? He answered, "That would work more commercially." And thus in this most unsatisfactory manner, without data or calculations, was the maximum rate of dividend of 10 per cent reduced to 8 per cent. In making that alteration the Committee had done away with the distinction between old and new capital which had previously existed, and applied the same limit to companies which were now earning only 2 or 3 per cent, and to those which were making more than 8. The latter error was perceived by Mr. Denison, the counsel for the promoters, who pointed out that a different scale ought to be provided for companies which now paid more than 8 per cent, such as the Metropolitan, which paid 9, and the Imperial, which was paying 10 per cent. More than this, the Committee had taken from the companies their reserve funds. Hon. Members were aware that in the case of all companies, but more especially of those which were engaged in manufacturing, it was necessary that there should be a kind of balancing deposit, to meet any deficiency of dividend which might arise from unforeseen circumstances. Accordingly, in the Act of 1847 it was provided that the gas companies might set apart a portion of their receipts, not exceeding one-tenth of the capital, to form such a fund. By this Bill, however, it was provided that the inspectors should inspect the books and examine the directors of these companies upon oath, and that if it appeared to them that 8 per cent had been earned, no matter to what accidents they might
  1682
  have been subjected, the price of gas should be reduced 6d. per 1,000 feet. The profit from the manufacture and sale of gas depended upon the fluctuations in the price of coal, of coke, and of labour, and it was therefore most important that these companies should have reserve funds. In the course of the inquiry the Chairman of the Committee expressed an opinion that it did not depend much upon the price of coal; and, provided the prices of coal and coke maintained their usual relation in point of value that was no doubt the case. If, however, the price of coal rose, and that of coke fell, as was the case during the Russian war, the profit derived from the manufacture of gas would be materially diminished. In consequence of a recent explosion an action had been brought, and was still pending, against the Central Gas Company, in which a claim was made for no less a sum than£60,000. What would be the position of that company if it had no reserved fund? Its annual dividends amounted, in the aggregate, to about£17,000, so that, without the protection which Parliament had wisely given in the shape of a reserved fund, its profits for four years would have to be devoted to the payment of these damages. Again, those who had observed the lime light on the new Westminster Bridge were aware that the profits of the existing gas companies might be entirely destroyed within twelve months by some new discovery. So precarious was the nature of their property; and yet the Select Committee had determined that their dividends should be cut down to the ruinous rate of 2 per cent. Take the case of a company now paying 10 per cent. The Bill said that in future it should not pay more than 8, from which at least 2 per cent must be deducted for depreciation, leaving an apparent dividend of 6 per cent. But the reduction of 6d. in the price of gas, which was also part of the Bill, would be equivalent to 4 per cent of dividend, so that in reality, the annual profits of the company could not exceed 2 per cent. It was hardly necessary for him to dwell further upon the operations of such a measure. The honorary secretaries to the league against the companies had publicly stated that the Select Committee had given them far more than they sought at their hands. That was his complaint. If the Committee had given only what the promoters of the Bill asked, little or no harm would have been done, and the gas

  1683
  companies would have been perfectly satisfied, for they were not opposed to, but rather courted, what was called uniform legislation. So far as the Bill sought to control the management of gas companies no fault could be found with it. In 1852 a Bill was introduced to regulate the affairs of water companies, but no attempt was made to interfere with the amount of the dividends payable to the shareholders in those concerns. The water companies still received their 10 per cent, but they were subjected to certain regulations, to which the gas companies would have no objection in their own case. The present Bill, however, was an invasion of the rights of property, and unless the House was prepared to sanction the principle of confiscation, and to place its credit upon the same level as that of defaulting Spain or the repudiating States of America, it was impossible that it could sanction so obnoxious a measure. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Chairman should leave the chair.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that, as he had the honour to be the Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred, he would naturally be expected to state the circumstances which came under their consideration. He might be permitted to say at the outset that he did not think any five Gentlemen ever undertook a disagreeable task with minds more entirely resolved to do that which they conceived to be their duty. Their only object was, on the one hand, to protect the public, and, on the other to do justice to the gas companies. The hon. Gentleman had based his complaint against the Committee upon two grounds—first and chiefly, the reduction of the maximum dividend payable to the gas companies from 10 to 8 per cent; and, secondly, the reduction of the price of gas from 4s. 6d. to 4s. The truth was, however, that the Committee had not really reduced the profits of the companies from £10 to £8 per cent. In the Gas Clauses Consolidation Act 10 per cent was fixed as the point at which there should be a reduction in the price of gas, and the Select Committee were at first quite prepared to recognize the propriety of adopting that standard, and the more so as 10 per cent was the actual rate of profit made by some of the companies. In referring to the conduct of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman had not fairly stated the case in quoting a single sentence from the short-hand writer's notes as having been used by him (Mr.
  1684
  S. Estcourt) just as if that had been all he said on that occasion. It was said he had asked how would they do if the Committee fixed the maximum at 8 per cent. But that was not the question. The question was, whether the maximum should or should not include depreciation. The Committee thought it should, but it was represented to them that it would be far better for the companies themselves to deduct a net sum—2 per cent—for depreciation, and to fix the maximum dividend at 8 per cent, instead of 10 per cent with depreciation. If the Committee had enjoyed the advantage of the presence of the counsel for the companies from the beginning of their investigation to the end, it was very likely that they would have adhered to their original intention, but on the nineteenth day, when nothing had been positively agreed upon, those gentlemen, in consequence as they said of certain observations which had fallen from the Chairman, intimated their intention to withdraw, and appeal to that House. The Committee might either accept or reject the Bill, hut he hardly thought that it would allow the hon. Gentleman to convert it into a tribunal for trying details, which ought to have been tried before the Select Committee, who showed every disposition to receive any amount of information that might be tendered to them. The question whether the preamble should pass was deemed to be a question of detail and to depend on the nature of the clauses, and when the Committee got through two-thirds of their labours the counsel for the opponents of the Bill withdrew. There was one point, respecting which the hon. Gentleman had said but little, though he should have thought that the power proposed to be given to the inspectors would have been denounced. But the Committee should understand how this matter really stood. The whole of these twenty-two companies obtained their Acts upon the understanding that the principle of competition was to be acted upon, and for years competition was carried to a great extent; but in 1856 and 1857, having probably exhausted their resources, they thought it would be better to come to an understanding, and thereupon combination took place of competition. He was ready to bear testimony that there was no ground to blame the conduct of any of the companies, but, if hereafter any vestry or private consumer should have reason to complain of the quality of gas or of the amount supplied, there would be for them,

  1685
  as matters stood at present, no remedy. They could not, if dissatisfied with one company, fall back upon another, because the companies had an agreement among themselves not to compete with one another in assigned districts. Under these circumstances, as competition was put an end to, it was the first duty of the Committee to protect the public, and for this purpose the establishment of inspection appeared the only means. That was the opinion of the Committee, and until the close of their labours they had thought that all the companies were satisfied with the scheme of inspection which the Committee had sketched out. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee had not heard a great deal of that which the opponents of the Bill had to tell them, and that the House ought to reverse the conclusion of the Committee. He hoped the House would do no such thing, for it was very desirable that the Session should not pass over without legislation on the subject. If the companies, however, being dissatisfied with the decision come to, should desire the Bill to be re-committed to the same Committee for the purpose of supplying fresh information, but not with the view of defeating the measure by a protracted inquiry, he undertook to say that the Committee would fairly and dispassionately consider the new matter. Two things must be agreed on, however; first, that no fresh evidence should be offered, but that what was to be stated should be in the way of information; and next that, if the Bill were again committed, the decision of the Committee would not again be called into question. Considering the great pecuniary interests connected with these companies, the importance of securing protection to the public, and the fact that legislation had been sought for year after year on this question, he thought it would not be an unwise act on the part of the House to refer the subject back to the Committee. He had never served on a Committee with Gentlemen more patient and painstaking than his colleagues, and if the House chose again to recommit the Bill, he should enter on the inquiry with the utmost satisfaction.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill had been before the Committee nineteen days, and had received full investigation, with the assistance of counsel. When a measure had been examined at such length, it was not very respectful to those hon. Gentlemen who had undertaken so laborious a
  1686
  duty, and did not tend to the economy of time, when attempts were made to review, in detail, the proceedings of the Committee. No doubt, with a mixed measure of this kind, it was competent to the House to go through it clause by clause, as if it had not been referred to a Committee. But if the labours of a Committee were thus to be thrown away, he hardly knew how the business of the House was to be conducted. Without expressing any opinion on the details of the measure, he would merely observe that circumstances had come to light since the Report of the Committee, which rendered some further consideration of the question as between the consumers and the companies expedient. But he confessed that he thought if the House were to undertake such an arbitration at that period of the Session, it would inevitably result in the loss of the Bill, and in the waste of all the time bestowed upon it by the Select Committee. Under these circumstances, the House, in his opinion, would do well to take the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, and refer back the Bill to the Committee, who would then attempt to reconcile these conflicting interests. If that object were accomplished, the Bill might be passed through Committee without much delay; and it would go to the House of Lords and might become law in the present Session. He did not think any useful object would be served by pursuing the debate in detail; and he hoped the Committee would consent at once to report progress, in order to carry into effect the suggestions so wisely and prudently made to it. If so, he would himself move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, on the understanding that some Member of the Committee would give notice for the recommitment of the Bill.
  MR. NORRISsaid, that with a view to make the passage of the Bill more easy when it came back to the House, he would suggest to the Chairman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) that he should now state whether the Committee would be likely to leave the question of dividend where the Gas Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 placed it. If so, he believed all parties would be satisfied.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought it would be most inconvenient if Members of the Committee, before hearing any evidence, or having any opportunity of conferring one with another, should pledge themselves to any particular course. He felt satisfied that they would investigate fairly all the questions which came before

  1687
  them; that they would not think themselves bound by any point of honour to adhere to their previous decision; and that they would regard the whole subject as open to reconsideration.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed in thinking that the Committee should be perfectly unfettered in their reconsideration of the Bill. At the same time, it should be understood that when the measure came back here, the House would not be pledged to accept it as final. Such great and important principles were at stake, that the House had a right to express its opinion upon them, even at the last stage of the Bill. He had been much struck with the remark of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Estcourt) that there were no grounds of complaint against the gas companies, although it was desirable that the public should have protection for the future. That had not been the case with regard to the water companies; for the public had complained most grievously of the quality of the water.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he thought the evidence showed that great complaints were justly made against a particular company which supplied gas on the other side of the water; but not against the other companies. He considered the proposition made by the right hon. Chairman of the Select Committee a fair one, and he believed all questions would be disposed of with the greatest ease.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that with the amouut of business which the House had before it, it would be useless to go on with the Bill, or to reappoint the Committee, unless there were some understanding that hon. Members would abate to some extent the right which they possessed of discussing its provisions. He hoped a precedent would not be drawn from the course taken by the counsel for the gas companies in this case, who, when they found they had not got a Committee to their liking withdrew from before it, and transferred their arguments to the floor of the House of Commons. The result of such a course, if persevered in, would be utterly to destroy the system of Select Committees. Hybrid Bills of this nature were attended with the double disadvantage that they entailed enormous expenses on their promoters, without in return obtaining any certainty that the Report of the Select Committee would be followed up by legislation. They had all the inconvenience and delay of public measures with all the cost of private Bills.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he had no interest whatever as a shareholder in any gas company, but, residing as he did in the Metropolis for seven months in each year, he felt it to be of the utmost importance that the question should be settled. There were clauses in the Bill which arbitrarily interfered, as he thought, with the gas companies, and he regarded the proposition to refer it back to the Select Committee as fair and reasonable. At the same time he should be sorry to see the principle established, even though a measure might come from the most respectable Committee, that it was to be passed in silence by the House. Gas companies differed from other associations in one important particular. With other undertakings the purchase of shares was optional with the public; but they were compelled to go to the gas companies, and these ought therefore to be conducted on principles just towards the public as well as to their own proprietors.
  MR. STANILANDsaid, he was perfectly willing to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the companies should be at liberty to place their case fully not only before the Committee but also, if necessary, before the House.
  MR. NORTHobserved that the Select Committee had declined to enter into the charges against the gas companies, and had not, therefore, pronounced a verdict either of condemnation or acquittal.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, whenever a Member stood up to advocate public interests, in which those of his constituents happened to be involved, he was at once accused of seeking popularity, and of acting with a view to electioneering: interests. The best answer he could give to such a charge was that the subject of the present measure had been anxiously discussed for four Sessions; there had been three Select Committees, and he had been a party to two compromises with the representatives of gas companies. He was quite willing to have taken the Bill in the shape in which it had come back from the Select Committee, but he would not object to their going into the whole question again. He had no desire to interfere unjustly with those who had invested capital in gas establishments, but he thought the public ought to be protected against their arbitrary conduct. Judging, however, from the excitement which had been going on in the lobby outside for the last fortnight, it was probable that nothing would satisfy the companies but trying

  1689
  what really was the determination of the vestries, but if they went up to the House of Lords they would find the vestries perfectly ready to fight it out there.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that he had ever maintained that the House would be bound by the decision of the Committee. If the hon. Member for Limerick would say that he approved the scheme now before the House, then he should be perfectly satisfied that it would be a Bill likely to carry out the desired objects.
  MR. F. W. RUSSELLsaid, the companies could not receive that amount of justice which they required unless the Bill went upstairs with a full understanding that there was to be a full and fair inquiry, and that further evidence was to be taken if necessary. Without that understanding it could not be expected that the companies would assist in carrying the Bill. At present there were many points in the Bill most objectionable to the companies—particularly that relating to inspectors, which would take away the entire control of the companies from the directors, and to vest it in officers who had no interest whatever in their prosperity.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that after the declaration of the hon. Gentleman it would be useless to waste time by sending the Bill upstairs again. The case of the promoters had taken fifteen days, and it was presumable that the case of the opponents would last the same time, and this being the 10th of July it was easy to see that it would not be possible to get the Bill up to the House of Lords before the last day fixed by them for receiving Bills from the Commons. The object was clearly not settlement but delay, and it would be better to fight the matter out at once.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed. [No Report.]

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
  Clause 3 (Certain Deeds not to be void if enrolled within twelve months from passing of Act).
  MR. ADDERLEYmoved the insertion in the clause after the words "void or voidable" of the words "except as against the donor or settlor, or his representatives." The provision made by the clause as it stood was that no deed
  1690
  or assurance connected with the Roman Catholic religion made subsequently to the 9th of George II., should be "void or voidable" by reason of the same not having been perfected or enrolled if twelve months after the passing of the present Act it should have been enrolled in the Court of Chancery. The object was to compel enrolment. The Roman Catholics, however, would rather not have the deeds enrolled, so that they might not be brought under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners. If the clause were allowed to remain in its present state the charities would be made valid without any control.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas afraid the Amendment would have the effect of defeating the object which the Bill was intended to realize, as it would enable the "donor, settlor, or his representatives" to take advantage either of the provision against superstitious uses, or of the non-enrolment of those Roman Catholic charities which were not enrolled, simply because at the time of the grant they were illegal. It was not intended by the measure to place the Roman Catholics on any better footing with respect to their charities than ordinary dissenters from the Established Church. The object was to relieve them from certain disabilities imposed upon them by certain statutes which the Legislature had repealed. Before 1832 all provisions for Roman Catholic charities were void by law, and, in consequence of that, the deeds relating to them were not enrolled. By the Act of 1832 the charities were rendered valid, but, subsequently to that, a decision was given by the Master of the Rolls that any charity containing bequests for masses for the souls of deceased persons were superstitious, within the meaning of the Act of Edward VI., and were consequently void. That decision had never been acquiesced in. It had been very much questioned by recent decisions of the present Master of the Rolls, and was not in accordance with the law in Ireland. The object of the Bill, therefore, was simply to place Roman Catholics under the general law, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would probably have the effect of rendering that object nugatory. He trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not think that the Amendment would have the effect supposed. The clause under considera-

  1691
  tion was simply a provision with reference to Roman Catholic charities which had come into existence between the passing of the mortmain Act of George II. and the present time. The enrolment would be nugatory, and the simplest way would be to leave the trusts unenrolled, and to allow them to be valid without enrolment, except as against the heirs at law of the donors.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not quite understood the effect of the Amendment. Hitherto all Roman Catholic charities were void if not enrolled. By this clause, however, Roman Catholic charities made since Sir J. Jekyll's Act, in the reign of George II., would not be void against the donors for not being enrolled, in case they were enrolled within twelve months after the passing of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would virtually enact that, even although they might be enrolled within twelve months after the Act, still they should be void against the donors for not being enrolled under Sir J. Jekyll's Act. Such an Amendment would defeat the purpose of the Act; and he hoped the House would not agree to it.
  MR. ADDERLEYobserved that the right hon. Gentleman was wholly mistaken as to the effect of his Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that the Attorney General intended by the first clause to provide against the difficulty which had been suggested. There might be and, in fact, there were Roman Catholic charities which were applied contrary to the wishes of the donor, and the question was, would they give the donor or his representatives the right to have these abuses corrected. There was a case, for instance, where a Roman Catholic priest had built a chapel, but this charity had, by the exercise of the spiritual authority of his superiors been entirely defeated, and his person had virtually been deprived of the benefits of his own charity, and of his means of livelihood during his life time, because he refused to transfer it to trustees, to whom he objected. If they had any regard for religious freedom they would give power to correct such abuses. He thought that if there was any danger of the representatives of the donors, who were not Roman Catholics, seeking unfairly to vitiate the trust, that might be prevented by words being introduced giving certain powers to the Charity Commissioners and to the Court of Chancery. Such a provision was introduced into the Bill of last year. He certainly would vote for
  1692
  the Amendment giving to the representatives of the donors of these trusts power to have them readjusted where they had been altered, perverted, or needed amendment to render them conformable to English law, subject to the control he had mentioned. This was the substance of the Bill of last Session that it would be introduced into the measure now before the House.
  MR. PULLERsaid, the object of the measure was to place the Roman Catholics on the same ground as other Dissenters. He understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) to agree to that; but now that it was proposed to bring these charities, which had been illegal, within the pale of the law, it was hard to make the trustees liable to the donor or his representatives. Whilst under repression the Catholics had had recourse to concealment, and he thought that there should he no power to revoke the trust because there had been no enrolment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked that the evidence before the Mortmain Committee proved that there had been continual misappropriation of these trusts, and, therefore, it was most important to give power to the original donors and their representatives to deal with this state of things, subject to proper control.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he believed that the difficulty arose entirely from the postponement of the first clause. If that clause were framed as the Committee clearly intended, the third clause would do in its present shape. He would, therefore, suggest that his right hon. Friend should postpone his Amendment until after the first clause had been brought up again. The House had properly determined that there should be some legislation on these charities, so that the practice of having three or four sets of deeds, to be produced according to circumstances, might be put an end to. The difficulty, would, perhaps, best be obviated by his moving that the first clause be rejected, and that the second clause of the Bill of 1859, introduced by the present Home Secretary, should be substituted for the first clause. If that were substituted his right hon. Friend's Amendment would be unnecessary.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would accede to the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, and would not press his Amendment.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would move the omission of certain words in the clause, the effect of which would be to place Ro-

  1693
  man Catholics on precisely the same footing with Protestants as respected the statute of mortmain.
  Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "made, perfected, or."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsubmitted that the clause had been correctly drawn, and was calculated to meet the defect that existed in the Mortmain Act.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he could see no reason why the Roman Catholic charities should be put upon a more advantageous position than those of the Church of England or any other charities, as the proposed Bill was calculated to do.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that if a man were required to obey a law he ought to receive some protection. The Roman Catholics were outlaws as regarded their charitable testamentary dispositions. The law gave them no protection. Was it, then, fair or just, when there was one provision of the law with which they could not comply, that they should be required to comply with any other provision?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the object of the House was not to place Roman Catholic charities in a better position than any other charities, but on a par with them, and the object would be fully attained by adopting the Amendment.
  MR. WHALLEYcomplained of the course which the Government had pursued in reference to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had last year pledged himself to introduce a measure, but it was not now introduced on Government responsibility. He (Mr. Whalley) thought the better course would be that this Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill introduced next Session by the Government.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, when the Roman Catholic charities were created, the Mortmain Act being then in force, there were two principal provisions of it under which any such deed would have fallen. One was the provision that it should be executed at least a year prior to the death of the testator, and the other was the enrolment with two witnesses. The object of the clause was to cure the defect of non-enrolment. It had been urged in curing that defect they ought not to cure the other. But what possible inducement was there to Roman Catholics to fulfil the one condition if they could not fulfil both? Unless both were fulfilled the deed would be invalid. The two conditions could not be severed, and if they cured the
  1694
  one defect, it was equally just that they should cure the other.
  MR. ROLTdenied that the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman applied. Of the two conditions he mentioned one had reference to the mode of executing the deed creating the charity—the other to the question of capacity to do the thing at all. The prohibition in the Mortmain Act did not apply to Roman Catholics especially, but to all "languishing and dying persons." Why, therefore, should Roman Catholic charities because they were to be relieved from the results of the non-fulfilment of the one condition be relieved with regard to the other, the non-fulfilment of which amounted in any case to a positive incapacity?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALcontended that the reasoning of the Home Secretary was perfectly correct, because, as the law stood, under the Act of George II. it would be perfectly useless for a Roman Catholic to comply with all the other conditions, if the one condition of enrolment was not complied with. There was therefore no inducement to the Roman Catholic to comply with the condition of making his will at the legal period.
  MR. ADDERLEYobserved that the Mortmain Act required several conditions to make a deed valid, and he did not think that enrolment should be permitted to cover all invalidities.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the necessity for some limitation was shown by the experience of all Roman Catholic countries, where, if gifts from "languishing and dying persons" were permitted without restraint, a great portion of the land became lost for all public purposes.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71 Noes 49: Majority 22.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the House had been sitting thirteen hours, and was to meet again at twelve o'clock. It was, moreover, quite clear that the Bill could not go through Committee without the presence of the Attorney General to bring up the first clause, and it was only reasonable that they should now go home. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's Motion was a reasonable one. The only question was whether they might not finish this clause before progress was reported.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 67:Majority 30.
  An Amendment was made in the clause. Clause agreed to.
  House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.