Commons Sitting of 4 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Marriages (Extra-Parochial); Spirits.
2° Innkeepers Liability,
3° Bank of Ireland.

CANAL COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
MR. BEAMISHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to renew the Act of 1858, restraining Canal Companies, being also Railway Companies, from leasing Canals.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for the renewal of this Act.
On Motion, "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday."

OUR RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Fo-
  674
  reign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect our commercial interests in Japan. In putting his question he should take the liberty of making a few observations. He knew that questions of the kind failed very frequently to excite any interest in the House; but the circumstances of the case were very important, and that must be his apology for calling attention to the state of our relations with Japan, lion. Gentlemen who had not perused the papers relating to Japan might not be aware that there was at present a great risk of a massacre of the whole of the European inhabitants. But as such appeared to be the case, it was right that the House should know what means the Government had adopted or intended to adopt in order to protect the interests of those persons who, in consequence of the policy of the Government, had been induced to make Japan their place of residence. In 1854 Admiral Stirling, a distinguished officer in the British service, and then commanding in those seas, entered into a convention with the Government of Japan with regard to certain harbours in that country, and obtained by virtue of that convention the privilege of access to the country by our merchants. Very little result was produced by that convention; but it was a striking circumstance, as the first instance in which the Emperor of Japan had abandoned the restrictive policy of the empire since the great massacre of Christians which took place there two centuries ago, that massacre having been followed by laws so stringent that no Japanese, on pain of death, could leave the country, or, having left it, could return to it. Admiral Stirling having entered into that convention, Lord Elgin, in 1858, during the progress of the negotiations which were carried on in China, went to Japan for the purpose of effecting another commercial treaty with that country, and at the same time to present to the Emperor, or the Tycoon of Japan, a yacht, the gift of Her Majesty. Hon. Members who had taken the trouble to read the despatches on the table, must have been struck with the interesting account given of that visit by Lord Elgin; as well as the able and admirable narratives of Mr. Oliphant and Captain Sherard Osborn on the same subject. With all the admiration that he felt for Lord Elgin, and his patriotism in again returning to the East, he regretted to be forced to say, that his Lordship appeared to have fallen into the same error in Ja-

  675
  pan as we had fallen into with regard to China, and which had led to all those calamities, involving the loss of he did not know what amount of blood and treasure. We had treated the Japanese in the same manner as the Chinese—at one moment as barbarians, in the next demanding from them all that conduct which pertained to the highest civilization. And while we demanded of them the strictest execution of the treaties into which they had entered, we were the first to violate those treaties. For instance, Lord Elgin, in contravention of the convention made by Admiral Stirling in 1854, and in opposition to all the remonstrances of the authorities of Japan, drove through the harbour of Yeddo and anchored in the inner harbour, in defiance of all treaty obligations. In another place, Lord Elgin had lately blamed him for having used harsh language towards him. He could assure the noble Lord, and he trusted that the assurance would reach him in due time, that he felt the greatest admiration for him. The noble Lord had exhibited the greatest self-denial and patriotism in again going out to China as Ambassador. Nothing less than real love of his country could have been his actuating motive. Still, he differed from some of the views which Lord Elgin had carried into effect, and which had been well described by the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Bulwer Lytton) as the predetermined system which we had pursued in the East. The noble Lord having arrived at Yeddo, concurred with Mr. Oliphant and Captain S. Osboin in bearing testimony, and most touching testimony, to the gentle, generous, amiable, and kindly qualities of the Japanese. It was a country more densely populated than any country in Europe, and yet, in which, owing to the admirable system of legislation there pursued, there were actually no poor. There were cities of enormous population, as Lord Elgin testified, and yet the crowds in the streets, though naturally anxious to see the foreigners in their capital for the first time, were kept back by a packthread stretched from end to end of the streets. Mr. Oliphant had declared that during the whole period they were in Japan nothing occurred to mar the pleasure and the happiness they derived from their visit to the Japanese. Such having been the case, it became a question what had given rise to the sudden change in the relations between the two countries. A gentleman of very excellent ability, and of very great influence in the East, Mr. Al-
  676
  cock, was appointed to the post of Consul General at Yeddo, and a number of other gentlemen, also of great ability, were made Vice-Consuls. Mr. Alcock was subsequently named Minister Plenipotentiary. But as he (Mr. Cochrane) said before, unhappily we fell into the same error as we had done in China. Two demands were made on the Japanese. One was, that we were to have a Minister resident in Yeddo; the other, that all the Vice-Consuls were to be so situated as to be placed in immediate and convenient relations with the Government of Japan. The whole feelings of the people in eastern countries were opposed to such close intercourse; and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in one of his despatches had suggested that another pert should be substituted for that on which Mr. Alcock had insisted. From the moment we had put forward those demands, a bitter feeling arose in the minds of the people of Japan, and was shown in a manner that would interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it exhibited very great and wonderful ingenuity in dealing with questions of finance, and the result had been to place us in a position of very great difficulty and embarrassment. One article of the treaty stipulated that the Mexican dollar should be taken by the Japanese in exchange for Japanese silver at an equal weight. At that time the Mexican dollar was equal in weight to three Japanese itzebous. The Japanese, therefore, called in all those coins, and re-coined them so as to render them equal in weight to the Mexican dollar, and the result was, that the English lost two-thirds of the exchange in the value of money. There was unhappily another occurrence of a more serious nature. The export of gold from Japan was prohibited, but if it could be smuggled out of the country it produced an enormous profit, and he regretted to find that English merchants had sent in demands for large amounts of itzebous in order to buy up gold. The Japanese Government then declared it would issue no more silver, and the people even burnt down the Emperor's palace in order that they might be able to say that under the melancholy circumstances the public offices would not be opened. And so the public offices were closed. He should explain that the Government had announced that they would only issue silver in proportion to the demands that were made on them for it. The result was that the European houses began to make absurd demands. Thus one

  677
  house, Tells by name, asked for 250,000,000 dollars' worth of Japanese silver; the house of William Jones asked for silver to the amount of 1,000,000 dollars. And so in many other cases. This went on so quietly, that the demands became still more absurd; and he held in his hand a list of the houses of "Doodle-do," "Nonsense," "Is it Not?" "Snooks," and others, which had sent in claims for silver to large amounts, making a total of upwards of 355.000,000,000 of dollars. The Conduct of these Europeans had been appropriately described by Mr. Alcock as a positive disgrace to anybody bearing the name of Englishman. Every one he was sure would concur in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord in his despatch to Mr. Alcock, in which he expressed his confidence that the East India and China Association would view with disapprobation and alarm the way in which the trade with Japan was put in jeopardy by reckless and unscrupulous individuals, and that they would use all their influence to discountenance such conduct. This was language worthy of the Foreign Secretary of this country. But, in the meantime, the trade with that country was, to all appearance in a state of great danger. In his very last despatch Mr. Alcock stated that sinister rumours of a general massacre of the foreigners were put in circulation, whilst the warnings sent to the diplomatic agents against being burnt out looked ominously like a foregone conclusion. Added to this, the frequent recurrence of earthquakes made the post of diplomatic agent in that country by no means an enviable one. He would ask, therefore, what means were about to be taken for the protection of the inhabitants. There was only one other observation he wished to make in connection with this question. We were now engaged in hostilities with China, in which he knew not how much of money would be expended, and the termination of which no man could tell, for the sake of obtaining the right of having a resident Minister in Pekin. But the Russian Government already had an Ambassador residing in Pekin, and he had obtained for his country all the objects for which we were about to expend so much blood and treasure. While, too, we were asking to have a resident at Jeddo and endeavouring to render our relations with the Japanese more intimate, the Japanese breaking through the traditions and customs of their country, had sent an em-
  678
  bassy to the United States and had given to the United States all the advantages of intercourse which we were seeking to secure. The whole of the papers showed that while this was the case we did not know how to go about the establishment of friendly relations with these people. Mr. Oliphant, in a remarkable passage of his excellent work had said,—
  "So essential to the maintenance of amicable relations with Japan is it, that we should employ in our intercourse with them a mixture of firmness and forbearance. No less vital was it that our merchants should set an example of rigid adherence to treaty obligations."
  With these expressions he (Mr. Cochrane) fully agreed; and he trusted that, as he saw the noble Lord had expressed himself in strong language respecting the conduct of Europeans in that country, so in future those who were in office would treat the people as they should be treated, and carry out honourably the conditions of the treaty. He wished to ask whether Lord Elgin had any authority from Her Majesty's Government to proceed, after the Chinese expedition was at an end, to Japan; and also what means Her Majesty's Government had taken to protect the interests of our commercial policy in that country?

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION.

  CONFERENCE.
  The time being come for the Conference with The Lords upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the provisions of the Act of the Sixteenth of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-seven:
  Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to manage the Conference.
  And a Committee was appointed of Mr. PEEL, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, MR. BOUVERIE, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. WILLIAM EWART, Mr. RIDLEY, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, and Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN.
  Then the Names of the Managers were called over; and they went to the Conference.
  And being returned;
  Mr. PEEL reported, That the Managers had been at the Conference, which was managed on the part of The Lords by the LORD STEWARD, and that they had delivered to their Lordships the Address agreed upon by this House, to which they desired the concurrence of their Lordships; and that they had left the said Address with their Lordships.
  At a later period of the evening a
  Message from The Lords,
  That they do request, that this House will he pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament, to try and determine the matter of the Petition of Richard Hodgson, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, together with the Proceedings and Minutes of Evidence taken before the said Committee.

OUR RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL.
  QUESTION.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, before the noble Lord replied to his hon. Friend, he wished to ask him a question concerning the claims of British subjects on the Brazilian Government. It was said that the delays in the settlement of those claims were caused by our Government. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any representations have been made to the Foreign Office as to the delays occasioned by the Brazilian Government in the disposal of Claims of British subjects laid before the Mixed Commission under the Convention of 2nd June, 1858; whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure the speedy adjudication of such Claims, and whether any Papers on the subject can he laid upon the Table?
THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN ACTONasked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would consent to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all such Despatches and Reports as had been received from the Diplomatic Agents of the British Government in Rome from the year 1855 to 1858 relating to the condition and administration of the Roman States? He said:—I do not apprehend the noble Lord will have any difficulty in producing these papers, for he has made no secret of his opinion of the Roman Government, and I can hardly suppose that he will wish to withhold the information on which that opinion is founded. My motive in asking for them has no direct reference to the events now passing in Italy, or to the policy of the Government regarding them; still less do I now mean to attempt any vindica-
  680
  tion of the Roman Government. I think that it would be idle to discuss the political merits of a question in which such great religious interests are involved, and in which so much religious animosity has been unfortunately excited. My object is simply to elicit information. Judging from the language of successive Ministers, I have no right to suppose that that information is of a favourable character; but I ask for it not because I expect that it will be favourable, but because I hope that it will be authentic. It is impossible at present for any impartial persons to distinguish truth from falsehood in the midst of so much conflicting testimony and of so many conflicting passions. We have plenty of unscrupulous attacks on one side, and a good deal of not very discriminating eulogy on the other. There is but one document proceeding from a witness alike competent and disinterested—I mean the despatch of the late French Ambassador, of which, by the way, the French Government has implicitly admitted the authenticity. But that document is notoriously at variance with all that we are accustomed to hear. I hope, therefore, that is not too much to ask the Government that they should lay upon the table the Reports which they possess, equally authentic in character, but widely different apparently in spirit, in order that we may be able to judge of the materials on which they have founded their opinion and their policy. It is a practice with which the Roman Government has often been reproached, and of which it is easy to perceive the bad consequences, that it does not court publicity. I hope the noble Lord will not imitate that failing, but will rather assist in correcting it. All Catholics are, or ought to be, anxious to know all the truth concerning the accusations brought against the Roman Government. We do not wish to be open to the accusation that we are arguing upon imperfect knowledge, or defending what does not deserve to be defended. We do not wish that it should be believed that the Catholics of this country, who are better fitted by their position and their experience to appreciate the advantages of good government, are indifferent to the political welfare of their fellow Catholics abroad, or that we are blinded by attachment to our religion to facts by which, if they are true, that religion is injured and disgraced. I believe, then, that in asking for these papers I am speaking in the interest of all Catholics. But we are all of us interested in the good

  681
  name of our public men, and it can be a matter of indifference to nobody to know whether the information which is in the possession of the Government bears out the statements which have been made by men in high and responsible positions, undefended by argument, and unsupported by evidence.

DIPLOMATIC POSITION OF MR. COBDEN.—QUESTION.
MR. PALKsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Cobden holds any Diplomatic Appointment at Paris; and, if so, whether that appointment is independent of or subordinate to the English Ambassador? His question was not put from any invidious feeling towards the hon. Member. On the contrary, he trusted he might bear his willing testimony to the fact that the services of the hon. Gentleman had been rendered without any attempt on his part, or on the part of his friends, to obtain any emolument whatever. The hon. Gentleman had negotiated a Treaty, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had characterized as one that would produce vast benefits to this country. He (Mr. Palk) only hoped that that expectation might be verified to the extremity of the letter. But rumour stated that the same hon. Gentleman was about to be employed in a negotiation of still greater importance than that which be had lately conducted. He alluded to the Treaty for giving reciprocity to that interest which was suffering more than any other from the effects of recent acts of legislation. He trusted that the efforts of the hon. Gentleman to obtain some better terms for the mercantile marine of this country might be crowned with success. He did not doubt that the negotiation would be conducted with a due regard for the honour and dignity of this country; but he questioned whether an individual having no official position, and no recognized status, as a plenipotentiary or attaché to an embassy, ought to be entrusted with a commission of such great importance. This country surely was great enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to pay for the services of its public men. It was moreover doing an injustice, both to the individual and to the Treaty itself, if they permitted Mr. Cobden to negotiate at Paris without a known and recognized position, He trusted the noble Lord would be able to assure him
682
that this point had already been taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government. Whether it was right or usual to place an individual, who had hitherto bad no connection with the diplomatic service, in a position where he must in reality be supported by a well-trained and experienced negotiator was a question he (Mr. Palk) would not go into. Mr. Cobden was entrusted with a mission of very great importance, in which every one in the House must wish him complete success. But no means should be left unattempted to secure this end; and it was only just that the individual himself should speak in the matter with the authority of an accredited agent.

EXPEDITION TO CHINA.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord a question with reference to China, Whether it is true that a Telegraphic Despatch has been sent out to stop the Chinese expedition till the arrival of Lord Elgin. If the rumour to that effect were correct, the expedition would be delayed till the month of July, the most unfavourable season of the year for naval operations, and a very short space of time would be left when operations could be conducted at all.

ITALIAN AFFAIRS. CASE OF MR. OGILVIE.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that before putting the question of which he had given notice, he wished to say one word with reference to the question that had been put by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Acton). He hoped the Government would consent to lay on the table all the despatches, not only which had been received from the diplomatic agents at Rome, but those which had been sent out to Mr. Russell. His reason was that the noble Lord and other distinguished Members of the House had, on more than one occasion, intimated their opinion that the Grand Dukes and the Pope ought to have fought for their dominions if they really claimed a right to them. Now he was informed that the noble Lord, in one of his despatches directed Mr. Russell, in the name of the English Government, to advise the Court of Rome not to take any hostile course with reference to Sardinia. If that were so, the noble Lord was undoubtedly to blame; for that very course had led to the annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia. He had also been informed

683
that the noble Lord had written a despatch in which he instructed Lord Augustus Loftus, at Vienna, to recommend the Government of Austria to dissuade the Court of Rome from taking any hostile course: and that, in reply, Mr. Russell wrote to the effect that a pacific course was approved of, and that the Roman Government was prepared to offer no opposition to the King of Sardinia. The fact was that the Pope was ready with his army to defend his territory, and attack the troops of the King of Sardinia if they entered it. So also was the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena. The English Government, however, dissuaded them from defending their territories. Furthermore, the diplomatic agents of this country prevailed upon the Grand Duchess of Parma not to take the course which would have been ordinary and natural under the circumstances. He (Mr. Hennessy) would take the liberty of reading a few lines from one of the published despatches. When Lord Augustus Loftus made that extraordinary recommendation to the Court of Vienna the Austrian Minister replied that, "the Pope was an independent sovereign, and no one could contest his undisputed right to defend from aggression a province which was part of his own dominions." Now he (Mr. Hennessy), ventured to think that the noble Lord had not acted in conformity with a strict policy of non-intervention in dictating either directly or indirectly to the Court of Rome upon such a subject. The Duke of Modena was anxious to take hostile steps when the Sardinian army entered Italy, and he too was dissuaded by the English Government from taking the most ordinary precautions. And yet the noble Lord a few nights since had spoken of these rulers as having run away, and abandoned their dominions and subjects. He was also anxious to call attention to despatches of the noble Lord, in which he had gone beyond the usual limits of diplomacy, and used language fortunately not often seen in the despatches of European statesmen. The Earl of Malmesbury in his despatches had always referred with great delicacy to the temporal rule of the Pope. That noble Earl appeared to be of opinion that it was highly improper that England, being a Protestant country, should dictate to the Pope, or intermeddle in the affairs of the Holy See; and he never made the least allusion to the ecclesiastical rule of the Sovereign Pontiff. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), however, in one of his despatches declared that the tem-
684
poral rule of the Pope ought to be confined to Rome and a certain circuit outside the walls of the city. That might be the noble Lord's opinion; but it was a question whether he should have announced it to one of his diplomatic agents, and thus recorded it in a public despatch. But he went much further. The noble Lord described the ecclesiastical rule of the Pope as ignorant, tyrannical, and corrupt—he had spoken of it in terms quite as strong as those of his celebrated Durham letter, and quite as insulting to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. He was very sorry that the noble Lord had so far digressed from the policy of his predecessor. Of course the noble Lord, as a member of the Church of England, might naturally suppose that the rule of the Church of Rome was ignorant and corrupt; but the House would not sanction that language as a description of the religion of some millions of Her Majesty's subjects. He would now beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. Ogilvie, of the London Customs, who has been selected to assist in the revision of the French Tariff, as stipulated under the Treaty, is the officer of that name, who, a few years ago, was engaged, under the direction of the present Chairman and Board of Customs, in getting up the prosecutions for alleged frauds against the various Dock Companies of the Port of London; whether Mr. Ogilvie was employed in revising the British Tariff which has just been abolished, and which was based upon the principle of levying Duties by specific rates: and, further, whether there is any objection to the Reports or Statements made, on a former occasion, by Mr. Ogilvie to the Board of Customs, or any member of it, or to any person connected with the Government, in opposition to the abolition or reduction of the Wine Duties, being presented to this House?

ITALY—THE PAPAL STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, that before the noble Lord adverted to what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy), he also wished to ask him a question. The noble Lord would remember that he some time ago asked him whether he would lay on the table a despatch which was material for the completeness of the Correspondence on Roman affairs, and which was dated the 29th of February, and addressed by Cardinal Antonelli to the Nuncio at Paris

  685
  for the information of the French Government. In that despatch the Pope answered the arguments used by M. de Thouvenel in his despatch to the French Ambassador at Rome. He (Mr. Bowyer) was anxious to know whether the noble Lord was prepared to lay a copy of that despatch on the table. There could be no difficulty in procuring a copy, and it would make the information before the House more complete. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend's information with respect to a despatch written by the noble Lord, in which he denounced the ecclesiastical rule of the Pope as tyrannical and corrupt, was well founded, because the noble Lord had lately admitted that he had written despatches to the Court of Naples in which he denounced the Government of Naples as ignorant and tyrannical. The noble Lord probably thought that as he would not be very successful in passing a Reform Bill in England, he might as well endeavour to pass a Reform Bill in the kingdom of Naples. He had no doubt that the noble Lord had intermeddled in the internal affairs of Rome, and he protested against the noble Lord's interference in matters which did not concern him. Her Majesty's Government had no right to give any opinion whatever with regard to the internal administration of the Pope's dominions. Her Majesty's Government had never interfered in the affairs of Italy without doing mischief. Whenever they had expressed their opinions on those affairs they had done so in a tone and manner highly insulting to the Sovereigns of Italy, and had shown so much prejudice against those Sovereigns that no useful result could follow any opinions they might give on Italian affairs. He protested against the opinions of Her Majesty's Government which might be laid on the table with regard to the internal administration of Rome being received except in the manner he had stated —that was to say, received as the opinions of persons who interfered in matters with which they had no right to interfere.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, be wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, when he intends to proceed with the Bill respecting Roman Catholic Charities, upon which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has informed the House that the hon. Member has been in communication with the Government?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I will endeavour to answer the various questions which have been addressed to me, but I will not now attempt to enter into a discussion with the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) as to the general policy which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
  The first question which has been addressed to me concerns our relations with the Empire of Japan, and I have to inform the hon. Member that since the papers to which he referred were laid on the table, other despatches of considerable interest and importance have been received. In forming a trading connection with a country for the first time very considerable difficulties have unavoidably to be encountered, and in the case of Japan one of these difficulties was the state of the currency, because, while the proportion of gold to silver in this country has been as one to fifteen, or thereabouts, in Japan it has been as one to five. It was therefore a very profitable business for the British merchants, or rather their agents in Japan, to obtain quantities of silver, and with that to purchase gold for exportation. That trade naturally excited a good deal of apprehension and objection on the part of the Japanese Government and people; but I am happy to say that the Japanese Government have, pursued a sensible course in this matter, and have made the proportions of gold and silver in their currency the same as has been generally adopted in the countries of Europe. The opening of our commercial intercourse with Japan has been attended with various other occurrences, more than one of them, I am sorry to say, of a very distressing character. For instance, one of the servants of the British Mission was a native of Japan, who had passed many years in the United States, and was a master of the Japanese and English languages. His conduct bad provoked a great deal of animosity on the part of his countrymen, and some of them having assaulted him he placed the offenders in the hands of the police, thereby causing a great deal of ill-feeling. The consequence was that one day, when he was standing at the door of the Mission, two or three persons suddenly rushed upon him and stabbed him so severely that he died instantly. The British Consul insisted that proper reparation should be made, and that the offenders should be prosecuted. The deceased accordingly received a public funeral, and his murderers were ordered to be arrested. All

  687
  this was done without exciting any ill feeling; and in his latest letters Mr. Alcock, while representing the state of affairs as still very unsatisfactory, and the apprehension that other murders might be committed as still prevalent, expressed himself more hopefully than in his former letters as to the prospect of the difficulties being overcome and of a considerable trade being established. At the same time it appears that the trade which is carried on consists almost entirely of Japanese produce supplied in return for silver, and that there is no considerable demand, indeed hardly any demand at all for British manufactured goods. In regard to the measures which have been taken for the protection of British subjects, I may say that there are ships which visit Yeddo from time to time, but as they are unable to approach within four or five miles of that town, they cannot be on the spot to interfere on any occasion when their presence might be required. As soon, however, as the Admiral can spare ships, that protection will be afforded to our countrymen in Japan to which they are entitled. I feel very strongly that we must be very careful that none of the clerks or agents of British merchants out there should commit any offence against the customs of the Japanese, for unless they abstain entirely from behaviour of that kind, we cannot justly complain of outrages against us, and it will be impossible to maintain satisfactory relations between the two countries.
  The next question was put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, and refers to the delay which has been occasioned by the Brazilian Government in the disposal of the claims of British subjects laid before the Mixed Commission under the convention of the 2nd of June, 1858. The reason of the delay was, that an immense number of counter claims had been made, chiefly founded on slave trade transactions, some most notorious slave traders between Brazil and Africa complaining of the hindrance caused by the British cruisers to their nefarious traffic. Great difficulty was found in disposing of these claims. The British Government thought that those cases did not come within the terms of the convention; but the Brazilian Commissioners decided that unless they were investigated no inquiry should take place into the English claims; and thus the Mixed Commission was suspended on account of the differences which arose. An application has since been made by the Brazilian Minister
  688
  to have the Commission renewed, but as the subject is attended with so many difficulties, and as those cases ought not, it appears to me, to have come before the Commission at all, I have resolved to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the question. About a week or a fortnight ago the papers were accordingly submitted to those officers, and are still under their consideration. I cannot of course say at present what will be their decision.
  I now come to the question which was addressed to me by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Acton) in regard to the Despatches and Reports from the diplomatic agents of the British Government in Rome from the year 1855 to the present time, relating to the condition and administration of the Roman States. The diplomatic agent we have at Rome is not one of the regular character, but only an attaché to another mission in Italy, and therefore is not in the habit of transmitting diplomatic reports in the absence of any regular diplomatic relations with the court of Rome. I will endeavour, however, to see whether between 1855 and 1858 there are any Despatches which will throw the light which the hon. Baronet wishes upon the Government of the Court of Rome. Our information on that subject is not entirely founded on the Reports of our diplomatic agents, because various acts have been published from time to time and circulated in the provinces of the Roman States, which did not immediately concern the Court of Rome, and have not been reported to us by our agents. For instance, Bologna was for a considerable time in the hands of the Austrian army, and all the criminal jurisdiction of the place was conducted by Austrian courts-martial. That, of course, was different from the judicial system of Rome, and had nothing to do with the general conduct of that Court.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Hennessy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) seem to think I have some very peculiar objection to the Government of the Pope. I beg to say that for the personal character of the Pope I entertain very great respect. I believe him to be a most benevolent man, and a book has been written by an hon. Member of this House (Mr. Maguire), which shows that with regard to certain departments of the Papal government, such as the administration of hospitals and so on, nothing could be more charitable or afford a stronger proof of kindness of heart than the conduct of the Pope. But there are other

  689
  departments of Government, such as more especially the administration of justice— ["Hear, hear"], which—I do not say the present Pope in particular—but the ecclesiastical government generally is, in my opinion, ill-calculated to discharge to the benefit of the people. The hon. Member for King's County said that, as a member of the Church of England, I might, of course, object to Papal government. Now I will say that though I have a very great respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet, I believe, if Her Majesty were to transfer the Government of the county of Kent to the Archbishop, that county would speedily become the worst administered part of the kingdom. It is not, therefore, from any Protestant prejudice that I have not thought particularly well of the government of the Pope; but, at the same time, I confess there are opinions held by Roman Catholics in which, of course, I as a Protestant cannot share. For instance, an Italian gentleman, who is very much respected, has written a pamphlet, in which he says that to take the Romagna from the Pope is not an aggression, is not a robbery, but is a sacrilege. [Mr. BOWYER: Hear, hear.] No doubt my Italian Friend stated those as the opinions of Roman Catholics, but they cannot expect that Protestants will deem it sacrilege to deprive the Romagna of the Government of the Pope. With regard to the Despatches written by Mr. Russell, there is this to be said—Cardinal Antonelli has spoken to Mr. Russell with the greatest openness about the mode of government in the Pope's dominions, and has said, "As you are not a regular diplomatic agent, we can speak to you with less reserve than we could if your character were strictly official." That is a reason, I think, why we should not produce to Parliament everything which Mr. Russell reports. The last thing to which the hon. Member for Dundalk referred was our conduct with regard to Naples, and he expressed an opinion that we have very unnecessarily interfered. But the conduct of that Government has been such to its subjects, both in Naples and Sicily, that it may at any time bring on complications and armed interference by one party or another, to which we cannot be indifferent. There is this likewise to be said—the Ministers of the King of the two Sicilies have from time to time communicated with us, which shows a reliance, and, in spite of my hon. Friend, I will say a just reliance,
  690
  on the friendship of Her Majesty's Government. Upon one occasion there was a report that General Garibaldi was going to Genoa, that ships were being armed there, and that they would sail to Sicily. The Government of the King of the Two Sicilies immediately applied to Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to stop that expedition, and I lost no time in applying to the Sardinian Government, asking them, if they had any authority over General Garibaldi, not to allow him, while holding a Commission from the King of Sardinia, to proceed. But if we are asked for such acts of friendship, I think it is fair for us to say, on the other hand, "If you wish no aggression and no insurrection, it is at least desirable that you should conduct your government with such justice, and in accordance with such acknowledged principles, that discontent will not arise among your own subjects." It is only fair that with friendly intervention, not by arms, on our part, we should say to them what is our opinion of their Government. That is the course which I have pursued. I have never attempted to threaten the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies with any interference; but I have not concealed from them the opinion, not merely of Her Majesty's Government, but of every party in the country, with regard to some acts committed by the police of Naples.
  There was another question, with respect to Mr. Cobden. I have stated already to this House, that Mr. Cobden being in Paris last year as a private individual had a great many private communications with the Ministers of the Emperor of the French. It was supposed that those communications might lead to a treaty, and then he was invested regularly, just as Mr. Eden, who was only a private individual, but in opposition to the Government of the day, was invested in 1786, with the titles and functions of Plenipotentiary, as regarded the Commercial Treaty. Mr. Cobden is now again in Paris, but he has gone from this country as one of a Commission to carry out the 13th article of the Treaty of Commerce. There are three Commissioners—Mr. Cobden, a gentleman from the Board of Trade, and a gentleman from the Board of Customs, who are associated with him, and who are persons most fitted to act. I do not believe that any one person or any three persons can be acquainted with all the details of a question of converting ad valorem into specific duties; but I believe that Mr. Cobden is especially fitted to treat

  691
  with the French Minister of Commerce. It is a specific matter, in which he does not act as Plenipotentiary; but, if any convention should ensue, Mr. Cobden will be associated with Earl Cowley in that convention. It has been very properly said that the British Government ought not to depend on volunteers. There is no salary for a person on a special mission, but it is proposed that the expenses of Mr. Cobden while on that mission shall be defrayed out of the public purse.
  With respect to China, I have been asked whether orders have been sent out to stop the military and naval expedition from undertaking any operations. There is no truth whatever in that report. On the contrary, the Earl of Elgin was very desirous that if there were to be any naval and military expeditions, they should be commenced before he reached China, so that the responsibility might not be placed on him of ordering them. I believe that if such operations are to be undertaken, they will be undertaken before the Earl of Elgin arrives. I have now, I believe, given the best answers in my power to the questions that have been addressed to me.

MILITARY REGULATIONS.
  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to receive some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War with respect to an Order which had been recently issued from the Lord Chamberlain's Office, to the effect that the rank of Volunteer Officers who may attend Her Majesty's Levees is no longer to be recognized. He could himself see no reason why such an order should have been made. He should also take that opportunity of expressing his regret that the Government had refused to sanction the raising of volunteers in Ireland; he believed that they might, by pursuing an opposite course, have obtained in. that country a valuable addition to the national defensive force. He also found that a General Order had recently been promulgated requiring Officers of certain Corps to discontinue the use of peaks to their forage caps and to substitute, in future, gold lace stripes, in lieu of the present cloth stripes on their undress trousers. That was a somewhat strange regulation, and it was opposed to the practice which prevailed among English gentlemen from their earliest youth of providing some protection for their eyes.

IRISH FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has given authority to the Officer commanding Royal Engineers to set up claims to Fisheries in Ireland in regard to Lands held for Military purposes where no such right existed; and whether he has authorized that Officer or any Department to let such Fisheries by public competition without previously establishing such right by Law? As the representative of a maritime county, in which the great bulk of the population were interested in the Fisheries, it was his duty to bring this matter before the attention of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, had ventured to give orders to the officer commanding the Engineers in Ireland to let these Fisheries, but he had better ascertain his right to do so. For his own part he could not see what on earth the War Department had to do with Fisheries at all, and was quite satisfied that they had no business with the particular Fisheries which the right hon. Gentleman was now taking away from their lawful possessors. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely there in the guise of a poacher [A Laugh.] It was not a laughing matter at all, for the rights of fishermen had been grossly violated for upwards of 200 miles. Those who had hitherto enjoyed the free right of fishing were now to be deprived of it unless they would pay a rent for it.
MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that with regard to the first question of the gallant Officer respecting forage caps and trousers, it was of so minute a description that he ought to have applied for an answer to the office of the Adjutant-General, where he was sure he would have obtained all the information he wanted. He believed that the officers applied to be allowed to use forage caps without peaks, as they were considered to be more convenient on a march, and would go into their holsters. With regard to the trousers, he believed the explanation was that by giving the cavalry but one kind of overall they could do with two pair instead of four. That, I hope, solves that mystery. With regard to the other question, he had made inquiry on the subject, and found that no such regulation as that referred to had been promulgated; but any regulation that might be made by Her Majesty for the reception of the society whom she honoured by receiving at her Court ought not to be

693
made matter of discussion in that House. With respect to the question respecting Fisheries, he bad to observe that the War Department possessed considerable landed estates in different parts, some of them near the seashore; and, as the country was put to heavy expense for the support of the Military establishment, it was his duty to see that it had the advantage to which it was entitled from the possession of lands. He had only continued the same instructions which had been given at former periods. He had no doubt about his right to do so, as it was founded on an Act of Parliament, but if the hon. Gentleman doubted the right, it was for a court of law, and not for that House, to decide the point.

CLASSIFICATION AND EDUCATION OF INMATES IN UNION WORKHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it may not be advisable to adopt in Union Workhouses a system of Classification of the Inmates, so that the more respectable may be separated from the worse conducted classes; whether a greater separation of the children from the other inmates cannot be effected, and a system of industrial training more generally adopted; also, whether it might not be beneficial to encourage the introduction of small but well-assorted Libraries in Workhouses, together with the practice of reading aloud to those who cannot read themselves; also, whether any Returns could be made, showing how far such or any other recommendations of the Inspectors have been complied with in Workhouses, and what is the present number of District Schools for the education of children apart from the Workhouse, with the results of such separation of the Schools from the Workhouse?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that a few years since a Return had been made of the "General Regulations of the Poor Law Board, relating to the Classification of the Inmates of Workhouses;" and his hon. Friend would find there the specific arrangements made by the Board with a view to classification, together with the further order that the guardians throughout the country should, as far as circumstances admitted, subdivide the inmates into three classes, according to their moral character and previous habits. That order had been carried out to a great extent, and the
  694
  Board had every reason to believe that the desired object would be carried out still further, for they had given instructions that every now workhouse should be so constructed as to allow of the requisite classification. In all the large towns there was now a strict classification with regard to the children. The Board had readily consented to establish libraries, and it was not an uncommon practice for one of the inmates to read for the benefit of the others. The suggestions of the Poor Law Inspectors had, as a general rule, been observed by the Boards of Guardians to whom they wore made. There were now six district schools, formed under the District School Act, and 19 separate or parochial schools, in which there were altogether 7,063 children. They were all taught some trade or other, by which they could subsequently maintain themselves, and the demand for the service of the children educated in these schools was very considerable. There were also 251 paid industrial teachers, and altogether the children educated out of the parish rates were at present 33,579 in number. The system now in progress throughout the country was, of course, more advanced in the Metropolitan district, which comprised 50 unions and upwards of 300 parishes, and it might be interesting to his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) to be informed of some statistics contained in a note just made by the Metropolitan Inspector upon the condition of his district. The Inspector stated: —
  "In the Metropolitan district, wherever there is a modern workhouse (and there are many), the guardians adopt every practicable moans of classifying the moral and immoral women; the latter being set to task-work by themselves. With regard to libraries in workhouses, I have taken every means in my power to establish them by conferring with the guardians, and by recommending them in my reports in the Visitors' Books, and I am glad to be able to say that libraries have been established in many workhouses, and are being from time to time now established. There are three district schools, capable of containing 3,289 children, in the Metropolitan district, and the average weekly number educated in them last year was 2,263. There are 11 separate or detached schools, capable of containing 4,399 children, in the district, and the average weekly number educated in them last year was 3,097; so that there wore 5,360 pauper children being educated last year in the above schools belonging to this district. The children are both mentally educated and trained with great strictness to habits of usefulness, industry, and virtue, the result of which is that, on the one hand, there is no difficulty whatever in obtaining good situations for them, and, on the other, very few of them lose their situations through faults of their own.
  With regard to the Returns alluded to, the

  695
  materials which his hon. Friend desired would be furnished if he would move for them.

THE INDIGO RIOTS IN BENGAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as lately stated in the public prints, a Bill had been brought into the Legislative Council of India, making the non-fulfilment of a contract to grow Indigo on the part of a Ryot a criminal offence; whether he had any objection to lay a Copy of such Bill upon the Table of the House, and further to inform the House if such Bill had been introduced as the result of any authorized inquiry; and, if not, on what other grounds the Legislative Council proposed to make the breach of a merely civil contract a criminal offence; and, if he would not require that a Commission should be at once appointed to proceed into the interior of Bengal to inquire and ascertain the circumstances which had led to the complaints of the Bengal Cultivators? During the last three years there had been three mutinies in India—that of the Bengal army, which it was clearly shown by the papers before the House might have been averted by ordinary precautions; the mutiny which took place on the transfer of the Company's troops to the Crown, which had resulted in an enormous expense to the country, and betrayed a degree of mismanagement in simple matter little creditable to the Indian Government; and, lastly, the rising of the ryots in the Indigo districts of Lower Bengal. The House had been told that when the East India Company was abolished they would receive information more direct and more quickly, and he had, therefore, been surprised to find that no official reports were to be obtained respecting a Bill of such importance. The serious nature of the disturbances in the Indigo districts would be best appreciated by the measures adopted to repress them. He was told that large bodies of the new police were pouring into the district, and that the Legislative Council with the utmost precipitancy were called upon to pass a Bill which would treat the simple breach of a civil contract as a criminal offence. Perhaps the House was not aware of the oppressive system by which the ryots were compelled to cultivate indigo. They received advances of money with a view to this cultivation, and, though it
  696
  would pay them much better to grow rice, they were compelled to grow indigo. This had long been a grievance to the ryots, who had remonstrated, but in vain; and now, on attempting to resist the oppression, they were met by the Act which he had described. It was as if an English landlord were invested with the power of punishing a tenant for default of rent as a criminal offender. If such a thing were attempted by the Emperor Napoleon in Algiers, or by the Czar, the whole press would cry him down for his tyranny and oppression. In 1857 he had brought the case of the ryots before the House, and had urged the necessity of inquiry. On that occasion he was told by Mr. Mangles, who was then Chairman of the Company and held a seat in this House, that there really was no such oppression, though he promised to adopt remedial measures, and to make inquiries. He (Mr. Kinnaird) complained, however, that no inquiry, though promised, had been made. Surely a measure so oppressive and so unusual ought to be preceded by inquiry. At all events, he wished in bringing forward this question, to obtain from the Secretary of State for India an assurance that the condition of the ryots should now be properly investigated by the Government. The fact was, that the administration of justice in those parts was so incomplete and so complicated, that in the present emergency the system had broken down; but the substitute about to be applied would be most arbitrary and oppressive in its operation. In the Queen's Proclamation the following passage occurred:—
  "When, by the blessing of Providence, internal tranquillity shall be restored, it is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer its Government for the benefit of our subjects resident therein. In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward."
  He was puzzled to understand how an Act so oppressive carried out the spirit of this promise to the people. The Queen's Proclamation had penetrated far and wide, and it accorded little with the tenour of such assurance to pass an ex post facto law, rendering that a criminal offence which was before purely a matter of civil contract. He hoped the Secretary of State for India would cause inquiry to be made without delay, and that at the earliest possible period the people of Lower Bengal would be relieved from the pressure of this most severe law.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, it appeared to him that the conduct of the magistrate of Baraset, Mr. Eden, had been very unjustly assailed, and that he had been made to atone for the blunders committed by Mr. Grant the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. There had been great discontent for a very considerable period on the part of the ryots against the indigo planters of Lower Bengal. They accused the planters of great tyranny and oppression, and that charge had been fully proved by the evidence taken before the Colonization Committee, of which he (Mr. Vansittart) was a Member. That evidence proved that the indigo planters of Lower Bengal were a very different class of gentlemen from those residing in Tirhoot and the Upper Provinces, and that they had been in the habit of keeping in their pay Latteeals, or bludgeon-men, in order to coerce the ryots. The ryots also complained of the very arbitrary clauses which the planters were in the habit of inserting in the Cabooleeut, or contract-deed, on making advances of money for the cultivation of indigo, by which clauses they reserved to themselves the power of sending to the fields their own people to weed, reap, and cart the indigo. The consequence was that it mattered not how favourable (he season might be and how abundant the crop, the ryots could not fulfil their engagements, because on their bringing to the planter the specified number of bundles of indigo the planter produced a counter statement of the expenses incurred in weeding, reaping, and carting, and thus he kept the ryot on his books as a defaulter. When he (Mr. Vansittart) was in India a ryot told him that, do what he would, he could not liquidate the debt incurred by his father twenty-three years previously, and it was a remarkable fact that, the more industrious the ryot was and the better he cultivated, the greater were the exertions made by the indigo planter to keep him on his books as a defaulter. It appeared that Mr. J. P. Grant, the Lieutenant Governor, had some lengthy correspondence with Mr. Grote, the Commissioner of Nuddea, on the subject, in which he made use of some hasty and ill-judged expressions, which the ryots construed as being favourable to their cause and interests. The police of Baraset were called upon by a planter to assist him in compelling some ryots to fulfil their engagements. The police referred the matter to their magistrate, Mr. Eden, who very properly and promptly instructed them not to interfere except in case of a breach of the
  698
  peace, and to refer the indigo planter to the civil court for redress, it being altogether a civil suit. But, unfortunately, that was not all. It was said that Mr.Wilson had prevailed upon the Legislative Assembly of Calcutta to pass a law, after a sitting of a few hours, making the non-fulfilment of an indigo contract a criminal offence, punishable summarily by the Mofussil magistrates. Meanwhile, to such an extent had these disturbances spread that large bodies of military police had been moved down into the disturbed districts, and, therefore, by the violent proceedings of the planters on the one hand and the summary decisions of the magistrates, backed up by the military police, on the other hand, the gaols would probably be found to be inadequate to hold those miserable ryots who will be ground down to a state of the most abject misery and pitiable distress. It was much to be regretted that Earl Canning had not returned to Calcutta from his long itinerant tour in the North, because Mr. Wilson, by a most extraordinary coup ဟétat — very similar to what happened in that House in the early part of the Session—had succeeded in so completely fascinating and bewildering, for the moment only, it was to be hoped, the Members of the Legislative Council by his rash, ill-considered, and unworkable financial Budget, that he wielded despotic power in that irresponsible Assembly. In order to justify the question of which he had given notice, and that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India might not suppose he had done so on insufficient grounds, he would read a very brief extract from an Indian paper recently received:—
  "Furthermore the Executive of Bengal, yielding, it is said, to Mr. Wilson's influence, has resolved to obtain an Act compelling the fulfilment of Contracts for the cultivation of indigo by a summary and peremptory process. The Bill was to be introduced into the Legislative Council on the 24th of March, when the standing orders would, of course, be suspended in order to expedite its enactment, and the provisions of the Act were to take effect from the date of its notification."
  He would conclude by asking the Secretary of State for India whether he can state that the agrarian disturbances are confined to the districts of Baraset, Nuddea, and Moorshedabad, or whether they have extended to the adjoining districts of Lower Bengal; whether it is true that the Legislative Council of Calcutta, at the recommendation of Mr. Wilson, have passed a law, after a sitting of a few hours, making the non-fulfilment of an indigo contract a

  699
  criminal offence; and whether, in consequence of that proceeding, a feeling of deep exasperation has been excited among the peasantry, which has rendered it necessary for the indigo planters to secure, for their protection, the services of discharged soldiers and sailors lounging about Calcutta?

ORGANIZATION OF THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, if the Council of India possessed the powers of the former Court of Directors there would be no necessity for his putting the question of which he had given notice. Each member of the Court of Directors had the power of introducing any subject for discussion, just as hon. Members of that House brought subjects before the House. But the Council of India had no such power. They could discuss nothing but what had been introduced by the Secretary of State, who, if he consulted them at all, might take their advice or not, as he pleased. The consequence was that they were dummies, or not, according to the policy of the Secretary for India. There was, however, one exception, and that was in respect to the disposal of public money, and in all financial questions the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of a majority of the Council to his acts. The reorganization of the army of India was a real financial question, and one in which a million of money might be wasted or saved according to the measures that were adopted. He, therefore, wished to ask the Secretary of State for India when he purposes taking the judgment of the Council of India upon the Report of the Military Committee upon the reorganization of the Indian Army; and whether he will lay the result upon the Table of the House, with the other papers promised, and at what time?
MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he thought it was time that some definite information should be given to the House upon the important subject of the organization of the Indian army. There was a general opinion out of doors that there should be a large local force, irrespective of the Queen's troops, in India, and also that the delay that had taken place was as discreditable to the Indian Department as it was injurious to the public service. Before the mutiny there were 74 regiments of native infantry in the Bengal army. The rank and file of many of those regiments had now all disappeared; and yet the greatest part of the expense formerly connected with them was
700
still being incurred in the pay of the officers. The expense of the Indian army amounted to something like £20,000,000 a year; a Commission had sat in this country on the subject of the reorganization of that army, but, so far, without any result, and he thought such a state of things was a discredit to the Indian Government, and most detrimental to the public service.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would not enter into the question of the state of the Bengal Army. It was a question not of Indian only, but of Imperial importance. There were few officers, indeed, belonging to the disbanded regiments who were not employed in one way or other. They were not paid for doing nothing, Many of them were employed in connection with the new levies, though of course when those levies ceased to be necessary the services of the officers would be no longer required. Others were employed in various ways. Up to the present moment no expense had been incurred in that respect, but such as was unavoidable. He was sorry the rank and file of so many of the seventy-four regiments, to which reference had been made, had disappeared in the way they had done; but he did not suppose that any hon. Member of that House would say that the officers belonging to those regiments should be deprived of their pay. With regard to the question put by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes), he hoped to be able to lay the papers on the table next week.
He came now to the questions asked by his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) and by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vansittart), with reference to the relations between the indigo planters and the ryots. He quite agreed that the state of those relations for some years past had been anything but satisfactory. His hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) seemed to think that no steps had been taken with the view to place those relations on a more satisfactory footing. But he appeared to have forgotten that an Act was passed in 1859, which he (Sir C. Wood) hoped would produce very considerable improvement in the relations between the planters and the ryots. That Act, however, had as yet hardly come into operation. The state of the relations between them was this,—the indigo planters obtained by purchase or lease zemindary rights, and thus became the landlords of the ryots. The planter let to the ryot on favourable terms the land over which he exercised those rights;

701
he made him advances of money for carrying on his operations, but he imposed on him the obligation to grow a certain quantity of indigo. The consequence was, that the ryots were generally in debt to the planters, who by the exercise of the powers of zemindar, landlord, and creditor, kept them in a state of complete dependence, and he (Sir C. Wood) was very much afraid that in many cases those powers were exercised over them to an extent which the law would not sanction. The ryots had objected for some years to grow indigo, because they considered it was more profitable to them to grow other crops; and that state of affairs had led them to refuse to perform their contracts and to combine together to resist the planters. If it was true that sailors and soldiers had been brought up from Calcutta to assist the planters, it could not have been in consequence of the passing of any law, for the Government at home had received no account, publicly or privately, of the passing of a law. The necessity for a law had arisen practically from the state of things he had described. That being so, applications had been made to the authorities in Calcutta; he was not in possession of any official communication as to what had been done; the only information he had was contained in a private letter, dated the 23rd of March, stating the intention to introduce a Bill into the Legislative Assembly next day, for the purpose of dealing with the question. It did not, however, appear from that letter that it was intended to subject the infraction of a civil contract to criminal proceedings, but rather that a summary power was to be given of dealing with such infraction as a civil case. Some time ago an Act was passed authorizing magistrates to proceed criminally in those cases, but that Act was repealed in 1835, at the instance of the Court of Directors. All he could say on the subject was that the non-performance of those contracts must entail serious loss, and might lead in some cases to the absolute ruin of the indigo planters. He only begged that hon. Gentlemen would be good enough to suspend their judgment on the matter until they were in possession of the facts. The law, at any rate, whatever it might be, was only to be temporary; and in the meantime a Commission was to be issued to inquire into the state of the relations between the planters and the ryots, with the view, if possible, to place them in a more satisfactory footing.

LIGHTHOUSES ON THE IRISH COAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. A. HERBERT,in rising to ask the question of which he had given notice upon this subject, said that the efficient lighting of the coast of Ireland was a question of the greatest importance, and one that affected the whole commerce of Europe. That duty devolved on a body in Dublin called the Ballast Board, but to keep the light, buoys, and beacons in an efficient state they ought to have a vessel devoted to the purpose of inspection, properly fitted and manned for such a purpose, and placed under their control. The Trinity Board of London have six steam vessels and eight sailing vessels at its disposal for that purpose alone; the Northern Commissioners of Scotland had 39 lights under their control, and were supplied with one large steamer and one small, one of them being for supervising business; but although the Ballast Board of Dublin had 70 lights placed in spots, in most instances quite inaccessible except by water, they were supplied with but one small steamer, so small that two buoys occupied the whole deck, and so ill-suited to the work it had to perform that he believed, if her log were referred to, it would be found that she was obliged frequently to put in and discontinue her inspections in consequence of being quite unfit to face the heavy seas on the west coast of Ireland. The consequence was that the Board had been compelled to borrow a steamer from another Board, the steamer which was at one period placed at their disposal having been taken from them and sold. He found from a Parliamentary Return that the Trinity House establishment, with 94 lights to look after, cost £46,343; the Northern Commissioners, with 39 light3 to inspect, got £8,895; while the Ballast Board, with 70 lights, got £11,114. He therefore wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board have received an application from the Ballast Board of Dublin to provide them with a suitable steamer for carrying out the service of frequent inspections of Light Houses, and for the supply of oil and other stores; what Reply has been given to any such application; whether the application has been referred to the Royal Commission now having under consideration the subject of Lights, Buoys, and Beacons; and whether any steps have been taken by the Board for providing the Ballast Board

  703
  with the accommodation indispensable for the due performance of their duties?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that an application had been made to the Board of Trade of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and a deputation had also waited upon him with a similar request. His answer was, that at the present moment it was difficult to come to any decision, because a Commission had been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) when he was President of the Board of Trade, for the purpose of inquiring into the general subject of lights and buoys, and reporting thereon. It appeared to him that it would not be right, on the eve of receiving the Report of the Commission, to decide on a question involving the large expenditure that would be incurred if the request of the Ballast Board were complied with. He was ready to admit that circumstances now were very different from those that existed when the steamer was withdrawn, because there were more lights and more extensive duties to be performed; but the House would feel that it would not be right in him to overrule the decision of a former President of the Board of Trade, and grant the use of a steamer which had been withdrawn, on the eve of the Report that was about to be made by the Commission on the general question. He must content himself with saying that at that time no decision had been taken, but he did not deny that a strong case had been made. They must however postpone their decision until they received the Report of the Commission.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's reply satisfactory. The Ballast Board had built a steamer at a cost of £20,000, suitable to the work of inspection. That steamer, however, had been taken from them by the late Government, and sold for £8,000, but was shortly afterwards re-sold for £20,000. If this was economical management he was at a loss to understand what was economy.

FINAL REDUCTION OF THE WINE DUTIES.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any foundation for the report that the final reduction of the Wine Duties is to take effect in August or September, or whether he intends to adhere to his original proposal that such reduction shall take effect on the 1st day of January,
704
1861? Such a rumour had become current, and was producing an injurious effect upon the trade.

VENTILATION OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, that it appeared from a recent report on the polluted atmosphere of our public galleries and museums that the air of the National Gallery was more deleterious, noxious, and pestiferous than that of a common privy. And perhaps hon. Members would be surprised though not delighted to hear that the next public building in the order of atmospheric impurity was the House of Commons. There was no chance this year, and very little next year, that the money would be voted by Parliament for building a new National Gallery. He would, therefore beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, to improve the ventilations of the National Gallery, and to remove a vitiated atmosphere, which must be very injurious to the fine pictures in the national collection?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before he gave any answer to the two last Questions which had been put to him, he would first advert to the Question which had been asked some two hours before by the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) on the subject of a gentleman connected with the Customs department. He begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in intimating to him privately his intention to put this question. In the question was involved three separate inquiries with respect to Mr. Ogilvie, who had been selected, together with another gentleman attached to the Board of Trade, to assist Mr. Cobden in the application of the principles laid down in the commercial treaty to the principles of the French tariff. The hon. Gentleman asked first, whether Mr. Ogilvie was the officer of that name who a few years ago was engaged under the direction of the present Chairman of the Board of Customs in getting up certain prosecutions, on the alleged ground of fraud, upon the dock companies of the port of London. In answer to that he had to say that those prosecutions were not accurately described, because, although they were prosecutions carried on by the Board of Customs, yet, as the hon. Member no doubt was aware, for all such proceedings the Executive Government, the

705
advisers of the Crown, and particularly the Minister of Finance of the day, were properly responsible. As he understood, it was not Mr. Ogilvie's duty nor was he permitted by his superiors to take any share in the preparation of materials connected with those prosecutions.
The second Question, of course, referred to that portion of the British tariff which contained lists of duties of manufactured goods a large portion of which were now levied by specific rates. Many of these duties were introduced into the British tariff not many years ago, in 1845 or 1853; and Mr. Ogilvie, then an officer of the Board of Customs, on account of his great activity, intelligence, and experience in business, and also the confidence which his superiors reposed in him, was largely employed in the conversion of certain ad valorem duties into specific rates, and his efforts were as satisfactory as the nature of the case would permits and they wore so deemed by the commercial community at large. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any objection to lay upon the table any reports of statements made on former occasions by Mr. Ogilvie to the Board of Customs, or to any person connected with the Government, in opposition to the abolition or reduction of the wine duties. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had to state that there was no paper in existence which answered to the description of a report made by Mr. Ogilvie to the Board of Customs or Government. Upon first making inquiry on this point the memory of the parties connected with the Board of Customs did not serve them in the matter; but after reflection they recollected a memorandum from Mr. Ogilvie relating to (be vine disease, and to which, possibly, the question might refer. With reference, however, to memoranda of that description, passing between one member of a department and another, it would be quite contrary to usage, would be attended with great inconvenience, and might prevent confidential communications in future, if a practice were adopted of producing them for the information of the House. Of course he drew a broad distinction between such memoranda and those reports which were occasionally prepared by direction of superior officers, which constituted formal documents, and were, in many cases, fit to be produced for the information of Parliament.
With regard to the question put to him by the noble Lord, the Member for Wiltshire
706
(Lord H. Thynne), he had only to say that a report to the effect the noble Lord had described (and he had no doubt there was such a report) was highly injurious and in-convenient with reference to trade. There was no foundation for any report of the kind. In point of fact, Her Majesty's Government could have no adequate experience of the probable working of the new system of wine duties. That experience could not even begin until the House should have passed some legislative measure for altering the present system with regard to the sale of wine, and the intention that bad been apparently imputed to Her Majesty's Government did not exist.
With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham), as to the National Gallery, it had not been brought under his notice that the state of the atmosphere was so very unsatisfactory as would appear from the nature of the comparison to which the noble Lord had found it necessary to resort. He bad made inquiry of the authorities, and the answer he had obtained was that the National Gallery was at present provided with no means of ventilation except by opening the windows. If the present building were to be considered as of a permanent character it would be desirable that some other method of ventilation should be adopted. Experiments in ventilation, however, as the House well knew, were very costly, and in order to introduce them it would be necessary to make considerable alterations, which ought not to be lightly undertaken. If, however, alterations should take place which would permit of improved ventilating arrangements being made, a better ventilation ought to be secured. Plans were under the consideration of the Government, of the adoption of which he could, however, give no pledge, which would render it practicable greatly to improve the ventilation of the National Gallery.

PURIFICATION OF THE SERPENTINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he rose to put the question of which he had given notice, relative to the purification of the Serpentine. He might remind the House that last year a number of schemes for the purification of the Serpentine were not only brought before the House, but were discussed by the public prints. One plan was brought forward by the late lamented First Commissioner of Works, and was strongly recommended by him on the ground that

  707
  for a sum of £17,000 the purification of the Serpentine could be effected. That scheme, however, met with very considerable opposition upon the Ministerial side of the House, and from none more than from his hon. Friends the Members for Westminster and Coventry. At the same time, that plan had the recommendation of his hon. Friend (Sir S. M. Peto) and his ever-to-be-lamented friend the late Robert Stephenson. Notwithstanding that recommendation, a discussion and a division took place, when the scheme of Mr. FitzRoy was adopted by a largo majority. After the death of Mr. FitzRoy, however, when the works were in operation, when the plans were being carried out and all the contracts were made, the question was again agitated, and the right hon. Gentleman who so worthily occupied the post of First Commissioner of Works was induced to take a different view, and consent to the reopening of the matter. Another Committee was appointed to reconsider the best mode of purifying the Serpentine, and their Report now lay on the table. That Report recommended the abandonment of the scheme which the House had already sanctioned last year, although it was fair to state that in some cases the Resolutions of the Committee were only affirmed by a small majority. In some instances, indeed, the Resolutions were only carried by the casting voice of the First Commissioner, and the House must, therefore, not be led to suppose that there was anything like unanimity in the vote to which the Committee had come. He was prepared to contend, indeed, that their recommendation ought to carry no weight at all, and he would state the grounds upon which he had formed that opinion. The Committee recommended the House to abandon works which had been carried out up to this time at an outlay of £14,000 out of a total expenditure of £17,000. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) said he did not believe that £14,000 had been expended, and he had moved for a Return of the sums paid to the contractor, in which he found that only £5,000 had been actually paid. From that he assumed that £5,000 was all the loss the country would sustain from the abandonment of Mr. Hawksley's scheme. But that very Return showed that there remained a sum of £11,850 out of the Vote of £17,000 applicable to the settlement of accounts not yet rendered, and for which the work was now in progress. Those accounts not delivered made up the difference be-
  708
  tween the £5,000 and the £14,000. There were also other unpaid items that did not appear in the Return, and among them the cost of the steam-engine, which had been executed, but was not yet put up. The Return was therefore of no value whatever as a criterion of the loss that would be entailed on the country from the abandonment of the scheme. What course did the Chief Commissioner of Works intend to adopt? One Minister last year submitted a scheme involving an outlay of £17,000, which that House deliberately sanctioned; and no sooner had £14,000 been spent upon it than another head of the same department came forward, at the instigation of the indefatigable Member for Westminster, and wholly upset the arrangement. Whatever might be the opinion of that House on the subject, if the public money was to be squandered in that fashion, people out of doors would conclude that those in whoso hands such business was placed were incompetent to discharge their duty. He would conclude by asking the First Commissioner of Works, what steps he has taken, or is about to take, in regard to the Report of the Committee on the purification of the Serpentine?
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not but think that the time had come when the House should open its eyes a little more to cases of this nature. This was a specimen of the mode of Metropolitan jobs which were to be paid for out of the public purse; and the result was that there had been £14,000 fooled away for nothing. The question was not so much who was to blame in this affair as whether the House should continue to sanction such demands as this upon the public purse. It was an expenditure which should have been defrayed out of a Metropolitan rate, and he could only designate the transaction as a wilful plunder of the pockets of the people at large. He hoped that the House would in future refuse any applications for public money to be applied to purely local Metropolitan objects.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the best mode of purifying the Serpentine bad been under consideration for a good many years. Last year a plan for effecting it, altogether novel in its nature, was brought forward, which by its ingenuity captivated many persons. It had been generally supposed that what it was necessary to do with the Serpentine was to clear out the filth and pour in fresh water. The new plan was, instead of clearing the bottom of the lake and adding fresh

  709
  water, to pass the water through a series of filters. When he came to consider that project officially he shared the prevailing opinion among professional men and the public at large, that, however ingenious it might be, the plan of last year would not prove satisfactory. Still, the scheme having been stated to the House when the Vote was granted, he thought it respectful to the House that before any alteration was made in it they should have an opportunity of reconsidering the objections to the scheme, and the best mode of doing so was by a Select Committee. A Select Committee was appointed and fairly constituted; and, although their Report was very far from unanimous, yet they recommended, a3 the right mode of dealing with the Serpentine, that the foulness at the bottom of the lake should be got rid of, and a clear and hard bed substituted for it. They further reported that it was desirable to abandon the process of filtration, and seek the best available supply of fresh water to fill the lake. He had acted upon both of those recommendations. He, in the first place, bad consulted Mr. Simpson with respect to the removal of the special source of foulness and the seeming a sufficient supply of pure water. He bad selected Mr. Simpson not only for his eminence in his profession as a hydraulic engineer, but because his long experience and special acquaintance with the Serpentine and the parts contiguous gave him a more intimate knowledge of the subject than any one else possessed. He next considered how the works already executed or contracted for might be turned to the best account, and how the sum voted last year might still be most usefully and economically employed. The plan of filtration had this great defect—that, instead of reaching the origin of the mischief, it tended to cure only one of the symptoms. It could not be successful, because the water when filtered would be liable to become as bad as ever, it being well known that the vegetable growth which Mr. Hawksley sought to remove returned after filtration with redoubled activity. In its anxiety for economy, the House had been led to adopt a scheme which would in the end prove the more costly. He had, therefore, announced to Mr. Hawksley that the system of filtration must be abandoned, and had asked that gentleman's opinion as to the possibility of obtaining a sufficient supply of pure water from a deep well in the vicinity of the head of the lake. Mr. Hawksley re-
  710
  ported that they might procure a daily supply of half a million gallons of a very pure description from a well sunk in the tertiary and chalk formation. If the money intended for providing a filtering medium was devoted to the sinking of a well instead, they would attain the object they desired of having a pure lake, without the necessity of removing the work already completed. The engine that was to have been used in carrying out the filtration would hereafter be employed in pumping the water out of the well. It would also draw the water from the bottom of the Serpentine through the conduit to the top, to the extent of perhaps 2,000,000 gallons a day, thus establishing the most desirable thing of all—a perpetual current from one end of the lake to the other. Motion was more likely to secure the purity of the water than any chemical process; and a perpetual current would prevent the vegetable growth which had been so much complained of. The engine would at the same time provide a large cascade, and throw the water up a considerable height. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who objected so much to ornament should remember that this would tend to aerate the water and thereby make it purer. There would be likewise a very ornamental arrangement at the head of the like. When, therefore, the removal of the mud was effected they would, he believed, have a lake of water in a condition that would give rise to no further complaint. He might also mention that they would have a jet of water in the centre of the basin in front of Kensington Gardens. He was glad to be able to relieve hon. Members from the apprehension that the money which had been already expended on the Serpentine would he entirely wasted. By the modifications which he intended to introduce into the plan the outlay which had taken place would be turned to a satisfactory account. In reply to the observation that Metropolitan works of this kind ought to be paid for out of local rates, he need only say that hitherto these Parks had always been considered Royal Parks, and their maintenance, consequently, a proper application of the national money. These parks were not exclusively enjoyed by the inhabitants of London. They were Metropolitan, in the sense that they belonged to the Metropolis of the United Kingdom. He believed every Englishman to be proud of his Metropolis; and, although he was sorry to say he did not think it was quite worthy of the nation in many respects, he

  711
  hoped the constituents of the hon. Member for Norfolk would not grudge aiding to make it somewhat more so.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would beg to remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Locke) that it was by no fault of his that the money had been, to use the phrase of the hon. Member, fooled away. He did his best to persuade the House that the filtration scheme was purely visionary, and he had even divided against his late lamented Friend, Mr. FitzRoy, on the question. His hon. Friend, who had asked the question, said the House decided by a large majority; but the fact was, that the plan never was before the House. There were only two Members who knew any thing about it—the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury, and the late Mr. Robert Stephenson; and, however Mr. Stephenson's opinion might be deferred to upon other questions, yet upon that subject it became of somewhat less value, owing to his own statement that he never was able to ascertain whether anything was the matter with the Serpentine at all. The Chief Commissioner of Works had stated how evenly the Committee were divided; but he (Sir John Shelley) believed that if it had not been for the bold assertion of Mr. Hawksley himself that £14,000 had been actually expended, there would lave been no difficulty in getting the Committee to take the course which they ultimately did take, and which he humbly thought had met with unanimous approval out of doors. Probably he should be told he had no right to give an opinion in opposition to Mr. Hawksley; but, having ventured once before to do so, and having found that he was not so far wrong, he would now say that he thought his right hon. Friend was likely to be misled by Mr. Hawksley in what he was going to carry out. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the plan which was now to be adopted, was to dig a well at the head of the Serpentine into the chalk-pit; but from inquiries which he (Sir John Shelley) had made, he believed that plan would be a failure. He would quote Mr. Hawksley against himself on this matter. He (Sir John Shelley) had asked Mr. Hawksley whether he thought that any scheme for obtaining a supply of fresh water was possible; and his answer wa9, "As to possibility, I will not say; for it is possible that you may go to the higher region of the Thames, or to the lower region of the Colne, and get a fresh supply; but within the ordinary limits of expense, it is quite
  712
  impossible. You might get water to a limited extent by sinking a well, but to only a very limited extent; and the expense would be great in proportion to the quantity of water obtained." Looking at the matter in a pounds, shillings, and pence view, he believed it would be foolish to go to the expense of digging a well at the upper end of the Serpentine, when they had already one in Duck Island, capable of supplying as much water as could reasonably be required. He had also a great objection to putting up a kind of pagoda at the end of the Serpentine, in which the chimney and the engine were to be; and, unless great care was taken, and great taste shown, it would end in having a sort of tea-garden and summer-house there, very unworthy of the position in which they were placed. With regard to the question of public money being spent on the parks, he felt satisfied that if the House would give the Metropolis power to manage its own affairs, it would be perfectly ready to take charge of the parks.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that as one of the Committee which had sat on this subject, the fact was that the £17,000 had been voted by the House for purifying the Serpentine by filtration, and, though most of the money had been spent, there was nothing for it but a well and a pump. The right hon. Gentleman was by no means clear as to the figures, for he had not "condescended to particulars." He had not told the House whether the money which had been voted would cover all the expense of the new plan, or whether a further sum would be required; but they had got this distinctly, that the sum voted for filtering the water was not to be applied to that purpose. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Norfolk in looking with great suspicion on the theory that the whole country was to be taxed for the beautifying of the Metropolis. It was an extraordinary deduction from the meaning of the word "Metropolis," to infer that, because it meant a city in the centre, all the rest of the country was to pay its expenses. Let them make the Serpentine wholesome if it were unwholesome, although he had no reason to suppose it was from any evidence brought out; but he objected to the country being called on to provide a skating and swimming place for the Metropolis.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to say a word in vindication of his late friend, Mr. FitzRoy. The ground upon

  713
  which that Gentleman adopted the plan of filtration was this. The plan first suggested was to deal with the Serpentine in the same manner as the lake in St. James's Park, to drain off the water and expose the bottom, which was then, by the application of lime and by other processes, to be hardened and made of an uniform depth. The expense which that operation would entail was calculated at something like £60,000. Mr. FizRoy, however, was led to believe that the scheme of filtration would so far accomplish the end in view, as to put the water of the Serpentine in a sufficient state of purity, while it would cost only £16,000. Placing confidence in the opinion of Mr. Hawksley and men of skill in matters of that sort, he therefore chose the scheme which involved the smaller outlay.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would beg to put the noble Lord right. He stated that the expense of the scheme which had been proposed by the late Government for purifying the Serpentine was between £50,000 and £60,000, but it was only £32,000 instead of £60,000. The question which the present Government had to consider was, whether the Serpentine should be put into a satisfactory condition by the scheme, which on the part of the late Government be had submitted to Parliament, or whether they should adopt the new-fangled and extraordinary one of filtration which was found when it came to be examined by the Select Committee to be one that would not really hold water; and the moral he would draw from the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in relation to the Serpentine was this—that a new Government on coming into office should not be in such a violent hurry to alter plans simply because they had been sanctioned by their predecessors. At all events, they ought to be guided by something like common sense, and have some better justification for their conduct than bad been adduced on this occasion. The Government of the noble Lord was a great sinner in this respect; and great public inconvenience and waste of public money must be the result of such a system. In the present instance some £10,000 or £12,000 had been expended on works which the Committee proposed to stop; that money was more or less wasted, and, in all probability, the thing would end in the adoption of some scheme like that adopted by the late Government, which had been abandoned without notice to any party on some
  714
  hasty intimation given at 4 o'clock at a morning sitting. He had not the slightest notion of the grounds on which the noble Lord chose to subvert the plans and arrangements sanctioned by the late Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

FIRE INSURANCES.—LEAVE.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, be rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the duty now chargeable on Fire Insurances. His reason for taking up the question, which he regarded as one of very considerable importance, was that Government required some pressure from without to stimulate their exertions for the removal of taxes of this description. He could not but express his regret at the deserted state of the House on a question of so much importance. Indeed, he had been informed that it was the intention to endeavour to count out the House. When the Motion was made that Government should take Thursdays instead of Fridays, it was said that that change would be made the medium of some such proceeding. He hoped, however, such a proposition was far from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman who conducted the business of the House. A question which affected every house in Great Britain was not a question which ought to be treated with such levity. There was a good deal of agitation in the country with reference to the fire insurance duty. A society had been organized for its total repeal. That society embraced some of the most illustrious Members of that House, and a long list of the most respectable commercial firms in the kingdom. Not only was their object the total repeal of the duty; they said, unless Parliament consented to some wholesome alteration of the present system, they would move that House and agitate the country for the reimposition of the tax which had been taken off farm stock and agricultural produce; but the object which be had in view was different. He did not seek a total repeal of the duty, but by a more gradual and temperate method so to reduce the duty as to popularize it if possible, and thus rather to increase than diminish the public revenue. He proposed so to alter the fire duty, that in all cases where the premiums charged on insurances against fire

715
did not exceed 5s. per cent, the duty to be charged should be reduced from 3s. to 1s. The effect of that reduction he believed would be to increase the public revenue; and the alteration he proposed should take effect from the end of the present financial year. The income from fire insurance duty amounted to £1,300,000,—a large sum indeed, but not much more than the paper duty, which was treated so lightly not long ago, and which certainly did not affect the public interests so intimately as that they were now discussing. The effect of his proposal would be to deal with only one-third of the revenue under this head. Insurances, charged more than 5s. per cent were hazardous, and from that point they went up to 21 s. and 42 s. per cent, and in a case of extreme risk at Norwich, he bad known 26 guineas per cent paid. With that class of Insurances he did not propose to deal. The owner of a theatre or a cotton mill worth £50,000 who paid 21 s. for insurance was not deterred from covering himself against risk, by having to pay 3s. per cent more as duty. The 3s. would still be charged on all insurances where the risk was represented by more than 5s. per cent, and thus one-half the present revenue would be retained. He proposed on other Insurances to reduce the duty from 3s. to 1s. per cent, which would cause a deficiency of £430,000 in the revenue, assuming it to be £1,300,000 a year. That sum of £430,000 was just the amount which stopped the whole progress of insurance in this country. The question was, could the revenue which he proposed to deal with be increased by the alteration? He maintained that there was more than a fair probability, nay, it amounted to almost a certainty, that before the end of the financial year they would more than make up any deficiency which might be caused. In 1815, when the duty was increased to 3s., there was a diminution of Insurances in the two succeeding years to the amount of £7,000,000. In 1835 farming stock was exempted, and the amount of farming stock insured, which was then £37,250,000, was, in 1855, £62,250,000. In 1846 the National property was estimated at £4,000,000,000, of which one-half was insurable. He took the increase of insurable property, in consequence of the gold discoveries and the vast increase of commercial operations, at £500,000,000. He added the value of ships and cargoes, estimated at £500,000,000, and the total insurable property was then £3,000,000,000.
716
But the amount of property actually insured, according to the last accounts, was £900,000,000, and he contended that the £2,100,000,000 uninsured was just the property which ought to be insured, and would be insured if this stringent impost were relaxed. The man who had a hazardous mill, or gunpowder in his house, or who was manufacturing gutta percha, insured his property, but the man who lived in an expensive private house, usually said to himself, "So and so lived here before me; the house stood long enough; there is no chance of its being burned." The owners of such houses, however, were not so well acquainted with the doctrines of probabilities as actuaries were, one of whose canons was, "That whatever has happened may again happen." They naturally said; "If we insure our houses, we must pay 200 per cent for taking care of our own property." Indeed, the Government gave them a bonus for not insuring. The Government said to them in effect, "If you take care of your property we shall charge you 3s. per cent for doing so." In his own case he found, that while it would cost him £7 10 s. to insure his property, the Government wanted to charge him £15 for the privilege of being allowed to do so. The result was that he had kept his money in his pocket for a long series of years; and on the whole he felt indebted to the Government for thus forcing him to be his own insurer. Many persons, however were not able to bear the loss which might at any time occur, and therefore it was the duty of the Legislature to encourage Insurance and remove the obstacles which at present existed to the proper exercise of prudent protection. Another point to which be wished to direct the attention of the House was the fact that the amount insured in this country had not increased in the same proportion as the national property, for while in 1835 £500,000,000 of value had been insured, in 1855, notwithstanding that the country had in the meantime made enormous progress in wealth, the amount insured was only £800,000,000. Comparing the position of France with that of England in relation to the subject, he might state that whereas in the latter, after 180 years of experience in the system of Fire Insurances, only £900,000,000, of property was insured, in the former after 33 years the amount reached £1,800,000,000 worth—a sum contrasted with which all the fire insurances of which we could boast sank

717
into insignificance. But it was not by France only that we were surpassed in that respect. Russia, Germany, and Holland, were doing better than England in the same direction. The reason was obvious. We had so fettered the progress of Insurance that we rendered it difficult for any one to make up his mind to undergo the ordeal. France with a wiser spirit said, "We will not impose any restrictions on the prudence of our citizens, but will encourage them in every way to effect so excellent an object." The Government of Franco imposed only a small policy stamp on fire insurances, while we, in addition to a policy stamp, imposed a duty of 3s. per cent. He might, in order to show the different results which were produced as a consequence of the different systems adopted in both countries, state, on the authority of a pamphlet entitled The Progress of Fire Insurances, written by Mr. S. Browne, a Fellow of the Statistical Society—that while the total amount insured in the largest English office—the Sun, which had been established in 1701—exceeded, in 1855, £140,442,000, exclusive of foreign and re-insurances, the insurances in the National in France, which had been established only in 1820, amounted to upwards of £203,000,000. That fact served, in his opinion, conclusively to prove that these insurances, relieved from the trammels by which they were in this country surrounded, would rapidly increase. He might add that a custom prevailed in France of insuring, under the head of risque locatif, the property of one's neighbours, the damage done to which, cither by the fire or the water employed in extinguishing it, the person in whoso house the fire originated was liable to make good. The small-ness of the amount charged for the stamp, which was hardly appreciable, and the smallness of the duty, enabled persons to insure against contingencies of that kind, and the consequence was, that property was often insured three or four times over. Again, in France there was another system of insurance to meet the liability which railway companies incurred in cases of injury done to the goods of others within a certain distance of their respective lines. That, too, furnished a fruitful source of insurance. Even in this country, according to the common law, a man was responsible for the damage which might be occasioned to his neighbour's goods in consequence of a fire upon his premises. He was at a loss to understand
718
why the Government did not turn their attention to this question. It was a well-known fact that persons were in the habit of insuring only a part of their property. A sad instance of that had recently occurred in connection with a valuable institution, known as the Sailors' Home at Liverpool, which was recently destroyed by fire. The amount for which the property was insured was £10,000, whereas the value was £30,000, the managers not daring to trust themselves to insure for the whole amount, in consequence of the heavy tax on their income which the Government duty imposed. The French were so satisfied of the mistake England had made in the matter of insurance that, desiring to take advantage of it, a French insurance office was established in London. It took risks at 1s. per cent, and would have been able to take them for less, had it continued. But the House of Commons putting an end to the enterprise by an Act of Parliament, showed the people of this country that they would neither encourage them to insure nor allow any one else to do so. He had assumed that hon. Members understood the system of fire insurance; but to illustrate the working of the tax he would suppose all the Members of the House of Commons formed into a "mutual" insurance company, in which each contributed to found a company for securing insurance to each to the amount of £1,000. Suppose a loss to occur, then the sum of £1,000 would be paid to the sufferer, and the Government would take £2,000. But this did not measure the extent of gain by the Government unless the amount of the profits of the insurance companies was considered. They were comparatively few in number, and the Government duty had contracted their operations. Many of the new companies, though they were making from £60,000 to £70,000 a year, failed, in consequence of the limited area of their operations. The losses of French companies were hardly 35 per cent; in England it was a rare case for an office to escape with less than 60 or 70 per cent loss. Russia, Spain, Germany, countries of which they were in the habit of speaking with something like contempt, all excelled England in the extent of their fire insurances. Such risks as those of Barcelona or Seville were among the best an English office could take. Before the establishment of the fire insurance system the loss of a house, manufactory, or stock in trade, was met by an appeal to the community at large—ad

719
misericordiam. That was the old custom, and from custom it became law; and then compensation was demanded as a right. From 1690 to 1696 the first risks were taken at £4 per cent for brick dwellings, and £6 per cent if built of timber. At the present day he did not think they were much more enlightened on the subject than when the old Common Council had the first six policies of insurance stamped before it, with all sorts of solemn forms. So utterly neglectful had the Legislature been of the whole principle of insurance that there was some danger, as property increased, of there not being means enough to insure it. But, if they relaxed the duty, it would enable the English offices to reinsure their risks in foreign offices. But none would take risks to reinsure if they were clogged with a duty. In cases where insurances had not been effected and fires took place, persons were for the most part deprived of whatever property they possessed, and the result unquestionably was to add to the poor rates, and to increase emigration among the industrious classes, thereby violating the first principles of political economy. What were the grounds on which the Government, he understood, were to resist the proposal which he had ventured to make? If they rested their decision on the statements contained in the Report of Mr. Coode, a reference to the journals of the Statistical Society would show that the most important portion of his financial reflections were long since shown to be fallacies. That Gentleman did not put forward a single argument, but proceeded on the assumption that everybody ought to pay the tax, that tradesmen in particular were bound to do so, and that nobody had a right to grumble. If, on the other hand, it were alleged that the Bill which he introduced would disturb the financial arrangements of the year, and interfere with some of the details of that measure which had been drawn up with so much care, and brought before the House in so elaborate and masterly a manner, then he would have a complete answer to the position taken up by Government— namely, that the Bill was not intended to to pass into law until April, 1861, which would be at the end of the present financial year. Six months, at least, must be occupied in passing the Bill through both Houses, and a slight additional delay would make no perceptible difference where the injustice complained of was of such long standing. He had shown that this was not
720
a proposition which need alarm the House on financial grounds. The amount with which he proposed to deal was £430,000, while there were £2,000,000,000 of insurable property to supply what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had called "the chasm;" and there was no doubt that if the impost were removed this deficit would be replaced with a rapidity which would be most remarkable if the House were not already familiar with such experiments. This was the true Peel policy—the reduction of duties which replaced themselves—a policy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was well acquainted, and the merits of which the House had enjoyed opportunities of appreciating. It was the same policy which had dictated, at first with great caution and timidity, the reduction of the postal duties, from which step such vast advantages had followed; and he ventured to say that if the House agreed to the reduction of the insurance duties from 3s. to 1s. an effect by no means dissimilar would be produced. But if the answer given to his Motion were that they could not promise to make the alteration in April, 1861, knowing in their hearts that they had no intention of making it at all, and hoping that something might happen which would prevent the question from being again brought forward, it would be well that the House and the country should understand one another. The House would then be detected in the appropriation of money belonging to another, and would be legislating from party motives, and not in accordance with general interests. Property by means of this duty had shifted its share of the burdens of the State on to the commercial and trading interests, and imposed a tax of 3s. per cent on insurable property, at the same time that one description of insurable property—namely, farming stock—had altogether escaped. So far back as 1836 hon. Members had availed themselves of their position as the governing class to relieve themselves and the farmers who looked up to them, from liability to the duty. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No;" but this tax was either one on property or it was not. If it were not a tax on property it was one on prudence, forethought, and precaution; in fact, it was a tax on virtue. England was the first nation which had the presumption to inscribe on its fiscal banners—"Here we tax prudence, thoughtfulness, and virtue." If a tradesman went to an office to insure his stock in trade to the amount of

721
£8,000, though that property had already paid property-tax, he would have to pay a shilling stamp on the policy, and 3s. per cent on the amount insured. If 200 workmen went to insure their tools by which they gained their living, and which might all be risked by the conflagration of one factory, as well as their furniture to the same amount of £8,000 — £40 each — the Government would charge them £10 in policy stamps, and the 3s. per cent. If a farmer went to insure the same amount he would pay the shilling stamp; but the influence of his friends in the House of Commons was powerful enough to get him excused the 3s. per cent. A rich man insuring his house and furniture for £8,000 —where the 200 working men paid £10 in stamps—would have to pay but 1s. and the same 3s. per cent. A great deal had been said during the present Session about legislating for the benefit of the working-man, particularly in regard to financial matters; but it was difficult to see how it had been carried out. The duties on tea and sugar, articles consumed by the working man, were loft untouched; but the duties on game certificates, silks, and wine had been reduced, and the paper duty abolished, though at present working men were so blind as not to see any particular advantage to them in these reductions. As to the stipulation with regard to coals in the Commercial Treaty, they looked on it with positive alarm, fearing that the increased demand from France might raise the price of fuel even higher than it bad stood during the late long winter. In fact, Parliament had, as yet, done nothing for the working classes, but if they would pass a Bill such as that he was now asking leave to introduce, which would allow the working classes to insure their tools and their furniture without being charged 400 per cent duties, they would then have done something of which they might be proud. Lest it should be thought that he was propounding a scheme the mere creation of his own fancy, he would state that the reduction of the duty by one-third, or even one-half, had been ably advocated by The Builder, and not very long ago The Times had given a magnificent article against the duty, which had attracted much attention. M'Culloch and other authorities also were in favour of the reduction of the duty, which was 900 per cent on the profits of insurance companies, to one-third of its present amount. Hon. Members who voted against this Bill would have to explain that vote to their
722
constituents; and if the Bill were rejected there must then be a re-distribution of this tax in an equitable manner, and a universal tax at the rate of 1s. per cent on all insurable property. That would produce £2,000,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his eloquent speech on the introduction of the Budget, stated that a deficiency in the revenue did not constitute a reason why there should be no no relaxation from oppressive taxation. He would conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the duty now chargeable on fire insurances.
MR. EDWIN JAMESseconded the Motion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Iron. Member who has moved for leave to bring in a Bill to reduce the duty upon fire insurances complained more than once in the course of his speech of empty benches, and threatened all absentees—some of whom, who now appear in their places, will be interested in knowing what was said at the time of their default—with the most serious consequences when they come to face their constituents at the next election. In fact, the hon. Gentleman sometimes appealing to lauded sympathies, sometimes to trading affections, sometimes seeking favour by attacks upon the Budget, sometimes glancing at the peril in which the farmer's exemption will be placed if this tax be not reduced, played most skilfully on all the prejudices and interests by which the human mind can be swayed. My case however is of a much simpler character, and when the hon. Gentleman talks of the indifference of the House upon what, in exaggerated terms, he calls this all-important subject, I must venture to remind him that it is the habit of the House to judge of questions, and the necessity of attending to them, not simply by their abstract magnitude and importance, but likewise and mainly by the circumstances under which they are submitted to its notice. That, in fact, so far as I am concerned, is the whole case which I have to submit. I do not intend to enter into the question whether a reduction or alteration of the duty upon fire insurances might or might not be a very proper subject for the House to entertain at a period when the state of the national finances presented you with a disposable surplus, or when you were prepared to say, "I think the evil of this tax is so great that I am prepared to repeal it and to provide in lieu of it a substitute,

723
which I now point out." In either of those cases, I apprehend, it would he perfectly legitimate to approach the consideration of the reduction of the tax. But neither of these is the case before us. The hon. Gentleman does not say, "I propose a substitute for the tax I am going to take away." What he proposes is to introduce a change into the law, which, according to the account he gives of it, will have for its first effect to cause a loss of £430,000 a year to the public revenue. My answer is, that when we compare the Revenue of the country with the demands upon it, the House is not in a condition with propriety and with prudence to entertain the demand. Let him reserve it until he has a Revenue to give away, or until he has some tax wherewith to replace the duty he wishes us to reduce. But, of course, I do not mean to beg the question. The hon. Member has the courage to say that if we only repeal the duty the result will be an increase in the Revenue. But when will the increase manifest itself? If it is to be contemporaneous with the reduction of the duty, then undoubtedly the fact that it appears primâ facie to cause a loss forms no objection to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. But that is the exact question at issue, and the instance he quoted with great triumph is by no means favourable to his case. Reduced duties, he says, are always followed by an increase of revenue. That has been undoubtedly true in many cases, but nothing can be more absurd than the indiscriminate application of the idea, as if it were a dogma fixed and unchangeable in its nature, instead of being a political proposition which, discreetly applied, has been of the utmost advantage to the country; but which, rashly and unwisely applied, will destroy public credit, and throw the public finances into confusion. What is the instance furnished by the hon. Member as a case in point? He reminds us of the effect of reduced postal duos. Now, I never can hear that reduction mentioned without recording my unhesitating testimony to the enormous advantage which it has bestowed upon the country. But we must not be told that the effect of the new postal duties upon the national revenue is to be the effect of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He has chosen it as his illustration, but what are the real facts? Why, that not one, but one-and-twenty years, have now elapsed since you reduced the charge for postage, and the net postal revenue, if it be fairly and strict-
724
ly calculated, and if you deduct, as you ought to deduct, the marine postage, with which it has no business to be credited, does not amount to more than one-half the net revenue before the reduction. Do I say that that affords a reason against the new postage system? Certainly not; for the loss the revenue has sustained has been more than compensated by the advantage to the country. But the hon. Member's illustration was unfortunate in another point of view, for the House of Commons in that instance unhappily did the very thing which he is now inviting it to do; it adopted the change though it had not a revenue to give away, and consequently became involved in the series of deficiencies from year to year, which were the immediate causes of the income tax. Thus the illustration, while it entirely fails to sustain the argument of the hon. Member as to the immediate replacing of revenue once sacrificed, also furnishes to the House of Commons a warning, which is never otherwise than seasonable and advantageous, of the injurious consequence of proposing the reduction and remission of taxes, irrespective of the means at our disposal to meet the demands upon the public service. The hon. Gentleman says this is but £430,000; why make any difficulty about it? And now I am going to give hon. Gentlemen opposite the opportunity for a cheer—why make any difficulty about it, when you have been dealing lightly with the paper duty? [Opposition cheers and laughter.] I will not answer whether we have been dealing lightly with the paper duty; I will simply say what is sufficient for this occasion, and that is, that if we have lightly given away the paper duty, it is the greatest reason why we should not repeat the imprudence. If we have surrendered that duty, at any rate we have not done so without making provision of public revenue to supply its place. But the hon. Gentleman now proposes, after what he calls the light surrender of the paper duty, to take away £430,000 more, and makes no provision to supply its place, except, indeed, the provision which I will proceed to examine, and the promise of the hon. Gentleman that it will result in an immediate increase of the revenue. That promise is extremely alluring; but, unfortunately, he is wholly irresponsible for it; and, if I were to act upon that promise, if the House of Commons were to accede to it, and if, at the end of twelve months, we found that it had vanished into thinnest air, that we had lost our money, and left the Exchequer

725
without the means for meeting the demands of the public service, could we challenge the hon. Gentleman with the failure of his prophecy? He would say, and truly say, "If the prophecy and the opinion I expressed were unsound, it was your fault to accept them." The promise of the hon. Gentleman would be no justification to the House for adopting the step he proposes. The hon. Gentleman, although his speech was copious, did not enter upon, but, on the contrary, most slightly touched, that part of the subject in which it was most material for him to be laborious and searching in his scrutiny, and most careful in his details. He told us that there is 2,000 millions of insurable property in this country which is at present uninsured. A statement more vague, more entirely in the nature of a simple individual assertion, never was submitted to the House. He has no data, no evidence for that statement. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of great difficulty to bring positive evidence to combat an assertion so vague and difficult to lay bold of, but I think we have some data for a decision upon this question. Although the hon. Member does not attach any authority to Mr. Coode, yet that gentleman is as able, bard-headed, searching an investigator as ever applied his mind to dry questions of economy. What does he tell us? He tells us that not 3,000 millions, but 1,000 millions, is the real amount of insurable property in the country. The schedules of the income tax, especially Schedule A, after examination, and due allowance being made for lands which are uninsurable, as compared with house property, do to some extent give us approximate evidence; and perhaps there is 1,000 millions or 1,200 millions, or 1,400 millions, of property in this country which can be insured; but the doctrine that 3,000 millions is the amount, is really the notion of dreamers and speculatists, rather than a serious assertion which should be submitted to a deliberative assembly. The hon. Member places at a loss of £430,000, the immediate effect of what he invites the House to do. That, again, is an opinion of the hon. Gentleman; and I only wish to say I do not intend to become responsible for it. I have no official means of knowing; the records are not framed in such a manner, owing to the mode in which the tax is levied, as would enable mo to tell the House what proportion of the total insurances are effected at premiums below 5s. The hon. Member says that one-half only of the risks
726
are at premiums below 5s. I cannot say that it is at much more. But the question is as to this great promised increase of revenue. The first effect, assuming his proposition only to affect one-half of the revenue from fire insurances—that is, about £650,000 or £700,000—by reducing the present rate of duty to 1s., appears to be to reduce the revenue about £430,000. He says we shall have a revenue from the moiety of £220,000 or £230,000; and the question is, how is this £230,000 to replace the £430,000, which is given up; and then, when that is done, and then only, it will begin to fulfil the brilliant and cheering promise of the hon. Gentleman of an increase on the public revenue. According to that we shall have an increase of 300 per cent in insured property of the class affected by the Motion. To fulfil the promise, we must have a threefold increase in the first year. Surely, to give us the slightest shadow of hope or expectation of such a result, the hon. Gentleman ought to show, by returns or figures, how he calculates the astonishing increase which be prophecies. He has avoided that point, which is so essential upon the difference between us; for I am not arguing upon the merits of the duty, but of the necessity of having a revenue adequate to meet public charges. I say the proper time for the House to consider the removal of this duty is not the time when you have disposed of all that was at your disposal; but the proper time is when you are balancing estimates and revenue, and when you find that you have a surplus. There is, however, some evidence to which we can refer the hon. Member says he does not take away revenue, but that he will give us more. To give us the present revenue the insured property at risks below 5s. must be multiplied threefold, or the total quantity must be doubled within the year. Is it a fact, in the first place, that the quantity of property insured does not increase under the present duty? and, next, is it a fact that a rapid and enormous increase takes place when the duty is removed? We have the means from Mr. Coode's report of answering that question from public returns. I would call the attention of the House to a simple intelligible passage of the report. The hon. Gentleman has referred, in terms unnecessarily invidious, to the exemption which is enjoyed by farming property'. But that exemption has this advantage, at least, that it enables us to bring to a test the promise of the hon. Gentleman, and to in-

727
form ourselves in some degree of what prospect there is of the rapid and astonishing increase which he holds out to us. I say there cannot be such an increase, because there does not exist the property to insure. Mr. Coode at page 41 of his report, says,—
"In the first year in which you have separate information of the value of farming stock insured —in the first year of the exemption—it was 37¼ millions. In 1856 it had risen to 62¼ millions, or an increase of 67 1–5th per cent in 22 years."
That is a rise of nearly 3 per cent per annum, instead of 300 per cent per annum; and that is the breakdown of the declarations of the hon. Gentleman. These are the official figures as respects the progress of the quantity of property insured in cases where there was no duty at all. But you have besides the means of comparing, from official figures, the increase that takes place in those descriptions of insured property that were subject to the duty. In 1834 there remained of property subject to the duty £483,000,000, and in 1856 that property subject to the duty had increased from £483,000,000 to £802,000,000—that is to say, it had increased in 22 years by 65 per cent. The exact difference in the rate of increase between property that paid nothing at all and property that paid 3s. per cent, which the hon. Gentleman calls on the House to remove, is, that the exempt property increased in 22 years 67 1–5th per cent, and the no-exempt increased 65 5–6ths per cent, and the difference between them is 1 and 1–3rd per cent, and that not in one year but spread over a period of 22 years. Thus breaks down the case of the hon. Gentleman and ends in a total and ruinous collapse. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the case of France, and stated that, whereas in England we have only insured property to the amount of £9,000,000, in France they have property insured to the amount of £18,000,000, and he went on to infer from that, that if we only adopted the rule of abolishing duties we should have a vast increase and a larger quantity of property insured than there is in France. But the different mode pursued by insurance offices abroad to that pursued by insurance offices in England has almost the effect of compelling persons abroad to insure their property up to the real value. In England, on the contrary, we know that all property insured against fire is at least two-thirds, or, at all events, very considerably short of the full value
728
of the property. The hon. Gentleman has also said that from the structure of the houses in France, the interests of one man were more bound up in regard to questions of fire with those of his neighbour than is the case in this country; and the expression used by the hon. Gentleman was, "in France the same property is insured three or four times over." If that be so, then, he cannot argue from the operation of the French law, because in England there is no such law, and if a fire arise in the house of A, and spreads to the house of B, the losses of B will not be charged upon A. I think I have now dealt with the statement of the hon. Gentleman, so far as any argument is included in it. There is one other point which it is material I should notice. The hon. Gentleman, in his generosity to the current year, which he knows is one of heavy burthen, proposes to postpone this change, and to fix its operation to commence on the first day of the financial year 1861–62. I do not hesitate to say, if there were no other objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the circumstances in which he makes it, that that is a conclusive reason why the House should not adopt it; for there is no shabbier course, or one more calculated to deteriorate the character of Parliament than to suffer itself to be tempted and seduced into the habit of attempting to gain popularity in one year at the expense of the financial operations of another. Occasionally, it is true, such a course is adopted, from the necessity of the case; you may have a great transition to make; you may have complicated arrangements that require time for their adjustment; and in those cases it has been the practice of the House from necessity to postpone and adjourn the effect of changes that it makes, but under no other circumstances can I recollect the House to have had recourse to such a step. This is one of those duties which, if it is to be dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with at the moment the proposal is made; and if the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the proposed reduction will increase the insured property 300-fold in a year, though the official figures show that the increase will only be about 100th part as much; if he is right in the picture he draws of the almost millennial bliss which he expects to flow into every home throughout England from the adoption of this project; granting him the whole of this enormous demand, still there is one

729
fatal objection to be made to his speecli— namely, that it is a speech made at ten o'clock at night on the 4th May, 1860; let him only reserve that speech and reproduce it bodily some day in February or March, 1861, and then the House of Commons will, I won't say be in a position to accede to this proposition, but, at any rate, it will be in the possession of the necessary information to enable it to judge whether or not it should accede to that proposition. The hon. Gentleman has threatened hon. Members with the vengeance of their constituents, a course of which I think they have some reason to complain if they think fit. I think it is hardly fair to put hon. Members in the position of either being obliged to vote with him in support of a proposition which is dangerous because it is ill-timed, or else appearing to record their votes against the removal of a tax the remission of which, when you have the means of making it, will be a perfectly fair question for the House to consider. For these reasons I trust the House will not accede to the Motion.
MR. MALINSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made the best speech against his own Budget he had ever heard, and he congratulated the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) that he had elicited so vehement a speech against the proposition he had made, for that was the best assurance he could have that he would succeed in attaining his object next year. The right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House in the same tone of earnestness that night against the repeal of this duty that only some short time ago he (Mr. Malins) heard him address to it against the repeal of the paper duty. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out to them all the inconveniences which would result—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When was that?
MR. MALINS: He was not quite sure. It was last year or the year before.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was neither.
MR. MALINS: If the right hon. Gentleman, who was as impatient of interruptions as any man he knew—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I say I consider it only a matter of candour and fairness, when any hon. Gentleman is heard making a misstatement with regard to matter of fact, to assume
730
that it is the result of pure error, and at once to set him right.
MR. MALINSsaid, none would be more ready to make such an assumption than he himself; and he was about to say— but the right hon. Gentleman was so impatient—that time passed so rapidly, and as he had not armed himself from the pages of Hansard, he really was not able to say whether it was last year or the year before; but this at least hon. Members all knew—that this very Session the right hon. Gentleman had recanted everything he had previously said in respect to the paper duties. That being the case he (Mr. Malins) cared not whether it was one year or another that the right hon. Gentleman had used the argument, but he had used it in opposition to the repeal of the duties which he had this year proposed to repeal, although be had not repealed them yet. He (Mr. Malins) entertained a very distinct and decided opinion on the question before the House, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his vote was not influenced by any fear of his constituents, who left him on that, as upon other subjects, to exercise his unbiassed judgment. In acceding to the Motion he begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no intention to embarrass him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he (Mr. Malins) did not deny the expediency of the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, not to pass measures which would interfere, with the revenue of the country in future years. He had no expectation or wish that any progress would be made with the Bill which the hon. Member for Dudley desired to introduce— indeed, if he obtained leave to bring in the Bill he should advise him to proceed no further with it that Session—but he intended to make the present Motion an opportunity of recording his opinion that the duty on fire insurances ought to be reduced at the earliest convenient moment. That duty was one which pressed heavily upon the public; it was most inexpedient in its nature and most unjustifiable in its amount; and the result was that almost every proprietor was under-insured. Nevertheless, he was afraid that the hon. Member for Dudley would not effect his object until he got a seat in the Cabinet, for a duty was not now repealed or reduced because it oppressed the public and embarrassed trade, but because it was disliked by a Minister of the Crown. The paper duty had never embarrassed trade, nor was it felt by the

731
people; but a colleague in the Cabinet had to be accommodated, and therefore an additional penny was put upon the income tax in order to repeal a duty which nobody felt. He would give this proposition his support on the principle of its being an instruction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should he still have the conduct of the public finances, that the tax should be taken into consideration at the earliest possible period. If the right hon. Gentleman could afford to take off the duty on wine and paper, he might fairly afford to take off the duty on fire insurance, and the result would probably be that every man would go and increase his fire duty.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, when he declared that the paper duty did not obstruct trade, appeared to have judged rather too much from his own profession. The meaning of the observation must have been that the paper duty did not make any great difference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that a penny income tax was a matter of some importance. But that did not make the allegation good that the paper duty was not a great obstruction to trade, and a tax upon knowledge. He (Mr. Crossley) was of opinion that the fire insurance duty was one of the worst taxes which was in existence. It was enormous in amount, and in its nature became actually a tax upon forethought and prudence. But he thought that the hon. Gentleman who asked leave to bring in the Bill was about to make the injustice far more unjust still. He proposed that a risk of 4s. 11 d. should pay 1s., and a risk of 5s. should pay 3s. Bad as the present tax was, it contained no such injustice as that. Although he was strongly in favour of having something done in regard to the fire insurance duty, he certainly could not support such a Bill as the present. What he desired was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the very first time he had a surplus should take into consideration the reduction of the tax. In reducing the tax, too, all exceptions ought to be abolished. He (Mr. Crossley) did not know how it was that the farming interest came to be excepted, unless it was because of its being clogged with the corn law at the time. But now that it had got rid of that incumbrance, and that farmers had the advantage of selling their produce in the world's market for what it was worth and no more, be saw no reason whatever why they should not pay
732
the same tax which all other classes of the community paid. Nothing could be more obvious and barefaced in its injustice than that corn and wool, and other agricultural produce, so long as they remained in the farmers' hands, should be insured without any tax, but that, when that very same corn and wool were taken from the farmyard to the manufacturers, the manufacturer must immediately pay 3s. per cent duty for their insurance. Such anomalies the Chancellor of the Exchequer really must abolish before long. The tax was one of the first which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be called upon to reduce, but he (Mr. Crossley) could not support the present Bill, which began by creating differences and inequalities worse than those that already existed.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, after the able and exhaustive speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, he did not wish to detain the House long, but be wished to make a few remarks after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every one must admire the unbounded skill and eloquence of that right hon. Gentleman, though they could not but be surprised at the arguments which he had that night brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman began by a most marked and signal condemnation of his own Budget and his own financial policy, and then he made copious quotations from a book that had been written at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, when he rebuked the hon. Member for Dudley for inviting them to reduce taxation on the ground that it was inopportune, asked the hon. Gentleman to repeat bodily his arguments in 1861. He in the same way would ask his right hon. Friend to repeat bodily his speech when the question of the paper duties came on for the final discussion on that subject. If it was sound policy and morality to reduce taxes on silks and light wines, which were mainly consumed by the richer classes, surely no Minister ought to refuse consideration to a proposal for reducing a tax that pressed heavily on the humbler tradesmen of the country! It would be found that in France and America artisans almost universally insured their tools and implements of trade, but in this country the power of doing so was denied them, and painful instances frequently occurred, as at the fire at Broadwood's manufactory, and Scott Russell and Co.'s works

733
at Millwall, in which hundreds of poor workmen lost the whole of their implements of trade. The English artisan was not less provident than the American or the French, but he encountered discouragement, and, in consequence of the amount of taxation, was deterred from availing himself of the advantages of insurance. If the House then fairly represented the interests of the working classes they ought to make the proposed alteration. The English nation was constantly called a commercial nation, and was surely one in which sound principles of trade ought to exist; and yet we had a system of taxation that positively interfered in the most arbitrary manner in preventing men from exercising their natural instinct for prudence. The system was most unjust, impolitic and immoral. If the exigencies of a State required that there should be a tax upon all property, there was a sound, intelligible, and just principle. But the tax on insurances was arbitrarily levied on persons who received from the State not the slightest advantage in return for the tax they paid. For the State did not provide engines, escapes, or any of the appliances requisite in case of fires. The insurance companies sold the securities against fire at a certain price—they had all the liability, all the responsibility, all the intellectual labour of carrying the business on; they could afford to sell that security at the price of 1s. 6d., but the State, which did nothing, which afforded not the slightest consolation or advantage to the sufferer, stepped in and said, "For every 1s. 6d. for which you sell security, I ask 3s." Was anything more monstrous or iniquitous than that? In consequence the total amount of property insured was only £800,000,000, while twice that amount was uninsured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to a more "convenient season," but, like the convenient season recorded of old, he was afraid it would never come, and that it would even be like a dissolving view. He would give the House a slight idea of the kind of witness they had in Mr. Coode, who had written a book, by the desire, he believed, of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and whose instructions evidently were more or less, if it were possible, consistently with his own feelings of truth and justice, to discourage the cry against the tax. Mr. Coode said—
"Indeed, as a question of public policy, there is reason to doubt whether a greater amount of wealth has not been destroyed and other mischief
734
produced solely by the operation of the facilities which the system of insurance affords to fraud, the whole of which fraud and mischief would be impossible but for the opportunities afforded by the insurance offices."
After that extract he put it to the House to consider what sort of authority Mr. Coode was? His evidence, if worth anything, went to prove that the whole system of insurance was objectionable, and the fruitful source of fraud and mischief. The House could hardly be prepared to support such a paradox. He trusted that the principles proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley would receive the support of the House.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to ask whether his hon. Friend would accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), if leave was given to bring in the Bill, not proceed further with it this Session. [Cries of "No, no."] He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Dudley, but he saw great difficulty in proceeding now to legislate for 1861–62. His vote would be very much guided by the answer of his hon. Friend. He should, before sitting down, congratulate the House on the accession of the hon. Member for Wallingford to the cause of abolition, because that hon. and learned Member was one of those who voted against the introduction of the Bill last year in the month of March.
MR. MALINSexplained that he did not vote against the measure referred to, but only suggested that it should be withdrawn, because it was too late in the Session for the hon. Member to hope that he could pass a Bill containing 150 clauses.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would recommend the hon. Member not to press his Motion, but at the same time he hoped the Government would give the House a pledge that they would take the subject into their serious consideration. There was a large class of persons in the Metropolis and in the country who might by a fire lose their all, but who were deterred from insuring when the sum which they had to pay was almost in the shape of a penalty. When they looked also to the effect which the loss of his tools might have on the artisan, they must be convinced what a serious matter this was to a very large class. The question could not possibly continue in its present position, especially when a large share of the property of the country — to the amount of £80,000,000—was exempt altogether from the tax. They must either revise

735
the whole law on the subject, or repeal it. He would himself be quite satisfied if the duty on insurances to a limited amount, say £150, was reduced, for they would thus meet the class of cases to which he had referred. He was sure the poor would readily embrace the opportunity afforded by such a change. He trusted they would not meet to consider the financial condition of the country in another year without having this question dealt with in the manner in which it deserved. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that as one of the oldest supporters of the abolition, he trusted the hon. Member would be satisfied with the impression he had made, and not divide the House.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that he should have been glad to have acceded to the recommendations which had been addressed to him, if he had an opportunity of adopting them. A Resolution, pledging the Government to abolish this tax as soon as possible, had, however, been shown to the occupants of the Treasury Bench, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to fetter himself by any such pledge. That appeared to him to be a distinct declaration that the Government was not at this moment prepared to consider the repeal of this tax at all; and therefore be had no alternative but to proceed to a division.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he could not vote for his hon. Friend if the Motion were pressed to a division. It would be impossible for him to vote for a measure which the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches evidently wished to be converted into an attack upon the Budget. It was not true that the Paper Duties Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely out of deference to one of his colleagues in the Cabinet. It was brought in because the House had passed a Resolution condemnatory of the paper duty. Nor was it true that the public were not interested in, and would not be benefited by the repeal of the paper duty. The working classes especially would be materially benefited by that repeal, which was one of the principles that had reconciled the public to the Budget. The repeal of the paper duty was most popular out of doors, and would confer permanent and important benefits on the country at large.
Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to
736
amend the Law relating to the Duty now chargeable on Fire Insurances."
The House divided:—Ayes 84, Noes 108: Majority 24.

EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.

  COMMITTTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTON,in rising to move for a Select Committee on this subject, said that whoever had watched the thoroughfares of London for the last thirty years, must have remarked that they were gradually becoming impassable. It took a longer time to go from London Bridge to the Great Western Railway than from London Bridge to Brighton, or than from the Great Western Railway to Oxford. The improvement of the thoroughfares in the country had been considered so important an object that if half an hour could be saved in a journey of 500 miles, millions of money were spent to save that period of time; and yet people who lived in London and who made an engagement at the west-end could not keep it unless they gave themselves half an hour more than would be necessary if the thoroughfares were in a proper condition. Some years ago a great scheme for improving the entire communication of London was brought forward, which would have remunerated the parties who proposed it. The matter was submitted to a Committee up stairs, but it ended by being buried in a blue-book. The embankment of the Thames would give great relief to those who wished to pass from the west-end to the City. It was not a new question. In the year 1824 Sir F. Trench proposed a plan for embanking the Thames in front of Temple-gardens. A Select Committee sat, but nothing came of it. In 1842 a Royal Commission was appointed, which was presided over by Lord Lincoln, now Duke of New castle. They examined into the thoroughfares of Loudon and the embankment of the Thames. They planned out ten miles of new streets, but, with the exception of Camion Street and a few small improvements, nothing came of that Commission. In July 1844, Lord Lincoln brought in a Bill for making an embankment, but it was not discussed until the following year, when the Vice-President of the Board of Trade was asked if it was intended to carry out the embankment by a poll tax, and the answer given was that the then Government did not intend to pusue the question, and the matter again dropped. The year

  737
  1845 was remarkable for the number of railways that were then projected in all parts of the kingdom; but this subject was not taken up till 1854, when a Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the best mode of opening the Metropolitan bridges to the public. That investigation only ended in the production of a blue-book, as did also another inquiry instituted in the year following. In 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was established, but it had not yet done anything with regard to the great arterial thoroughfares of London. That Board was, however, now carrying out a general system of drainage, and had in hand the construction of high-level, mid-level, and low-level sewers. If those plans were executed there would be no open communication between the west-end and the City for the space of two years; and the carrying away of materials from the tunnels for conveying the sewage would create a serious nuisance in the principal thoroughfares. The scheme of Mr. Bazal-gette for taking the low-level sewer along the bank of the Thames was concurred in by the late Mr. Stephenson; but, owing to the difficulties it encountered, it was afterwards determined to take it along the Strand. It was the more important, therefore, that the subject of the embankment of the Thames should now be taken into consideration. Various plans hitherto framed for that object had been opposed by the wharfingers, but if the Committee for which he now asked were granted, it would be shown that the execution of so magnificent a Metropolitan improvement, so far from injuring, would much enhane the value of the property of the wharfingers. Morever, the railway companies now proposed to cross the Thames with their lines; and the question of the embankment of the river must be settled before those companies obtained their Bills, otherwise it could never be carried out. The population of London had increased between the years 1811 and 1851 from 1,138,000 to 2,362,000; and in 1861 it would doubtless reach close upon 3,000,000. The traffic in and out from the various railways during the year was as follows: — Great Northern, 1,500,000 persons; Great Western, 1.574,809; North-Western, 1,000,000; Eastern Counties, 2,245,600; Blackwall, from their terminus alone, 5,133,000; South-Eastern, 7,714,045; Brighton, 6,995,122; and South-Western, 4,672,789. So that the total number of persons who passed in and out of the Metropolis last year by the va-
  738
  rious termini was upwards of 30,000,000; and, although many of them travelled for only short distances, it was manifest that in going to and from the railway stations, they must enormously swell the traffic in the crowded thoroughfares of London. He believed the Select Committee would report in favour of the execution of this great work, and then would come the question of the means to be provided for that object. That was the great difficulty, but one which he thought might be overcome. The Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to expend on the making of the low-level sewer a sum of £221,000, and that would, of course, form part of the embankment scheme. The Board of Conservancy of the Thames were also most anxious that the undertaking should be accomplished, and were willing to consider whether a portion of the revenue to be obtained from reclaimed land might not be applied to that purpose. In his opinion this was not a local but an Imperial question. ["No, no."] Hon. Members might say "No," but he put it to the House whether the saving of time to the vast numbers of people who were in the habit of passing to and fro in London which would be effected by this scheme was not a sufficient reason why the Imperial Exchequer ought to contribute to its execution. Large grants were made for the improvement of various ports in the kingdom, and he did not see why there should not also he a grant for improving the navigation of the Thames. In order to carry the sewage of the Metropolis down to Barking Creek a large quantity of water would have to be withdrawn from the Thames, and the embankment would therefore be required to put the river in a proper condition for the purposes of navigation. The embankment would be extremely valuable in a sanitary point of view, both by supplying a fine public walk, and facilitating the cleansing of the river.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of providing for the increasing traffic of the Metropolis by the Embankment of the Thames."
  MR. COWPERsaid, he thought the House would have no objection to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It did not require any argument to show the necessity of free communication between Charing-cross and London-bridge. No one who had driven in a carriage along the crowded thoroughfare of the Strand and

  739
  found himself compelled to go at a walking pace instead of a trot could fail to understand the serious nuisance caused by the obstruction of the route, and the consequent loss of time. It was generally admitted that an embankment would be of advantage to the navigation of the river; and the threatened stoppage of the central traffic of the Metropolis during the construction of the low level sewer at a great depth along the Strand and Fleet-street, undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, rendered it very urgent that the Committee should proceed to consider this subject immediately. He looked with the utmost apprehension to the danger that might be incurred, during the formation of this sewer, by the valuable buildings along its route. It was to pass very near to the foundations of Somerset-house, and not far from the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral. The great weight of the latter and the character of the Boil on which it rested afforded a strong reason why a Committee should at once be appointed to consider what ground there was for apprehension of danger to that magnificent structure, and why the Board of Works should have an opportunity of abandoning their plan for a sewer below the chief thoroughfare of the Metropolis in favour of that which made it the basis of the proposed embankment. The appointment of a Committee would give an opportunity for a thorough investigation of the subject, and of considering the various plans that had been proposed at different times for making the embankment, and of ascertaining whether the rights of the individuals to property near would be injured, and what compensation should be given. Instead of being detrimental to their property, his own opinion was that it was possible to construct an embankment in such a way as to improve it; but it was desirable, before any measures were taken with reference to carrying such a project out, that the parties interested should have an opportunity of expressing their views and of stating their case. Another question which would demand the attention of the Committee would be the fund from which the expense of any of these operations was to be defrayed. He must altogether demur to the allegation made by his hon. Friend that this project ought to be treated as an Imperial question. It appeared to him as local as any other that could be mentioned. It was generally held that street improvement and works
  740
  of drainage were especially local matters, and if the hon. Member expected to get any grants from the public exchequer for the execution of this embankment, it was to be feared he would be disappointed. It was, however, very important that the manner in which local taxation could be made available for this purpose should be considered by the Committee. The Metropolitan Board of Works would no doubt be ready to contribute largely, as far as the sewer was concerned; and it might be found that some other form of local taxation might be applicable, in consideration of the general benefit to be conferred on the Metropolis. It had also been suggested that private enterprise would aid in the completion of such a work, if the way could be seen to a fair remuneration. A portion of the embankment, for example, might be set apart for an omnibus tramway. The embankment of the Thames would contribute to the decoration and ornamentation of the river, as well as improve its navigation, and he thought, under the circumstances, it was a question that should go before a Committee without loss of time.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he had thought that the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works would have relieved the House from a discussion of local questions of this kind, which would properly form the subject of a private Bill. He was willing to consent to the Committee, however, on a distinct understanding that not a farthing of the public money was to be spent in carrying out the scheme. But in order to remove all doubt on that score he begged to move, as an Amendment, that the words be added to the Motion—"And how these funds are to be provided from the district benefited."
  Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Question, the words "and how the funds are to be derived from the district benefited."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, because it would absolutely prohibit the Committee from reporting in favour of applying the coal duty towards the construction of this great Metropolitan improvement, which was one of the fairest objects to which such a revenue could be devoted. He cordially supported the proposal for this Committee, considering that the embankment of the Thames, if properly carried out, would be one of the most beneficial and ornamental works that could be constructed in the Metropolis. He agreed

  741
  also as to the necessity of making the investigation without loss of time, and begged to suggest that much advantage might result from the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the subject of Metropolitan railways, in order to prevent their cutting up the City in every possible variety of angle and in the most ridiculous manner. He altogether despaired of any Railway Committee doing justice to this subject.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought they would be troubled with monthly discussions on subjects of this nature unless they would consent to create some municipality that could deal with them on an intelligible and proper principle. The only proper body to deal both with the introduction of railways into the Metropolis and the embankment of the river was a municipality. It was altogether an improper mode of proceeding to appoint a Select Committee to deal with such questions, and then to consider how they should tax the inhabitants in order to carry out what was deemed a very interesting public object. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works gave his consent to this Committee just to play with the subject. They had no earthly connection with it, and the manner in which they were accustomed to deal with such questions showed a capacity which was perfectly remarkable. The Board had no sense of responsibility; and they threw these matters over to a Select Committee, where no one was responsible. The House should decline to entertain such propositions altogether, except in a comprehensive way by a body elected by the inhabitants and by property, which should protect the one as well as the other in all these important questions. He also objected to the reimposition of the coal tax.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he thought something ought to be done, but could not agree that Imperial money should be spent on such a project. The right hon. Gentleman did not say positively that no public money would he devoted to that object, and he thought he ought to say so at once. Unless they pointed out at whose expense the work was to be undertaken, the inquiry would lead to no positive result. There should be a Royal Commission appointed to consider the various important questions involved in this subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not agree in the opinion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to the inefficiency of Select Commit-
  742
  tees. On the contrary, he thought a Committee a very good instrument to examine fundamental propositions, and to extract from witnesses those facts upon which conclusions might be safely founded. His hon. Friend reverted always to his own proposal, that there should be a municipal body to represent the whole Metropolis. It was a very fit subject to propose to the House as a separate question, but he could not concede that it had any direct application to the Motion which they were now discussing. There was a body which with regard to these works, did correspond very much with the notions of his hon. Friend. The Board of Works were expressly empowered to raise by local taxation the funds necessary for improvements connected with the Metropolis. In virtue of these powers they were making tunnels, and charging the expense upon the rates which they were in the habit of levying. They had the means, therefore, of contributing very effectually to the expenses of this operation. His hon. Friend had found fault with the department of the Government which, before the appointment of the Board of Works, was charged with the arrangement of the sewers. The reason the department of the Government was not able to construct the sewers was because they had not the power to raise the money. It was not that the Government were unable to devise a plan for draining the Metropolis and preventing the sewage going into the Thames, because the plan at last adopted by the Board of Works was the same plan which the Government thought efficient and proper for the purpose. He should certainly object to the addition to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member opposite, because all matters connected with the subject were naturally included in a reference to a Committee. He was, however, quite prepared to make good the assertion of his right hon. Friend, that the Committee was not to expect that any recommendation of theirs would have the effect of bringing towards the expense of the operation any vote of public money, because he was sure the House would not agree to expend any portion of public revenue on these local improvements of the Metropolis. The hon. Gentleman ought to go into the Committee with the clear understanding that, whatever the cost, no part of it would be defrayed out of the revenue of the country at large. But it might be that the Committee might think some fund could be formed and some mode

  743
  devised of offering a fair remuneration to capitalists who would invest money in works connected with this embankment. The inquiry, therefore, seemed to him to be one very fitting for a Committee to undertake, and they were not, in his opinion, superseded at all by the existence of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He happened to be a Member of a Committee appointed two years ago to inquire into the state of the Thames, and they had evidence given to them showing what great advantages would arise in every point of view from a good embankment of the Thames on proper principles. It would secure greater purification of the bed of the river; it would improve the navigation; it would be conducive to the general convenience of the Metropolis. In every point of view, it was a scheme proper to be encouraged. The particular object for which the Committee was appointed was of a different kind, and, therefore, in their Report they merely adverted to the circumstance. But he thought the House would do well to concur in the Motion of his hon. Friend and appoint this Committee. This Committee would collect evidence showing in what way the embankment could be made. They would certainly not recommend, he was sure, after what bad been said, any grant of public money; but they might point out how, independent of the resources which the Metropolitan Board had at its command, either by the coal duties or by private enterprise, the work, which would be a great ornament to the Metropolis and a great convenience to the traffic, might be accomplished.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, as he had on a former occasion brought charges against the Metropolitan Members, he was bound on this occasion to make them amends, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The matter, however, was now left in a singular position. The hon. Gentleman who represented the largest portion of the inhabitants of this Metropolis, who were chiefly interested in this measure, repudiated the whole scheme. It was in fact, not asked for by the Metropolitan Members. The Chief Commissioner of Public Works was in favour of the scheme, but then, to his (Mr. Bentick's) great relief, he said no one must expect the expense to come out of the Imperial purse. But if that were so, what was the work of the Committee? He could not share the sanguine views of the noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
  744
  ment as to the results that might be expected from the appointment of this Committee. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they led to no result at all, and if ever there was a case in which that would happen, it was where its assistance was repudiated by those most interested in its labours. He rose, however, chiefly for the purpose of explaining to the House that the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire was to pin the Committee down by a declaration on the part of the House that whatever they might recommend they must not expect any assistance beyond the local resources.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he thought the Metropolis was dealt with in a most peculiar manner. The proposal was that a tax should be raised throughout the Metropolis for raising an embankment along the northern side of the river, for people who came from the remote parts of the country to enjoy. The people of London did not wish for it—but hon. Members from all parts of the country were always trying experiments upon the Metropolis—in corpore vili—and then came upon Londoners to pay for them. It was the House of Commons who recommended the sewage to be thrown into the river. Hon. Members came up from the country, and found the river so bad that they could not go on board a steamboat without feeling uncomfortable, and then they asked that a great sewer might be made, at a vast expense, to carry away the filth which but for them would not have gone in that direction at all. They would not grant them a municipality; the Government were afraid of that, and speaking for himself, he might say that Southwark and the Surrey side of the river would not be benefited at all by this grand scheme. Above all he decidedly objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirling, who had a strong objection to the spending of money upon the Metropolis, but who was the warm advocate of grants in aid of the Scotch pickled herring trade. The proposed embankment would only pass through two or three parishes, or "districts," as the Amendment called them, and on these it was proposed to levy the entire amount. If his hon. Friend could sec his way to the source from which the suggested improvements could he paid, he would support the Motion, but not otherwise.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, as to the inutility of Select Committees in

  745
  most of these cases. The House was already in possession of evidence upon evidence, and estimate after estimate, and another Committee could but produce results exactly similar. The real obstacle to success was the enormous cost of buying up the local interests of those who lived along the banks of the river. Still, if it were an amusement to the hon. Member for Coventry to sit on the Committee he was welcome, as far as his (Lord Lovaine's) vote was concerned; but it must be upon the distinct understanding that he should oppose any grant of money from the Imperial treasury to the scheme of embankment.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, the Metropolis was already committed to the expenditure of £7,000,000 on the drainage scheme, and the ratepayers were already crying out that they derived no benefits proportioned to the rates levied. They were consequently not likely to contemplate with pleasurable feelings the present proposition. All attempts at dealing with questions of this magnitude were but playing at legislation, unless a master mind existed to direct, and means equal to the accomplishment of the works to be undertaken, were forthcoming. He did not wish to introduce an Imperial régime into this country, but he could not help regretting the puny, hap-hazard spirit with which our Government shrank from dealing with great questions when he saw the improvements which had been effected in Paris. He had seen something of the accounts and details of the vast buildings which had been erected there of late years through a private source, and had been extremely struck with the order, detail, and accuracy that prevailed. In England, on the contrary, we suffered an agglomeration of warehouses to stand in the way of this vast improvement, and were deterred from action by impediments originating in arrangements dating from the time of Edward I. All that was required was, that the Government would deal with the question in a spirit worthy of itself; and all that was needed was, that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton should carry it out in the same firm manner in which he had carried the Smoke Bill, which reflected honour upon him. It was in that way that Paris had been made an object of attraction to the whole world. It was useless for the Committee to commence the inquiry with their hands tied up. It was decided that they should neither be at liberty to
  746
  recommend direct nor indirect taxation; and any person who knew anything of the Metropolis must be aware that it would not submit to additional imposts. Unless the House and the Government were prepared to deal with the question in a better spirit, they ought not to touch it at all; it would be more judicious to allow the Corporation Bill, like many other measures, to go adrift.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, it was of no use referring the question to a Committee, unless the main difficulty were solved, how to raise the money. The Committee ought to be untrammelled in their recommendations, or their Report would bind no one but the members of the Committee. Let them inquire as to the cost, and say where the money was to come from. The people of the Metropolis would object to pay the cost, and why ought not the country at large to contribute to it? His right hon. Friend said that the sewer referred to was likely to pull down Somerset House and even St. Paul's Cathedral. If there was any such danger, it was time, in his opinion, to stop the sewer altogether.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Coventry, but even in the Metropolis itself there were differences of opinion upon the subject.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the chairman of the Metropolitan Works was entirely in favour of the appointment of the Committee.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.