Commons Sitting of 4 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1° Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment; Public Offices Extension; Jamaica Loan (Settlement).
3° Windsor Castle (Bakehouse); Chancery Regulation (Ireland).

MERSEY, IRWELL, &c. PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BROWN-WESTHEADsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. It was with great reluctance he felt himself compelled to take that course. The Bill, however, was of a very exceptional character, and came before the House in a manner that was very unusual. It was, in fact, a public measure introduced in the guise of a private Bill, and it was so designated by the highest authority in the other House of Parliament. In the House of Lords, after the Bill had passed a Committee of five, it was referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and discussed clause by clause, and on that occasion the Lord Chancellor pronounced it an opprobrium on the legislation of the country. He should inform the House that a number of tributaries ran into the River Irwell, and the Irwell Navigation Company—or rather the Earl of Ellesmere, who might be said to be the company—promoted the Bill with a view to remove obstructions caused to the navigation by the lodgment
  1414
  of cinders and other matters. What had the promoters done? Seeing that they would have to meet powerful opposition on the part of the proprietors of certain of the tributaries, those streams had been struck out of the Bill. He (Mr. Brown-Westhead) had been asked to oppose the Bill; but he declined at first to do so, believing it to be merely a sanitary measure. On looking into it, however, he saw that there was nothing in it whatever of that nature, and that the Bill sought to deprive a number of proprietors over an area of 400 square miles of rights which had been enjoyed from time immemorial. The parties opposing the Bill did not object to the fullest inquiry with a view to ascertain in what manner the object which the promoters professed to have in view could be best and most equitably carried out. His own personal interests were favourably affected by the Bill, but he considered it his duty to protect the interests of hundreds of riparian proprietors higher up the streams, whose ancient prescriptive rights were interfered with in a manner which was never before authorized by private legislation. Under all the circumstances, he believed he acted perfectly right in opposing the Bill. He did not think the House should receive a Bill which had public objects, but which came on in the guise of a private measure, and which vested in the hands of the principal promoter powers which he did not think Parliament would sanction. The Bill was promoted by a navigation company, who, by adopting the steps they had taken, sought to avoid the Standing Orders which related to public measures, and which railway companies had invariably to be bound by. A great principle was involved in the question, and he trusted, that if the measure was allowed to go further, its provisions would be made so far equitable and fair that the House could approve of it, and that the whole community would be benefited by it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that no doubt the Bill was of a very extraordinary character. It was hard on a cursory glance to discern any features which could distinguish it from a public measure. It was a very unusual thing to affect by private legislation the interests of large towns and

  1415
  manufacturing populations. The Bill set out by professing that such was its object; and when its provisions were examined, it would be found that the interest of the great manufacturing places on the rivers Mersey and Irwell were seriously affected. Another peculiarity of the measure was that it did not appear on the face of it by whom it was promoted. The question, then, which the House had decide was, whether it was a public or a private Bill. If it was the former, the Order for its Second Reading should be discharged. If, on the contrary, it was a private measure, cases of individual hardship ought not to be considered in Committee of the Whole House, but were proper matters for investigation and inquiry before a Select Committee. The measure originated in the House of Lords as a private Bill; in that form it underwent a rigid scrutiny there, and as a private Bill it had come down to that House. The Navigation Company, who really promoted the Bill, complained that in consequence of the acts of certain parties, over whom they had no control, the powers conferred on them by the Act of Parliament were seriously interfered with, and the navigation obstructed. On the other hand, it was said that the obstructions referred to were caused in the legitimate exercise of trade by manufacturers, mine owners, and quarry proprietors, who deposited certain materials in the tributaries of the river; and that if they were wrong-doers, they were not wanton wrong-doers. The questions arising out of that state of circumstances were proper subjects for investigation by a Committee upstairs. He considered that a clause should be added to the Bill, if it were allowed to proceed further, providing that nothing contained in it should exempt it from the provisions of any future Act relating to the navigation of rivers. Technically, the Bill might be considered a private Bill, and should therefore be referred to a Committee upstairs; but there was one grave objection to the measure, which he should refer to. It was this:—In the original draught of the Bill all the tributaries of the Mersey and the Irwell were included in the operation of the Act. In consequence of the opposition of certain parties, some of those tributaries had been omitted. But if the proprietors on any of the tributaries were wrong-doers, those who acted
  1416
  similarly on the other streams were wrongdoers also. It was competent to the Committee upstairs to restore the Bill to its original form; and if on its return he found that such a course had not been adopted, he reserved to himself the right to move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, with a view to ascertain whether in their opinion it was a proper measure to pass with its present partial application.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he thought that there was a necessity for some such measure, and he hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he considered that the Bill should be made applicable to the entire of the tributaries, and he had not been aware that it was not. That matter, and the other questions referred to, could be dealt with by a Committee upstairs.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill appeared to be a very objectionable measure, and it was rendered more objectionable still by the manner in which it was introduced and subsequently dealt with. The riparian proprietors were sought to be made subject to penal provisions for exercising certain rights over their own property. If a nuisance existed, there were other means of remedying the evil. The Bill, if it were allowed to proceed further, should certainly be made universally applicable; but it was highly inconvenient that a measure which was public and penal in its provision and enactments should be introduced as a private Bill. He therefore considered it his duty to oppose the second reading.
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, he also should oppose the second reading. He considered it highly objectionable and unjust that parties who were in a similar position to those against whom the measure was aimed should be excluded from its operation.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that several Bills of a similar nature had been considered private Bills. The general commerce of the country required that the navigation of the river Mersey should be kept open and unobstructed. He hoped the House would agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee; and if on its return it was found that the proprietors on all the tributary streams were not included in its provisions, he would support a Motion to add clauses which would have the effect of extending its operation to them.
  MR. BARNESsaid, it would be most

  1417
  unfair to deprive the proprietors of their rights without compensation. He thought a Committee ought to be appointed to investigate the whole question, and should vote against the second reading if his hon. Friend pressed his Amendment.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it must be admitted that there was a very considerable evil for which a remedy ought to be applied. The evil, however, was not general, but only affected a particular locality. Nevertheless, when an opportunity was presented to them of putting an end to the inconvenience, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Massey) that it would be unwise not to avail themselves of it.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that every mill that was erected increased the evil, by silting up the river. He therefore hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the question was who should provide the funds for effecting a public benefit. The measure was an attempt of parties to guard their interests at the public expense.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could not agree with the argument that they ought to reject the Bill because it invaded private rights. All private Bills did that. He thought there was no more competent tribunal to inquire into questions of the kind than a Select Committee. Although he entertained grave objections to the Bill, he did not think these would warrant him in refusing to send a Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. He hoped to see it restored to the shape in which it was originally introduced, so that its operation would extend to all the tributaries referred to.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 48: Majority 49.
  Bill read 2°.
  MR. BROWN-WESTHEADsaid, he would then move that Standing Order, No. 8, be suspended, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of fifteen Members, with power to inquire into the causes of the pollution and obstruction of the rivers Mersey and Irwell and their tributaries, and into the best means of
  1418
  preventing and remedying the evils arisin from such pollution and obstruction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order, No. 8, be suspended in the case of the said Bill."
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that if a Committee of fifteen was appointed, his constituents would not have an opportunity of being heard in opposition to certain of the provisions of the Bill to which they objected.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the Motion was, in effect, to reverse the order of proceeding with regard to private Bills, inasmuch as the House had specially appointed Committees for entertaining questions of the kind.
  MR. BROWN-WESTHEADobserved, that he was anxious that all parties should be heard before the Committee; and he wished to ask the Speaker whether that course could not be adopted if his Motion was carried.
  MR. SPEAKERreplied, that it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the House for the purpose contemplated by the hon. Member.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that recent experience—he alluded to the Thames Embankment Committee—afforded no recommendation to the House to alter their usual course.
  MR. BROWN-WESTHEADsaid, he would withdraw his Motion, as it was his belief that everything would be done to obtain a competent Select Committee of five to consider the provisions of the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Bill committed.

MERCHANDIZE MARKS, &c. BILL.

  [BILL NO. 98.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 postponed.
  Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Penalties).
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that a person who placed false representations on his goods did so with intent to defraud, and he apprehended that he would be punishable at common law for a misdemeanour. The Bill proposed to reduce an offence of that serious nature to an offence of a milder form, and directed that the party committing such an offence should only be subjected to certain penalties. Those penalties, namely, a fine of 10 s., and for-

  1419
  feiture of the article in reference to which, fraud on the public was attempted to be committed, were, he considered, insufficient. He therefore proposed to insert words, to provide that all persons so offending should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the enactment in the clause did not at all put aside the character of the offence which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had described at common law. Its object was to avoid the necessity of having to adduce before a jury such evidence—which it was sometimes very difficult to get—as would satisfy them that the offence of cheating at common law had been committed.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses also agreed to.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he then proposed the insertion, in Section 1, of a provision for the registration of trade marks. From the want of such a registration his constituents suffered daily by the forgery of their trade marks to inferior goods. The Prussian manufacturers were driving the English out of the foreign market by introducing worthless goods under the name and marks of English firms, thus bringing on them the character of inferior manufacturers. The Act was a very useful one; but if its provisions were so extended as to embrace the registration of trade marks, it would be much more acceptable to the country as a protective measure.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred had well considered the question, and had come to the conclusion that, at present at least, it would not be expedient to attempt to establish a registration of trade marks. His objection to it was one of principle, as he did not see why previous registration of a mark should be made the condition of obtaining a legal protection. The forgery of a mark was like the forgery of a check on a bank. If an intent to defraud him was proved, a man was entitled to protection, without being put to the expense of registration. He thought that a registration would be rather an impediment to prosecution.
  MR. HADFIELDsupported the proposal for a registration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  In reply to a question from Mr. ROEBUCK,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he
  1420
  would consent, on bringing up the report, to introduce a clause to protect the rights of the Cutlers' Company of Hallamshire, in the county of York.
  Preamble agreed, to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 187].

OUR RELATIONS WITH PARAGUAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be not true that amicable relations have been restored between this Country and the Republic of Paraguay; if so, whether there be any objection to produce the Correspondence between the authorities at Assumption and Mr. Thornton, Her Majesty's Minister at Parana; and if any Report has been received from Mr. Hutchinson, British Consul at Rosario, in reference to the Cotton-growing capabilities of that portion of the Rio Plata, in accordance with the instructions of the Foreign Office, co-operating with the Manchester Cotton Supply Association?
  MR. LAYARDreplied, that negotiations had been opened between Mr. Thornton and the President of the Republic of Paraguay, which led to the hope that very shortly friendly relations would be reestablished between the two countries. As yet the negotiations were only in progress; and, that being so, the Government could not lay the Papers on the table of the House. Mr. Hutchinson had not yet inspected the Cotton-growing districts. A request had been made by Her Majesty's Government that he might be allowed to inspect thorn; and when he had done so, he would make a Report.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to ask whether, in the negotiations which have taken place, the claims of British subjects for compensation for the serious losses they have suffered have been considered; and, if so, whether those claims are to be met?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he was rejoiced at being able to say that there had been an offer to pay a certain sum, which, he believed, the claimants had agreed to accept.

AFFAIRS OF MEXICO.—QUESTION.
MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for

1421
Foreign Affairs, Whether it is probable that an English vessel, loaded in England before the notification of the blockade, but cleared out two or three days after for the port of Tampico, would be admitted into that port in the event of its being blockaded by the French?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he could not, of course, give an answer with respect to any specific case. All that he was able to say was, that the French Government had given to Her Majesty's Government an assurance that any vessel that had left any British port for Mexico previous to the declaration of the blockade, should not be interfered with by the French cruisers; and, moreover, that the French Government had given an assurance to Her Majesty's Government that it was not their intention to interfere with legitimate commerce, either on the part of French or neutral vessels, its object being merely to prohibit the importation into Mexico of the munitions of war.

THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION OF THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Has his attention been called to the Resolution adopted by the Grand Jury of the County of Tipperary, at the late Special Commission in Clonmel, complaining of defects in the Irish Constabulary system, "owing to the Military organization established at Head Quarters;" and is it intended to remedy those defects by reforming that organization?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he was in receipt of the Resolution to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, and a copy of it had been, or would be, forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant. He was glad to find that in the Resolution the grand jury had recorded their opinion of the good conduct, sobriety, and general intelligence of the Constabulary Force in Ireland. In regard to the question about "military organization at head quarters," he (Sir Robert Peel) did not know what it meant, as the present organization of the force was precisely the same as it had been for years, with the exception that the arms with which the force had been furnished were of a more excellent quality than those previously supplied. The Government, so far as at present advised, had no
  1422
  intention whatever of altering the organization of the force.

PROCLAMATION OF LIMERICK.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR GAVINsaid, he would beg to ask why the Proclamation under the Peace Preservation Act had been extended to the City of Limerick. he was aware that a most foul murder had been committed in a remote part of the county; but the City of Limerick was, he believed, free from crime, and the people there had suffered a great deal from the distress which prevailed during the past winter and spring; but they had borne their sufferings with admirable patience. Under these circumstances he felt obliged to ask, Why the City of Limerick had been placed under such a severe measure as the Peace Preservation Act?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the Proclamation of the county was adopted almost unanimously by the county magistrates. The hon. and gallant Member would remember that the City of Limerick extended more than six miles into the county, and the municipal boundary of the city was very wide. Under these circumstances it was thought that the Proclamation would have no operation if it did not include the City of Limerick.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government had not received from the bench of Magistrates of the City of Limerick an unanimous protest against the Proclamation of the county magistrates?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he was not aware of any such protest.
  MR. HENNESSY: I have seen it.
  MR. MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say whether he has received such a protest?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had only received a letter from Mr. Spring Rice expressing dissatisfaction that his property had been included in the Proclamation, and in reply he had informed that gentleman that the Proclamation of the county had been agreed to almost unanimously at a meeting of County Magistrates. The Government had received no official remonstrance or protest.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE TURKISH LOAN COMMISSION.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress had been made by Lord Hobart and the Turkish Loan Commission in extinguishing the paper money at Constantinople by the application of the capital of the loan to the purpose of paying it off? and to call attention to the Report of the Commission, and also to the events now occurring in Servia; and to move an Address for Copy of any Correspondence that had taken place on that subject. The Government had manifested a generous wish to assist Turkey; but in his opinion the dry-nursing system in reference to the affairs of that country had been carried too far, as it only led the Ottoman Government into a career of ambitious conquest. It was a proof of the partiality with which the Government had acted, that they were now obliged to admit that the Report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster had been communicated to the contractors of the loan before it had been given to the public at large. The ostensible design of the loan recently contracted was to enable the Government of Turkey to pay off certain paper money (the Caimê); but, according to the accounts which had been received, that design, however, had entirely failed, as it was proposed to pay off only 40 per cent of that money. The consequence was, that the paper money was vastly deprecated. In addition to that, it had been discovered that great forgeries had been committed, which tended still further to bring it into disrepute. He held in his hand a real and a spurious note, which he now exhibited to the House, and which were as like each other as two peas. It was difficult to ascertain which was the real and which was the false currency of that country. It was said that the present Sultan was a man of great energy, and that he was disposed to carry out a liberal and enlightened policy. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) heartily hoped that the anticipations that had been formed with respect to the Sultan would turn out to be well-founded, and that his efforts might be directed successfully to the rectification of the financial condition of the Turkish Empire. The House had received two Reports in reference to the debt of Turkey—the Turkish and the English—and they differed in every essential par-
  1424
  ticular. The Turkish Report stated that there existed only about £18,000,000 of debt, while the Report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster stated that it amounted to over £41,000,000; and, from advices he had received, he had reason to believe that a large amount of other obligations had been contracted. It was stated in the Turkish Report that the interest on the foreign debt was £954,000, and the interest on the internal debt was £571,000, together about £1,500,000 a year, or one-eighth of the expenditure of the country; and the Report went on to state, that the interest on the other denominations of debt was also about £1,500,000 a year. Then, with regard to the new taxes. The revenue of Turkey, by the last budget, was about nine millions, and the expenditure twelve millions; but it was expected that the new taxes would produce £3,268,000, and that they would be able to effect a reduction of £685,000 in the expenditure, making together nearly £4,000,000; and thus it was hoped that they would be able to show a surplus on the year. But according to the plan of the Hobart and Foster Report about one-half of the increase was to come from an alteration in the tenure of ecclesiastical property called Vakouf, and they all knew how difficult a thing it was to prevail upon even the mildest ecclesiastics to accept of the imposition of burdens upon church property; and therefore, considering the strength of the ecclesiastical power in Mohammedan countries and its intimate relations with the civil authority—considering that the consent of the Sheik el Islam was necessary to the legality of every edict issued by the Sultan, it was extremely doubtful whether the increased taxation would be obtainable. It was well known that the inherent weakness of Turkey was such that but for the support of the European Powers under treaty obligations, she could not maintain her position as a nation. He thought that too great a task was imposed upon Lord Hobart, because he was expected to set the finances of Turkey to rights, while the resources at his command were entirely inadequate. At the present time, also, there were more than usually heavy drains upon Turkey, owing to the Montenegrin and other wars. They themselves (the English Government) first taught Turkey to borrow, and she had shown herself an apt pupil. In 1854 she raised £3,000,000; in 1855, £5,000,000, guaranteed by England and France; in

  1425
  1858, £5,000,000 more; then there was another operation of £2,000,000 by the Mirès loan; and now there was the new loan of £8,000,000—in all, £23,000,000. The result of these constant additions to the foreign debt was that the stock was continually falling in the market. The armed interference of the Porte in Montenegro was most unwise, and could only result in a useless expenditure of life and money. With regard to the events that had recently happened in Servia, he wished to ask whether, in firing on the town as he had done, faith had been broken with the English and European Consuls by the Pacha of Belgrade or not? The Porte had sent a pacha to Belgrade who was so ignorant that he knew no language but his own; and the consequence of his ignorance and bigotry was the troubles that had ensued. It was an anomaly unknown in any other part of the nominal dominions of the Sultan for the suzerain power to maintain a garrison in the capital city of the dependent State, and a fortress, the guns of which were actually within range of the prince's palace. He therefore desired to know from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, as a member of a Liberal Government, he was going to justify the proceedings of the Governor of Belgrade. It was very important that Her Majesty's Government should direct their attention to the subject, because, as far as their own selfish interests alone were concerned, they must be aware, that if intestine war were to break out in that portion of the Continent, there was great danger of its spreading into the neighbouring countries, and there was no knowing how far the other countries of Europe might become involved in the strife. He thought that the question deserved the dispassionate consideration of the Government. He asked, therefore, if there was any objection on the part of the Government to produce the correspondence relating to Servia?
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Correspondence which has taken place between Lord Hobart and the Turkish Loan Commission, relative to the extinction of paper money at Constantinople,"
  —instead thereof.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he felt sure that
  1426
  the House would not expect him to follow the hon. Gentleman through his essay upon Turkish finance, for which, as he was not the Turkish Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was in no way responsible. So far as he was aware, there was no intention on the part of the Turkish Government to conquer new territory, or to reconquer any that she might have lost; and with regard to her proceedings in Servia and Montenegro, she had done nothing in infringement of any treaty or obligation by which she was bound to those states. As to the progress made by Lord Hobart and the Turkish Loan Commission, he (Mr. Layard) could not be expected to give information as to what might have occurred from day to day. The Foreign Office knew nothing of the matter; but when the operation was fully carried out, he supposed Lord Hobart's duties would cease, and that he would return to this country and give an account of his share in the transaction; but they were not kept informed from day to flay what the Commission was doing. The hon. Gentleman said that a scheme had been put forward for the redemption of the paper money. He was not there to criticise that scheme. All he knew was, that it had received due consideration at the hands of the Commissioners, and been accepted by them; and he was told that it was likely to effect the object for which it was introduced. That was all the information he was in a condition to give to the hon. Gentleman on the subject. He could not furnish the correspondence that had taken place in reference to Servia. When the events to which the hon. Member alluded took place at Belgrade, the Turkish Government immediately recalled the pacha who was alleged to have been the cause of them, and sent there one of the most distinguished statesmen in their service, who, in conjunction with the representatives of the other Powers, was engaged in carrying on a thorough investigation into the circumstances which led to those unhappy occurrences, upon which, when the facts were in the possession of the Government, they would be in a position to express an opinion; but while that investigation was going on, it was obvious that it would be most improper to lay upon the table statements which were merely ex parte.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

THE NAVAL COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the intention of the Admiralty to make any increase in the pay and allowances to the Naval Commander in Chief in India in consequence of the stoppage of the allowance hitherto paid as batta to the Naval Commander in Chief by the Indian Government: if any inconvenience has arisen in the selection of an Officer for that command in consequence of this redaction of pay? and, to move an Address for Return of the pay and allowances of the Military Officer in Her Majesty's Forces in India of similar rank to the Naval Commander in Chief in India. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had, owing to some embarrassment in the finances of the country, thought fit to reduce the pay of certain naval officers serving in India, and among them that of the naval Commander and others, to the extent of £8,000 a year. Without going into details, he might observe that the pay of the Admiral commanding in chief on the Indian station was, up to a recent date £5,221 a year, and that by a stroke of the pen the sum had been reduced to £2,190, or by considerably more than half the amount of the salary which he had hitherto received. It had been the custom to pay a certain amount to the naval Commander in Chief as batta money, and the commodore received half that sum, and the other officers in proportion. The whole of those allowances had now been taken away. He should not have alluded to the subject, had it not been—and the gallant Admiral the Member for Devonport would bear him out in the statement—that under ordinary circumstances it was impossible for the naval Commander in Chief in India to perform the duties of his station and pay the expenses which necessarily devolved upon him for a sum of less than £2,000 a year; and whoever accepted that command under existing circumstances would, in all probability, be £400 or £500 a year out of pocket in the performance of his duty to the Crown. That the naval commander should be placed in such a position could not he, he felt assured, the wish of the House. It might be said that the amount was sufficient, inasmuch as there was no difficulty in procuring officers to fill the command; but he should like to know from the Secretary for the Admi-
1428
ralty whether there was any truth in the rumour that several distinguished officers had, in consequence of the reduction to which he adverted, objected to go out to India as naval commanders in chief, feeling that their moans would not enable them to undergo the expense attendant on the appointment. The officer who now served in that capacity was, no doubt, a very able man, but he never had had the advantage of commanding a fleet previously, or of having performed the distinguished service by which officers hitherto selected for the appointment had been characterized. He might add that the military Commander in Chief and the Commanders of Presidencies received from £8,000 to £10,000 a year, or five times the sum paid to the naval Commander in Chief. Under these circumstances, he hoped to receive some satisfactory assurance from the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject.
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he was enabled to confirm all that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend. The naval Commander in Chief in India and China would in future have to serve under a salary of less than half the amount formerly paid, while the expenses in that part of the world were larger than the expenses of any other station. He trusted that the subject would receive the attention of the Admiralty, and that the injustice alluded to would be removed.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was perfectly true that an allowance called batta money used to be granted to all classes of officers of the navy while serving in the Indian waters, but that it had ceased and determined ever since the transference of the Government of India to the Crown. There was no doubt that the position of the naval Commander in Chief in India was therefore very much less advantageous in point of pay than it was before; but it should also be remembered that the circumstances of the present day were no longer precisely what they were when the batta money was granted. In those days they had a squadron in the Indian seas. Undoubtedly living was very expensive in India, and it was thought fit that naval officers should have allowances in consequence; but at the present time the Admiral on the Indian station was practically stationed at China, and there was no necessity for him to visit India. Then came the question whether, these allowances having been

1429
done away with by the Indian Government, the Admiralty should recommend any allowances in lieu of the batta money. Upon what principle was the Admiral serving upon that station to be paid very considerably more than the admirals on other stations? If on the ground of the cost of living, he would only say that that cost was very high at the Cape of Good Hope, where there was an Admiral, and also on the West India station; and he could scarcely think it right, therefore, that the Admiralty should select India as a favoured station, at which a higher rate of pay should be given than at others, without any sufficient reason. Such, at all events, was the principle on which the Admiralty proceeded in not proposing extra allowances for the naval officer in command in India and China. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked whether the Admiralty had found any inconvenience in getting officers to take the command in India and China in consequence of the reduction, and he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in referring to that point, had cast some reflection upon the Admiral who had recently taken command of the India and China station.
SIR JOHN HAYdenied he had cast any reflection upon the gallant Admiral.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, said he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have said that he was not so distinguished an officer as others who had gone before him, and upon that point he must beg to differ with him. The gallant Admiral had greatly distinguished himself in China. [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] With regard to the difficulty of finding officers to take the command in India, the station was one with respect to which there would always be some difficulty. It was not everybody who wished to go to so remote a quarter of the world, and one or two officers to whom it was intended to offer the command had declined to accept it on the score of health—possibly, also, because of reasons connected with their private affairs. Practically, however, there had been on the part of the Admiralty no difficulty in finding an officer to take the command on the China station, and it was not the character of the service for officers to make any difficulty in going anywhere they were ordered. It was impossible to continue the batta money to officers of the navy in India unless they had duties on shore; but if they were employed on shore, they would receive the
1430
same allowances as officers of corresponding rank in the army. He understood that his hon. and gallant Friend did not press for the Returns, and he hoped, therefore, that he would be satisfied with the explanation he had given.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to say one word in explanation. It was far from his intention to cast any slur upon the present naval Commander in Chief in India. What he meant to say was, that it used to be the practice to appoint to that command only such persons as had served as flag officers, and that though the gallant Admiral had distinguished himself in China, he had not attained that position.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service. All who had read that Report must, he thought, have been struck with the unanimity which prevailed among the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee, and with the vast mass of valuable information which the Report contained. They must also have observed with pleasure the great interest which had been taken by all our Foreign Secretaries in the welfare of the diplomatic service. A Report having been made by the Select Committee, based upon the evidence of distinguished public men, he thought it was not out of place to ask the Government, before the close of the Session, whether they intended to carry out the suggestions embodied in the Report. It was remarkable, that while the expenditure of every other department of the public service had been increased one-third during the last thirty years, the expenditure of the diplomatic profession had been reduced by a very considerable amount. Although the Army Estimates had been increased by £4,000,000 within the last few years, only a very small addition had been made to the rank and file. The increased expense had been caused by the provision of additional comforts to the army, and the same remark applied to the navy. In the diplomatic service the case was far otherwise; for although the business had increased no less than sevenfold since 1830, at which date the number of despatches which passed through the Foreign Office was 10,000 per annum, whereas it was now something like 75,000, and although

  1431
  a large additional number of gentlemen had entered the profession, the number of attachés being now one-third greater than it used to be, yet the expenditure of the service had been reduced to a much larger extent than was ever contemplated by Parliament. In 1825 the expenditure upon the diplomatic service exceeded £300,000 a year; in 1830 it was £230,000; but now it was no more than about £180,000. The profits of the profession had been diminished, while the cost of living in all the European capitals had been nearly doubled, and while, at the same time, the business had been enormously increased. If the expenditure could have been reduced with justice to the gentlemen who had entered the service, nobody would have a word to say against the arrangement; but when every witness examined before the Select Committee declared that those gentlemen were very insufficiently paid, and that justice was not done to them, it became the duty of the House of Commons to give its attention to the subject, and take care that it did not countenance the continuance of an unwise economy. The Select Committee had made seven recommendations, the first of which related to the examination of attachés. Upon that subject a good deal of evidence was taken, and all the witnesses agreed in thinking that the system of examination should not be pressed too far. Mr. Elliot stated that a man accustomed to good society was the person best fitted for the diplomatic service. The Earl of Clarendon declared that many qualities were required which could not be tested by an examination. Sir Andrew Buchanan made a remark of the same kind, while Earl Russell admitted that there were great practical inconveniences in the examination of attachés. It was essential, of course, that no incompetent person should be appointed, but the Civil Service Commissioners should not be allowed to interfere too much with candidates. The next three recommendations of the Select Committee bore simply upon the regulations of the Foreign Office, and he would not trouble the House with any remarks on them. But then came a very important suggestion—
  "That the present regulations with regard to leave of absence of Ambassadors and Ministers appear to press upon them with undue severity, and that the attention of the Secretary of State may be advantageously directed to the subject."
  That recommendation involved a certain
  1432
  expenditure. The House might not, perhaps be aware that Ambassadors and Ministers were the only public servants who were not allowed even one month's leave of absence without a deduction from their salaries. Such an arrangement as that was very bad; it was bitterly complained of, and he thought the House would agree with him that two months' leave of absence should be granted without any reduction of salary. The whole additional expense would not exceed £7,000 or £8,000 a year. He believed it was intended that there should be no unpaid attachés. A Vote of £2,300 would be presented to the House before the close of the Session, and he hoped it would be passed without opposition. Another point of importance was embodied in the sixth recommendation, which was—
  "That, whenever it is practicable and fit, a residence for a term of years should be secured for the British Embassy or Mission, the rent and repairs to be defrayed at the public expense."
  He thought that a deduction should be made from the salary of an Ambassador or Minister for house rent; but it was most important that there should be a fixed residence in every capital, in order that the representatives of Her Majesty abroad might not be put to unnecessary expense. The French system in this respect was much better than our own. The last suggestion of the Select Committee was—
  "That the attention of the Secretary of State be directed to the salaries and allowances of the larger missions, with the view of considering whether they are adequate to meet greatly increased expenditure of living at the principal European capitals."
  Upon that point the evidence was strong, unanimous, and conclusive. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was asked—
  "Do you consider the efficiency of the service has suffered from its not being so profitable as a career, or as not presenting so good an opening as other professions?"
  He replied—
  "I cannot undertake to say, as far as my experience has gone, that it has so suffered; there is, generally such a spirit among the gentlemen employed that they would rather make sacrifices out of their own means than allow the service to suffer; but it is hardly fair to leave an opening for such sacrifices. To speak from conjecture, I should presume that adequate remuneration, and the prospect of high eventual prizes, would obtain for the public a greater command of talent. I think that the appointments should be sufficient for the due performance of the duties, and that any individual employed in the diplomatic service of Her Majesty's Government should be placed on terms of society with the native gentlemen;

  1433
  an ambassador with those of the first rank, and an envoy with those of the class generally."
  The following was from the examination of the Earl of Malmesbury:—
  "In your Lordship's administration were there frequently complaints on the part of the diplomatic body as to the inadequacy of their salaries to support their position in a proper manner?—A great many."
  "Do yon remember what were the main grounds on which those complaints were founded?—Principally the great increase of prices everywhere, in both hemispheres. The increase of prices in South America is astonishing. We also know that at Paris everything has increased 40 per cent within our recent recollection. That, I believe, was the principal ground which they put forward when they stated that their salaries were not sufficient, and that they were obliged to trench upon their private means."
  Earl Russell said our representatives abroad were not sufficiently paid. Earl Cowley stated that he was out of pocket every year, while Sir A. Buchanan frankly told the Committee that his expenses in Madrid exceeded his salary by £1,000 per annum, and that he had been obliged to borrow a sum of money. The Earl of Clarendon gave the following evidence:—
  "Do you consider that the present pay of heads of missions is sufficient?—I am sure that it is not. The scale of salaries, I believe, was fixed thirty or forty years ago, and I believe very properly and fairly, and even liberally, with reference to the prices of the necessaries and comforts, and perhaps even the luxuries, of life; but I believe that there is no part of Europe, or America either, in which the prices of all those things have not risen from 40 to 60 or 70 per cent; consequently the rate at which the salaries were fixed thirty or forty years ago can be hardly fair now although they were fair then, and I believe that many Ministers are put to very considerable straits."
  He thought it essential to the position and influence of a country that its diplomatic servants should be able to entertain. There could not be better evidence on that point than that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Before the I Official Salaries Committee the noble Lord stated that no man could live in Paris on £10,000 a year. Earl Granville spent a great deal more. Let the House compare the salaries paid by England with those paid by other countries. The French Ambassador in London received 300.000 f., or £12,000 a year; the French Mininster at St. Petersburg also received £12,000 per annum. It was not fair to place a representative in a capital—for instance, Lord Napier at St. Petersburg—on a scale of salary which would not allow him to receive in the same manner as the French ambassador. That was a hardship. It was no answer to say that plenty of gen-
  1434
  tlemen would be glad to undertake the office with its present conditions. England was a great country, and it ought to be represented with due dignity. While diplomacy in France cost £150,000 a year, it only cost England £140,000; and to make that up, about £12,000 which used to stand on the consular had been placed on the diplomatic charges. Parliament allowed £180,000 for the diplomatic service and pensions, but, instead of that, sometimes not more than £160,000 was spent, and therefore there had been £130,000 saved out of the diplomatic expenditure and applied to the Consolidated Fund during the last seven years. He did not think he was asking too much of the Government to support his views, and of the House of Commons to adopt them. If this year it was impossible to do anything in raising the salaries of these most deserving public servants, he hoped the Government would, at all events, concede one point, and allow two months' leave of absence without any deductions from their salary. Everybody admitted how admirably the diplomatic service of the country had been carried out in recent times—without forgetting the services of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—by such men as Lord Lyons, Lord Napier, Earl Cowley, Sir Henry Bulwer, and Sir James Hudson. It was only, therefore, simple justice that the Report of the Select Committee should be carried into effect.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYseconded the Motion.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would admit that the hon. Gentleman had made a very fair and impartial statement to the House. The Committee which sat last year on the diplomatic service was composed of hon. Gentlemen of great experience. They went very fully into the subject, and, after a long investigation, the Committee made a Report which contained seven recommendations. The Foreign Office were desirous of carrying out all those recommendations, which no doubt were entirely warranted by the evidence. To some extent they were put forward by Earl Russell himself; they received the almost unanimous adhesion of the members of the Committee; and the Foreign Office would have acted in accordance with the feelings of the Committee if they had been able to carry out all their recommendations at once. But it must be recollected that the Foreign Office did not hold the purse-strings, and after due consideration it was

  1435
  not thought in the present state of things advisable to come down to the House of Commons and ask a considerable addition to the Estimates in order to give effect to all those recommendations. What the hon. Gentleman had stated was quite correct—that while all other branches of the public service had enormously increased, the expenditure of the Foreign Office had remained stationary for thirty years. A certain sum placed on the Consolidated Fund—namely, £180,000—was still applied to the diplomatic service, and out of that sum from £7,000 to £10,000 had been annually returned to the Exchequer. In 1831, when the new system was introduced, the annual amount voted for the diplomatic service was about £200,000; and his conviction was, that if annual sums had been asked of the House, instead of the amount being fixed upon the Consolidated Fund, it would have increased with the other branches of the public expenditure. He would state very shortly what Government were prepared to do. The first recommendation was that two sets of examinations—one on being appointed an unpaid attaché, and the other when made a paid attaché shall not be obligatory. These examinations had been found extremely inconvenient, especially when gentlemen were serving at distant posts. It was proposed to leave it to the option of an attaché to undergo one examination on entering the service. The next recommendation was, that after a probationary period of four years' service unpaid attachés should be promoted to become paid attachés. There were instances of young gentlemen having served eleven years without any pay. He thought, as a rule, public servants should be paid, and he had been in favour of all attachés being paid. It was, however, finally agreed that after four years they should be paid. That recommendation the Foreign Office was prepared to carry out, and a supplementary Estimate of £2,800 would be asked for that purpose. The next recommendation was, that commissions as secretaries should be given to attachés on their first appointment to be paid attachés. The object was, that when those gentlemen received pay, they should also receive a commission, which would give them a claim for a pension from that day forward; and that recommendation they also hoped to carry out. The fifth recommendation was, that leave of absence should be given for a certain
  1436
  period annually to the heads of missions, without deduction from their salaries. He did not quite agree with his hon. Friend, that when the head of a mission was on leave he should have his full pay, because much of his official income was expended in entertaining, and that could not go on while he was away. What the Foreign Office proposed as a reasonable compromise was, that during an annual leave of absence—and it was highly important that heads of departments should occasionally come to England, and thus have opportunities of communicating personally with the Foreign Office and with the leading men in this country, and of making themselves acquainted with the state of public feeling at home—a certain sum should be deducted from their pay, which would go to increase the salary of the chargé d'affaires in their absence. The sixth recommendation was as to providing houses for the principal missions. That, no doubt, would be a very great benefit to our diplomatic servants; but again they were met by a question of expense. As the hon. Gentleman opposite had observed, diplomatic officers were often appointed to missions without any certainty as to how long they would remain there, and frequently incurred expenses in hiring and fitting up their houses, which were made useless by their removal very shortly afterwards. At Naples, for instance, Mr. Elliot had gone to some expense in furnishing his house, and immediately afterwards the mission was abolished: he had to return to this country, and had suffered considerable pecuniary loss. The seventh recommendation was with regard to the increase of salaries. No doubt the cost of living, not only throughout Europe, but throughout the whole world, had increased of late much more than hon. Gentlemen would, perhaps, believe without reading through the returns made to the Foreign Office. Everywhere, almost, the cost of living had increased by one-third, and in some cases by one-half. Here, again, they were met by the question of expense. But if, under more favourable circumstances, the House of Commons could be inclined to take into consideration the case of public servants who performed their duties so well, nobody would be more delighted than himself. Still it was a question more for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for the Foreign Office. He concurred entirely in all that had been

  1437
  said as to the merits of the diplomatic service. There was no country which, was so adequately served in that department at so little cost as England; and if a time should come when an increase in the salaries of the diplomatic servants could be proposed, no one would rejoice more than he should.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to protest against any increase in the expenditure of the country. Only a few evenings previously there was a discussion in that House on the public charges, and it was then agreed on all sides that the expenditure ought to be reduced. Yet the Foreign Office were ready to increase the burdens of the people, and, as he believed, without any just reason. When the Committee was moved for, he (Mr. Williams) stated, that unless very great care was taken, the result would be to increase the public expenditure; and so it had proved from what had just been stated on the part of the Government. He contended that the diplomatic service was, as a rule, rather overpaid than underpaid. The Ambassador at Paris had a salary of £10,000 a year, with house rent, provided for him, and frequent demands on the country for furniture and other such expenses, and yet he said that his salary was insufficient. Certainly he could not spend that amount on anything connected with the duties of his office. It could only be in entertaining distinguished personages from his own country, and that was a purpose for which the people of this country ought not to be taxed. He was not surprised at the Government sanctioning increased expenditure in the department, because, of course, it would give them increased patronage. If they assented to increase the salaries and allowances of the diplomatic service, they would soon be again asked to augment them further. He hoped, therefore, the question would not be entertained.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs intimate that he should have been prepared to adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite, if he thought the House would endure it. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke in terms of compassion of the diplomatic service having only the sum of £180,000 a year spent upon its members; but, besides £10,000 secret service money, he (Mr. Dodson) found scattered up and down the Estimates all sorts of expenses for the diplomatic service. In the Estimates of that
  1438
  year they had £18,700 for payments in connection with our diplomatic relations in China, besides £4,000 for travelling expenses. Altogether, the cost of the service was not £180,000, but £340,000. The Report of the Select Committee on the diplomatic service was based on a string of seven resolutions, six of which recommended an increased expenditure, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. If the House was not careful how it sanctioned such demands, the Secretary of State, who was then limited to an expenditure of £180,000 on diplomatic salaries, would be constantly pressed to appoint more paid attachés, while, on the other hand, the House would be constantly pressed for more supplementary Votes to pay them. One of the resolutions of the Committee had reference to the stoppage of salaries of ministers when absent from their posts, in reference to which he believed some alteration had already been made. But this was a matter in the hands of the Foreign Secretary, who could distribute the £180,000 as he pleased. Another of the resolutions recommended that embassy houses should be provided in the different European capitals for the Ministers. The unfortunate precedents of Paris and Constantinople ought to act as a warning to them against adopting any such rule. Our embassy house at the latter of those two capitals was to have cost £40,000, but it actually cost £90,000; from £2,000 to £3,000 a year more was required to keep it in repair: and, after all, it was one of the worst structures in Europe. Much had been said about the increased cost of living on the Continent, but the reduced charges for travelling, postage, telegraphic communication, and other things, in some degree compensated for such extra expense. A diplomatic career was a highly honourable one, which men were anxious to enter not for the sake of pecuniary emolument only, but for the position it gave them, and the prospect it opened to them of rising to posts of great dignity and importance in Europe. The Select Committee was composed of a majority of men who were then either in office or had been in office, and who might naturally have had a bias in favour of officials. The Chairman of the Committee—the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) proposed an elaborate Report framed with a view to make the diplomatic service more strictly professional. That end was to be attained

  1439
  by providing that, after a certain fixed period of probation, attachés should be paid; but that suggestion was coupled with others, such as that no more attachés should be employed than the wants of the service demanded, that appointments should be made only to fill up vacancies, and that promotion should take place by seniority instead of by the favour of the Minister. The Committee adopted the proposition, submitted to them, with the omission, however, of the important restrictions by which it was accompanied. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Sir Hamilton Seymour, Lord Wodehouse, Mr. Hammond, and many other eminent and experienced authorities testified that the unpaid attachés worked exceedingly well, and most of the witnesses examined added that there was no difference in respect to the excellence of their work between the paid and the unpaid attachés. No improvement, then, was to be anticipated in the public service from granting further pay to attachés. He did not think any injustice was done to those gentlemen through their not being paid, for they entered the service knowing what they had to expect. Mr. Hammond stated in his evidence that an attaché could not live upon less than from £400 to £600 a year. He must therefore be a man of some fortune; and if they gave him a salary of £150 or so, it would only be a little pocket money for him over and above his private income. Why, then, should the House be called upon to depart from the rule adopted when the charge was placed on the Consolidated Fund? By consenting to that charge the House had abdicated all control over the diplomatic expenditure and over the diplomatic service. If they once admitted that a supplementary Estimate was to be annually voted for the diplomatic salaries, it was conceivable that the Foreign Secretary might job away the whole of the £180,000 in dispensing it on comparatively unnecessary legations occupied by parasites of his own, and then come to Parliament for a supplementary Estimate with which to pay for the really useful diplomatic business of the country. They ought to do one of two things with those diplomatic salaries—either abolish the system that made them a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and let the whole of them be put in the Estimates annually and be overhauled, or decide that the Secretary of State should keep within the bounds of the sum granted. He hoped the House would express its
  1440
  dissent from the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton, and approved in a qualified manner by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and he further hoped, that when the time came for considering the Estimate by which the Government would seek to give effect to an objectionable Resolution, they would support him in rejecting it.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he was always glad to hear those speeches of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) in which that hon. Gentleman advocated economy in the public expenditure; but when he heard the speech delivered by him that evening, it struck him that the hon. Gentleman could never have read the voluminous evidence taken by the Committee that had sat on these questions. The hon. Gentleman expressed his opinion that the public servants in the diplomatic service were notoriously overpaid, and added that, so far as he knew, there was no complaint from any of them of the insufficiency of the remuneration which they received. The fact was, that there was not one single public servant connected with the diplomatic service who did not only complain, but give absolute and positive proof, that the remuneration which he received from the country was utterly insufficient to meet the expenses which he was required to undergo. The object of the Government and the House should be to obtain the services of men of ability; but if public servants were underpaid, the tendency of such a state of things must be to limit the candidates for diplomatic appointments to those who could be entirely independent of the remuneration attached to these posts. In illustration of that, he could mention a fact of which he was aware before he took any part in public life. A Government was very desirous of changing their representative in this country, whom they thought not the most efficient public servant they could select; but, notwithstanding that desire, the Minister to whom he referred continued to hold his appointment for five or six years after his Government wished to remove him, because, in consequence of the insufficient salary, no one could be found to undertake the duties of the office, which his private fortune enabled him to hold. He did not mean to say that such a thing could happen in this country; for here it could not be said that diplomatic salaries were utterly insufficient, although it might be true that they were not alto-

  1441
  gether adequate. Though he went a certain length with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, he was sorry to hear any Minister make such a statement as he did on the subject of the salaries paid to the diplomatic servants. His hon. Friend said—
  "The Government admit the case presented to them by the Committee. We agree in their recommendations. We think the public servants in the diplomatic department underpaid, and that they are called on to make sacrifices of their private fortune; but though this injustice is admitted, we say we cannot afford to be just, because at the present time our finances are not in the most flourishing condition."
  He could not conceive a more objectionable principle than the one involved in that statement of his hon. Friend. With regard to the recommendation as to houses, he would remind hon. Members that there was a great difference between building a large embassy house for £90,000, and taking a house on lease of moderate length, at the current rental. The deduction made from the salary of a diplomatic Minister while on leave was another matter which afforded much ground for complaint. When a Minister came home on leave for a couple of months—and it was admitted that such visits to this country were of advantage to the public service—the whole of his salary was deducted during the time he was absent from his post, though it was impossible for him to stop the whole of his expenditure. His establishment abroad must be kept up during his temporary absence. Payments for his house, his servants, his carriages, and various matters were all going on, not perhaps to quite the same extent as when he was there, but still to a large extent; and yet the Government deducted the whole amount of his salary, and, what was more, did not give it to the chargé d'affaires; but, handing him a guinea a day in addition to his ordinary salary during the absence of his chief, pocketed the difference between that and the Minister's salary. The hon. Under Secretary's answer to the case was that the Government could not afford to make a change at present. He hoped the public funds would soon be in such a condition as to enable the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. He could not think his hon. Friend's excuse a valid one. He believed the principle upon which it was founded to be most objectionable, and he hoped justice would be done to a body of public men who in talent and indefatigable
  1442
  zeal were not excelled by any others in the public service of this country.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that he should support the decision of the Committee of which he had the honour to be a Member. Having been an attaché for six or seven years, he felt bound to state that no man had done more for the diplomatic service than the noble Viscount at the head of the Government; and he hoped that the noble Lord would acknowledge that many of the recommendations of the Committee only did justice to that service. He could declare that more attention could not have been paid to any subject than that which had been given to this by his colleagues and himself. The Committee recommended that in future all attachés should be paid after four years' service. He could not admit, because a man was ready to enter the diplomatic profession without a salary, that he ought not therefore to be paid for his services. He objected, on principle, to unpaid services. He had heard the late Lord Cowley say that no man ought to enter the service without receiving a certain amount of payment, if it were only £50 a year. He also recollected Sir F. Lamb, afterwards Lord Melbourne, giving a similar opinion. After four years' service, at all events, he thought they ought to receive a salary and become paid servants of the Crown. He also thought it would be very desirable that the attachés, when paid, should become secretaries, beginning as third secretaries, and rising to second and first secretaries, according to length of service, instead of being called paid attachés, as in foreign capitals they were considered to hold an inferior rank, by being so called, to the third and second secretaries of Foreign missions, whose duties were, after all, the same as those of the present paid attachés at British missions. It was a just cause of complaint that at present the attachés, when they became paid servants of the Crown, did not receive a commission, which, in fact, they ought to have on entering the profession; but, according to existing rule, received it only when they became Secretaries of Legation, after having been ten or even twelve years in the service; and, consequently, their time of service, whatever it might have been, did not count towards their pensions, until they had attained the rank of Secretary. He thought that the noble Viscount, and the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, would do well to encourage exchanges now and

  1443
  then for a certain period, between the clerks of the Foreign Office and the junior members of the diplomatic corps. Both parties would benefit by such an exchange. The younger members of the diplomatic corps would not only gain a more complete knowledge of the duties of the Foreign Office, but would return to their missions refreshed in those liberal principles which distinguished the Foreign administration of England, and which would act as a counterpoise to the notions with which they might, perhaps, be imbued by constant residence in despotic countries. Two months' leave was given in each year to diplomatists; but if they could not take advantage of it for a year or two, the leave was allowed to accumulate, and any reduction of salary, when they were permitted to take their leave, ought to be very small. The practice of leaving it to Ministers sent to many foreign capitals to hire their own houses was attended with much inconvenience. A new Minister usually found the last residence given up, and he often had great difficulty in obtaining a house. He was obliged, on his arrival, to go to an hotel, and every one tried to obtain the largest possible sum from him for any residence that he desired to rent. It was a great evil to be obliged frequently to remove the documents and archives of the embassy from one house to another. If the Government would take a residence on a long lease for the Minister, a reduction of his salary might be made, if it were thought necessary; but it would be a great comfort to the new Minister to have a house to go to at once. He thought the recommendations made by the Committee were very fair and just to the diplomatic service, without being extravagant, and he believed that the House would only be upholding the feelings and long experience of the Foreign Office in supporting the resolutions of the Committee. Earl Russell, Lord Malmesbury, the Earl of Clarendon, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had all borne testimony to the able manner in which the diplomatic service of this country was carried on. A more able or distinguished body of men were not, indeed, employed in the public service, and yet there was abundant proof that almost without an exception their expenses abroad exceeded their income. He believed that the House would not wish, when the country was well served, that these gentlemen should
  1444
  expend more than their salaries in performing their duty to the public.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he ventured originally to take exception to the constitution of the Committee which sat upon the question of the diplomatic service, because he knew that the result of its deliberations would lead to an augmentation of public expenditure. He had himself objected to the nomination of the present Foreign Secretary upon it, not from any invidious motive, but to raise the question of the constitution of the Committee. On the Committee there was an undue proportion of the official element—there being eight out of fifteen members either officials or ex-officials, and four others who were connected with the diplomatic service. It was easy to foresee what the Report of such a Committee would be. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) thought it strange that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway should object to the paying of attachés, or to the raising of their salaries, because, he said, that by so doing they were handing over the offices to the exclusive possession of aristocratic persons. But his reply to the hon. Gentleman was, that if he could show that by paying attachés or increasing their salaries he would guarantee that the area of selection should be widened, there would be some weight in his argument. He (Mr. White) was of opinion that by increasing the emoluments of the profession they would circumscribe the area of selection, and therefore he could not accept the recommendations of the Committee. When the Astronomer Royal was first appointed, in the reign of William III., the King proposed to give him a salary of £800 a year; but Dr. Flamsteed said he would rather have £300; and when the King asked why, the doctor replied, "For £300 a year you will get an astronomer; but if you give £800 you will get not an astronomer, but an aristocrat." He would merely add that he should oppose the recommendations of the Committee.

OMNIBUS FARES IN THE METROPOLIS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the system of extortionate fares demanded by the Drivers and Conductors of public conveyances in the Metropolis, and to the absence; of any proper limitation of fares in the present

  1445
  regulation of Omnibus traffic. The subject was one of great public interest and importance, especially at that moment. When he brought the matter to the notice of the Home Secretary on the 16th of last month, he expected to receive a more satisfactory reply than the right hon. Gentleman had given. That reply was to the effect that—
  "It was impossible to adopt the same regulations as to the rates and fares of omnibuses as existed in regard to hackney carriages. Omnibuses were a description of stage carriage; but the law did provide that the fares charged should be uniform for all passengers, and should be according to a scale conspicuously painted within the vehicle."
  He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, from communications which he received every day, as well as from the constant complaints that were made, and the state of things which the police reports disclosed, that there was a wide spread disinclination to tolerate such a system of public exaction as now prevailed, and that that House and the Government would be held responsible. At a time when we had invited foreigners of all nations to our Exhibition—and the fulness of the hotels, and the almost impassable state of the thoroughfares, showed how they had responded to the invitation—we had done absolutely nothing to correct the glaring faults in our modes of public conveyance, and we were handing over the persons and purses of our visitors to the rapacity and extortion of the least conscientious portion of the community. It was highly prejudicial to the public convenience that omnibuses should be subject to no better supervision, and that they were enabled to charge double fares whenever an increased demand was made upon them. Railways and hackney carriages were subject to strict regulations, and it was strange that a mode of conveyance to which the poorest classes in the community were obliged to resort should be under such very little control. A case which was reported in The Times of the 25th of June would illustrate the matter. A Mr. Smith, an omnibus proprietor, was summoned by Inspector Carter, at the instance of Sir Richard Mayne, before Mr. Ingham, at the Hammersmith Police Court. The charge was, that the extreme places between which the omnibus ran were not painted on the table of fares. Mr. Ingham said, he was not aware of any law by which omnibus proprietors could be compelled to paint the distances on the table
  1446
  of fares; and the defendant said, his fare was 6d. for any distance; the public could please themselves whether they rode or not; he was not aware of any law by which omnibus proprietors were compelled to charge certain fares, and if they thought proper to charge half-a-crown for each passenger, they could do so. The newspapers were full of complaints from our own countrymen, but it was for our visitors that he particularly felt, because, from their imperfect acquaintance with our language, and with the distance of places which they wished to go to, they were peculiarly liable to extortionate demands. It had fallen under his own observation that three foreign gentlemen were asked 1s. apiece by the conductor of an omnibus for riding from the Exhibition to Charing Cross; and, upon his remonstrating with the conductor, he was informed by the man that as long as he exhibited a placard of increased fares outside, he had a right to make that or any such charge. He contended that legislation on the question was not impossible. The suggestion had been made that there should be an uniform rate of one penny a mile, or for less than a mile; that no fare should be less than twopence; that all omnibuses should travel at a rate not less than seven miles an hour, with other regulations. A second suggestion was, that there should be a list of fares conspicuously placed both inside and outside the omnibus, and that no change should be permitted to take place in the amount of the fare except after one month's notice published in the London Gazette and in two of the morning papers. A third and very valuable suggestion was, that on every application for the renewal of an omnibus licence, a table of fares should be produced, which should afterwards be adhered to. Another nuisance was the practice of nursing, which ought to be put an end to. With regard to the London omnibus, it was more inconvenient, and less adapted for ingress and egress, than any similar vehicle which could be found in any other country in Europe. It certainly required reconstruction. As to the cabs, he acknowledged the more defined regulations which were in force respecting them; but still there was great room for improvement. For example, the law seemed inadequate at present to compel the attention of drivers to a hirer unless the number of the party was such as seemed to promise a better fare than

  1447
  usual. He would suggest that the police, as well as private persons, should institute prosecutions in all these cases, for few persons could follow the excellent example set by Sir Frederick Slade the other day, and summon, in the public interest, omnibus conductors or cab-drivers who were guilty of imposition. That domestic question possessed just now a cosmopolitan interest, and he hoped that the Government would not lose sight of it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was sorry the answer which he gave a short time previously did not appear sufficient to the hon. Gentleman. There was a great distinction between cabs, which plied for hire for uncertain distances, and omnibuses, which, like stage-coaches, plied between certain given points. Still, some of the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman were worth consideration. On the other hand, the law already provided for some of the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For instance, omnibus "nursing" accompanied with violence or obstruction, was an offence which was already punished by suspension of licences, and by fine. Many of the complaints made as to the public vehicles of the metropolis were caused by the very unusual demand for them. In ordinary times competition was the best security for low fares in omnibuses; but at present the demand much exceeded the supply, and that was even more true of cabs than of omnibuses. Then, with regard to police prosecutions, the police had received instructions, upon which they acted, to watch the conduct of cab-drivers where they refused to take up passengers; and numerous cases had occurred in which, upon the information of the police, cab-drivers had been fined and their licences suspended. It was impossible at such a time to prevent the misconduct of individual drivers, and in all cases to secure their punishment; but the police were doing everything they could to protect the public, both Englishmen and foreigners, against imposition. With regard to the inconvenience of the present omnibus, Parliament could not well prescribe the form of the vehicle, or make any minute regulations respecting it; but one improvement would certainly be, that the table of fares should be painted outside as well as in. It was hardly worth while to bring in a Bill on purpose to effect that object; but it might be desirable at an early period to revise the law with regard to public vehicles, and then he would bear in
  1448
  mind the suggestions of the hon. Member, with a view to any improvement which seemed necessary.

THE MALT DUTY.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BALLsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the continuous oppressive Duty on Malt. They had had discussions upon questions of expenditure which had elicited some very able speeches. He thought that those speeches which had emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) were calculated to do a vast deal of good. They were the handwriting on the wall which declared that no Government would ever again be allowed during a time of peace to raise a revenue of £70,000,000. A feeling had sprung up throughout the country that an immense expenditure should no longer be tolerated; and that as it was wholly unnecessary, it ought to be materially reduced. But if they had a revenue of even £75,000,000 or £80,000,000, they would be sure to spend it; and therefore their great security for the future would be their determination to refuse such large sums of money as had hitherto been asked for. If they were to abridge the revenue, he was sure that their expenditure would be cut down. Now, he did not know anything that claimed more strongly the consideration of the House and the Government than the reduction of the malt duty. Before the corn laws were abolished, it was generally admitted that the interests of agriculture would have fair claims on the consideration of the Government. They had not, however, received the consideration which had been promised. He hoped that the time would never arrive when they would suffer from a dearth of corn as they were suffering from a dearth of cotton. They had always been told that there would be an abundant supply of all commodities if free trade were fully established; but in the case of cotton it had failed to keep up the necessary supply. He hoped that the time would never arrive when a war with Russia or America would prevent a supply of corn coming into the country. He was disposed to think that the House was not aware of the amount of revenue derived from malt. Besides the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which were derived from the article of malt, there were £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 more from spirits; and thus the country derived about £17,000,000,

1449
nearly one-fifth of the revenue, from the single article of barley. That was most impolitic, as well as oppressive to the agriculturist. In his opinion, if the duty were reduced, an equal, or perhaps greater, amount of revenue from malt would be received from the increase of consumption. Malt had been taxed to such a degree that an extension of the consumption could not be obtained. Moreover, the farmers were not permitted to use their own malt, without paying a tax for it, for the purpose of rearing or fattening cattle; so that in this respect they were unable to meet the foreigner on equal terms. The duty-paid malt in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the years 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834, was on an average 4,932,632 quarters. And in the years 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860, after the lapse of thirty years, the duty-paid malt was 5,159,897 quarters, being an increase of only 227,265 quarters, or about 5 per cent in thirty years. While the population had in creased at the rate of 30 per cent, and the wealth of the country had increased at a greater rate than 30 per cent, there must be some cause for so small an increase in the consumption of malt. He believed that that cause was to be found in the great and severe amount of duty imposed upon it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would materially reduce the amount of that duty, he believed that the amount of his revenue would be by no means lessened. There were two modes by which relief might be given to the agricultural interests. One was by materially reducing the amount of duty on malt. But that was not the mode of relief which they ought to desire either in a national point of view or as moralists. If the House had virtue enough—if the representatives of the people had independence enough, and if there were not parties to control the Government, the most effectual and essential way of giving relief to the agriculturist would be the removal of the whole of the duty on malt and the placing it upon beer. That would be one of the noblest things a Chancellor of the Exchequer could do; and one of the most beneficial movements that the House could adopt. From the facility afforded for rearing and feeding cattle with malt, there would take place an augmented consumption of the article. The farmers would be able to supply a nutritious beverage to the hardworking man employed in field labour, and at the same time the tippling, drunken, and demoralized habits
1450
which so much disgraced the country would be diminished. There was no opportunity during the present Session to bring in any measure on the subject; but he wished to lay before the House his views on the subject, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be induced to give his attention to it, and if he had courage enough—he (Mr. Ball) believed he had grace enough—to strike the duty off malt and to put it on beer. By so doing, the right hon. Gentleman would confer one of the greatest blessings on society; and prove himself one of the greatest moralists of the age.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had with great fairness stated his reason against the continuance of the malt tax. Nevertheless, in dealing with the question, he had overlooked some important considerations connected with the subject. When a complaint was made that there had been no considerable increase in the consumption of malt, it was but fair to take into view the fact that during the period to which the hon. Member had referred the country was becoming a community consuming a much less average quantity of strong liquors than formerly. Let the House consider what was the consumption during the period alluded to of spirits and wine. The consumption of wine, until the recent change, was stationary; and the consumption of spirits, he apprehended, had positively receded. The hon. Member, when he said that barley laboured under oppressive taxation, ought to bear in mind the average prices for barley for the last ten and twenty, or forty and sixty years, and he would then perceive that barley was a grain of which the progress in price had been much more marked than that of any other grain. That was a conclusive answer to the statement of the hon. Member, that barley was a grain unduly ground down by taxation. The system of this country was to levy a large portion of revenue from strong liquors; and how was malt treated as compared with other strong liquors? Without saying that it was less taxed than it ought to be, he, nevertheless, maintained that it was treated with mildness. The tax on alcohol in beer was at the rate of about 2s. the gallon. The tax on alcohol in wine was at the rate of from 4s. to 7s. the gallon; and the tax on spirits was at the rate of 10 s. the gallon. The hon. Member ought to remember that malt had received very great advantage

1451
from recent legislation. There had been the remission of the duty in Scotland on all malt used in making spirits, and the great competing article with malt—spirits—had had the duty on it immensely increased, while the duty on malt had remained stationary. The duty on spirits in Ireland ten years ago was 2s, 8d. the gallon; in Scotland, 3s. 8d., and in England about 7s. the gallon; while now, throughout the whole of the three kingdoms, it was 10 s. the gallon. The effect had been to occasion a considerable reduction in the consumption of spirit, while that of beer had increased. The hon. Gentleman's proposal to transfer the tax from malt to beer was attractive at first sight; but it was a mistake to suppose that it would be any great boon to the brewer; because at present it was the malster, and not he, that was liable to the survey of the Excise. As regarded the revenue, it would be a most formidable change to remove the survey from the 10,000 maltsters to the 40,000 brewers. There might be good reasons for a change such as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman if it could be proved that malt, but for the regulations of the Excise, would be extensively used in the feeding of cattle. That, however, was a question which had undergone the most careful consideration before a Committee not composed of persons hostile to those connected with the sale and growth of barley; and he spoke without fear of contradiction, when he asserted that the result of the investigation had been to show that it was far more profitable, on account of the superior nutritive qualities of barley, to apply it to the feeding of cattle than to convert it into malt, and then to use it for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman complained of the mode in which the farmers were exposed to competition with the foreigner. Competition in what? In malt? It was admitted that the foreign maltster could not compete with the English. Was it, then, in the article of meat? If so, he could only say that there had been a steady increase in the price of meat, and yet the hon. Gentleman had come forward and complained, in lugubrious tones and with a perfectly grave countenance, of the position of two agricultural products in the case of which, ever since competition had come into operation, an upward movement in price had been the result. That circumstance, however, afforded no reason why the law should not be improved; and if
1452
the hon. Gentleman could show that the agriculturist was deprived of a beneficial article of nutriment by the law as it stood, he would have adduced an important reason for its alteration. That, at the same time, was a matter which the hon. Gentleman had not attempted to discuss on the present occasion, and he should not therefore detain the House by quoting authorities on the subject. Let not his hon. Friend, however, run away with the notion that a reduction of taxation always meant an increase of consumption. No doubt, in judiciously selected instances, that had proved to be the case; but it must not be regarded as a mathematical axiom. If the hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the article of coffee, he would find that although much had been done in recent years to relieve it from duty, yet no appreciable increase in its consumption had taken place. His hon. Friend had discharged his duty to his constituents and to his conscience, and no man felt that duty press more heavily upon him; but he (the right hon. Gentleman) hoped that it would be unnecessary to continue the discussion further.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in thinking that the question had been settled. He could, from personal experience, confirm the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball), that malt was much more valuable than barley for feeding cattle.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Supply considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 162.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 6 (Power to make Works according to deposited Plans).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that although there had been frequent discussions in the House in connection with the Thames Embankment Bill, they had little or none at all on the merits of the embankment itself. Up to that time the proceedings with regard to the project had been conducted upstairs with closed doors, and the public were apt to suspect, under such circumstances, that everything that was done was

  1453
  done in an imperfect manner. But the time was come when he hoped they might get rid of all personalities, and arrive at a proper consideration of the intrinsic merits of the project embraced in the Bill. There was great misapprehension both within and without the walls of that House on the subject. The objects of the Bill were four. First, it was proposed that there should be a solid embankment from Westminster Bridge to the east side of the Temple; and from thence a viaduct upon piers in a curve to Chatham Place. A second part of the Bill provided for a street from Charing Cross Bridge to Somerset House. A third, for a street from about the same place to Whitehall Place; and a fourth for a street from the embankment to Whitehall Stairs. That was an enormous undertaking, not merely of embankment, but also of street improvement, which was estimated to cost in the first instance £1,240,000. It was said that some property would be re-sold, and that the net cost would thus be reduced to £969,000. In relation to the project his constituents stood simply in the position of contributors to the fund, for individually they would derive no advantage from the works to be undertaken. They were therefore entitled to scrutinize the project, to ascertain what its character was, and to be satisfied that it was reasonable and moderate. The project was launched under singular and extraordinary circumstances. It was at variance with the recorded opinions of the most eminent persons for a period of upwards of twenty-five years; and though it was promoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), it was really not launched by him as Chief Commissioner of Works, because his department had nothing to do with it. The persons connected with his office disapproved the scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to place himself in the hands of individuals not in the public service, and not, therefore, responsible to the Crown, who became his professional advisers and agents in passing the Bill through Parliament. Here, then, was a great public measure, promoted by professional persons with singular skill and ability, no doubt, but conducted as if it were a private enterprise, unable to stand upon its own intrinsic merits. But what might be done with propriety by a skilful professional adviser to carry a railway Bill through Parliament could not be done
  1454
  with the same propriety when the project was to be executed at the expense of a large portion of the general public. The fund from which the cost of the embankment was to be defrayed had been intrusted to the Treasury, who had accepted the trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of the metropolis; and they were, therefore, bound to regard the question as a purely public question, which ought not to have been taken out of the hands of responsible public servants and placed in those of private professional men. He would touch but lightly upon one part of the project—namely, the new street from Hungerford Market to Wellington Street, because, as the House had been told, the Committee came in their own minds deliberately to the conclusion that the street in question ought not to be made. He would simply ask, then, why was it in the Bill? It would be remarked, that although the new street remained in the Bill, there was another clause to the effect that it was not to be begun until all the other works were completed. That was, perhaps, the most inconvenient sort of clause which could be inserted in a Bill, because it would hamper owners and occupiers in the enjoyment of their property for an indefinite period. In connection with that point, he could not help saying that the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) was put in a most unfortunate position—one not of his own seeking—when he was placed upon the Committee. His hon. Friend asked him (Mr. Ayrton) to serve in his place, knowing that he was being thrust into an invidious position, and he declared himself ready to do so, but said the matter rested with the Government, who were nominating the Committee. The hon. Baronet thereupon made a representation to the Government, but they preferred placing the hon. Gentleman in an equivocal position, in which he really, as the representative of a locality through which the embankment was to pass, could not discharge the duties which the metropolis expected from him. It was only proper to state, however, that the hon. Baronet proceeded with great ability, fairness, and judgment, paying every possible attention to the interests of the ratepayers at large. While the inquiry was in progress, the hon. Baronet told him that the new street had, by some mystification which he did not understand, been sanctioned in form, although it was against the opinion of the Committee, and

  1455
  asked him what was to be done. He advised his hon. Friend to use form against form and to propose the postponement of the work, inserting a clause in the Bill to that effect, so as to make it manifest that the Committee disapproved the new street. Accordingly, the hon. Baronet moved the clause to which he had already referred, and thus we had an emphatic declaration of the Committee, that although the new street had been sanctioned in point of form, yet they did not think it was a work which ought to be undertaken. He hoped the Chief Commissioner would now consent to strike out of the Bill everything relating to the new street, in order that the Committee, who were quite innocent in the matter, might not be subjected to reviling on account of what appeared to be an inconsistent and absurd proceeding. But he came to the embankment itself, which started from Blackfriars Bridge, and it was important to remark that the principle which had been so stoutly contended for at the Westminster end had also to be considered at Blackfriars—namely, whether it was a proper way of making the roadway to run it up on a slope at right angles with the slope of the bridge. In the end the Committee came to the deliberate judgment that such was not a proper proceeding, and, in fact, any man of common sense must arrive at the same conclusion. The Committee rightly decided that the roadway should join Chatham Place in a curve, and he hoped the House would not interfere with their decision upon that point. Following the line of embankment from Blackfriars Bridge, he came to the hallowed precincts of the Temple; and here he must say, that when he heard the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) talk about the pretensions of the aristocracy, he could not help asking himself whether his hon. and learned Friend was a member of the Temple, and whether he was present when the Benchers, over their after-dinner port-wine, resolved to assert what they believed to be their rights. The embankment went in front of the Temple; and between the roadway and the Temple there was a considerable space—the only space from one end to the other which could be made a pleasant recreation ground for the people. Well, the Benchers demanded that recreation ground of the people to be given up to them for nothing as their private property, and the promoters, knowing the difficulties of defending the
  1456
  scheme, which was condemned by all the ablest men who ever investigated it, surrendered that public right to the Benchers. As a member of the Temple, he regretted that the Benchers should have made such a claim, instead of leaving the space available as a recreation ground for the people; but it was given as garden ground to the Temple—as building land ["No, no."] He said "Yes," because the Benchers had the right of building on their own garden ground, which they might appropriate as the substitute of the garden given them under the Bill. Such was the way in which the Temple had treated the project. They then passed to a noble Duke—the Duke of Norfolk. How had he been dealt with? There also, was recreation ground; and great rights were given to the Duke. He was allowed to build along the front of that vacant ground, but the ground was kept as recreation ground, although, he did not see the good of it. They would have to pay, in the first place, for everything useful they destroyed; they would have not only to purchase, but to improve the frontage. Passing Somerset House, where nothing was done, they came to another noble Lord. Concessions were made to him. There was a thoroughfare leading to the embankment—he was to have the liberty of shutting it up. Was that reasonable conduct? Then they came to the Adelphi estate where there was a good opportunity of improving the town. They were, however, not to be allowed to carry on the embankment that already existed, nor were they to be permitted to build any erections upon their own embankment, except such as must necessarily be of a trumpery kind. Next they came to Charing Cross Bridge. What did the promoters do in face of a powerful company? They came to a written engagement that they would pay the company £55,000 if any person was allowed to land on the embankment within 250 yards of their pier. The Committee, indeed, rejected that proposition, but the promoters agreed to it. Next they came to the Duke of Northumberland—they paid him the full value of his property, they reclaimed and filled up all the land, and then it was so hampered with conditions that it was not available for recouping the expense. They now came to the Crown estate and the Crown lessees, and the great dispute between Mr. Pennethorne, as the official organ of that department, and the promoters of the Bill.

  1457
  Here the Committee appeared to have got into great difficulties. In point of fact, they came to the conclusion—to which he should have subscribed himself—that it was better to stop there, and leave for future consideration the relative merits of the two schemes. Why? They had no power; the Metropolitan Board had no power; no individual had any power, to moot the question between the two rival schemes, unless they first got the sanction of the Crown. The scheme of the Chief Commissioner was unanswerable, if they took it as he had placed it before them. It was perfect in itself. It had unity of design; but would they ever consent to a roadway sloping obliquely along the terrace of the House of Commons? But Mr. Pennethorne said they had spent £2,000,000 sterling, and more, upon a distinct intention, always expressed and carried into effect, that there never should be any further embankment in front of the Houses of Parliament. They were told twenty years ago that the thoroughfare was to be improved by a road at the back of the Houses of Parliament; and, what was more curious, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner had put on the table of the House that Session a Bill which imposed a charge of £500,000 on the Consolidated Fund, if the fee fund was not sufficient, in order to complete the design of Mr. Barry and pull down the courts of law which obstructed the thoroughfare between the Houses of Parliament and the Abbey. What were they paying for sites for public buildings? Mr. Pennethorne, as the architectural adviser in these transactions, said they could save £500,000 by erecting a block of buildings on the other side of Westminster Bridge consistent with the design of the Palace at Westminster. Therefore his scheme was a very complete one, and it was also one which would be most satisfactory to the taxpayer, because he undertook to take the whole matter into his own hands, and pay for it out of resources which would be at his disposal. The result of passing the Bill would be, that the public would get an embankment of a most miserable character, which would not have one redeeming feature of style or beauty about it. Here and there would be a jagged bit of nasty dirty, smutty garden, with trees in it which would not grow, and in which there would be children disporting themselves, not really for healthy recreation, but so, as was the case
  1458
  in Trafalgar Square now, as to require the continual attention of a policeman, to prevent them being a nuisance to the public. Then there would be a few buildings, then a range of wretched, low houses, that could not be elevated; then narrow streets, and then more buildings with small fronts; so that there would be no sort of beauty at all from Westminster Bridge to the Temple Gardens. He did not want to make any reflections upon parties for whose benefit or protection clauses had been inserted in the Bill, or even upon the Committee for assenting to them, because, as they were dealing with a private promoter, and the clauses were presented as the results of arrangements, they had no alternative; but it was much to be regretted that the desire to get the Bill through the Committee had led the promoters to accept such clauses—clauses which, if once sanctioned by that House, could never be altered, because they would become matters of contract with individuals; and he hoped that the noble Lord would act up to the earnest statement which he had made the other evening, that as the people wore to pay for the embankment, they ought to have an embankment in return for the money which they spent upon it.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he had nothing to regret in the course which he had taken in the Committee. He went into that Committee perfectly unbiassed, as representing the public, and that duty he had endeavoured to discharge to the best of his ability. When he found himself in a minority upon the question of stopping the roadway at Whitehall Stairs, he came to the conclusion that the decision of the Committee must be fatal to the embankment as a great national object, because it was impossible to ask the public for money to make an embankment two miles long when of 200 yards of that distance they were not to have the use. He would say nothing about persons who were proprietors of houses along the line of the embankment, and he regretted that one of the leading journals of the country should have cast imputations upon the noble Duke who was one of these proprietors, because he was of opinion that no man could have behaved more fairly and more straightforwardly than did the noble Duke when he was before the Committee. That noble Duke said, "Let me remain as I am; but if it can be shown to me the necessity of this roadway being continued as a metropolitan improvement, I have nothing

  1459
  more to say." He could not, however, so easily leave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who was also an interested party. The right hon. Gentleman had declared on the previous evening, with his usual eloquence and ability, and in a most ingenious and disinterested manner, that he had nothing whatever to do with this matter, and would not act upon the Committee. But that right hon. Gentleman was in the committee-room every day; not being a member of the Committee, he had the advantage of being called as a witness, and his evidence had some weight with the Committee. When he so strongly protested that he had no interest whatever in the matter, and that if it had been necessary for the public convenience, he would have allowed this roadway to go through his drawing-room, he must say that he was very sceptical on that point. He thought that it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had been on the Committee, and had, as he might then have done, fully and openly expressed his views upon the subject. The question turned entirely on the traffic. The great object of the embankment was undoubtedly to relieve certain thoroughfares from a portion of the traffic which now choked them up. Without casting any disparagement on the character of the witnesses who opposed the scheme, he must say that he would not give a farthing for the opinion of some of them. They were not in the habit of driving in a carriage through the crowded streets, and had not sufficient actual experience of the matter to enable them judge. On the other hand, Sir Richard Mayne, whose business it was to regulate the traffic of the metropolis, must, both from his own observation and from the information which he officially received, be the most competent and reliable authority on the question. The allegation that the prolongation of the embankment from Whitehall to Westminster Bridge would impede the flow of traffic, was one of the greatest bugbears ever put forward. He desired the attention of the Committee to the following passages from Sir Richard's evidence:—
  "Do you think, then, that it would be of great public convenience to find an alternative road to Westminster which should relieve the streets that you have mentioned and a portion of their traffic?—It would be very.
  "Would that roadway embankment tend to relieve all the streets, by taking the traffic that wishes to go between the City and Westminster
  1460
  that is, commencing at Westminster Bridge?— Yes, I think it would be very great relief.
  "If it did not commence there, but adopted the course which is suggested, of terminating in Whitehall Yard, there would be no relief to Parliament Street? — None whatever, or Bridge Street.
  "Whereas, if it commenced at the foot of the bridge, the traffic of Bridge Street would be relieved by the City traffic being taken off at once, and so the concourse of traffic at the corner of Parliament Street greatly diminished?—It would relieve not only that traffic; but if there was an opening about Charing Cross, it would be likewise the means of a great deal of the traffic that would go to the north, to St. Martin's Lane; a great part might go, and it ought to go—it might be compelled to go that way.
  "Persons might, by a slight detour, avail themselves of the street in front of the Horse Guards, and so avail themselves of the embankment?—Yes; that in front of the Horse Guards would not relieve Charing Cross.
  "It would probably bring a larger amount of traffic to Whitehall and Charing Cross?—I think it would be very likely to aggravate the evil at Charing Cross.
  "You would hear, I presume, with very great regret, that such a decision should be come to that this Committee should determine to stop the line short at Whitehall Yard?—It would make a very inadequate relief to the difficulties that I have alluded to."
  Those were the views of a witness who was much better qualified to form a judgment on the matter than Mr. Pennethorne, the architect. The fact was, that there was scarcely any street which was not intersected at right angles by some other street. That was the case where Fleet Street, Ludgate Hill, Bridge Street, and Farringdon Street met, and where, perhaps, the greatest traffic in London was to be found. When one side of Bridge Street was taken down, as it would be in time, there would be no difficulty in regulating the traffic. The hon. Member for Westminster on the previous night made a grand flourish about the care he took of the interests of his constituency, and declared that to the peer and the wharfinger he would servo out even-handed justice. But did any of the wharfingers between Richmond Terrace and Westminster Bridge appear before the Committee against the Bill? None did so. The truth was, that they were perfectly satisfied with the compensation which they were to receive, and were by no means obliged to the hon. Gentleman for interfering. If the constituency of Westminster were polled, he believed, that nine out of ten would support the scheme, and reject the view of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) complained that

  1461
  his constituents would derive no benefit from the embankment, but he believed that they would get as much advantage from it as any other body of citizens if they went that way. Those who lived in the smoky regions of the Tower Hamlets would be very glad to walk westward and enjoy the open embankment. One of the main obstacles to the project was the want of harmony which prevailed between the Commission of Public Works and the Board of Woods and Forests. It was most painful to see the heads of those two branches diametrically opposed to each other on the subject, as they were at present. No great metropolitan improvement would ever be effected until the noble Lord at the head of the Government was able to make them agree.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that the perusal of the evidence led him to the conclusion that in this instance argument was all on the one side and evidence on the other, and that the majority of the Committee for once were wrong and the minority right. No Member of the House supposed for a moment that the influence of the Duke of Buccleuch or any other man could prevent the Committee from doing what they honestly deemed to be for the best. But, at the same time, it was idle to say that private interests were entirely disregarded. In his opinion they had been allowed to overweigh public interests. No doubt, the right hon. Member for Stroud was perfectly sincere in declaring that all private interests should yield to those of a public character; but he was not exactly a witness on whose evidence entire reliance should be placed, because he had a natural bias on the question whether or not the amenity of his residence was destroyed. The Duke of Buccleuch also said in his evidence that he did not think that the advantage to the public was sufficient to warrant the injury which would be done by the scheme to himself and his neighbours. The great desire to protect private interests was the reason of the counter scheme being proposed. But the question was whether those private interests were not inferior to the public convenience. Sir Richard Mayne, who was the best authority upon the subject, said in his evidence that he was obliged to place additional policemen at the corner of Bridge Street and Parliament Street, where the great confluence of traffic occurred, to protect Members coming to the House; and that, notwithstanding every precaution at
  1462
  that point, accidents constantly happened. It was the strongest case of public inconvenience which had ever been made out; for it was not mere inconvenience, but absolute danger to life and limb. Sir Richard Mayne told them that it was essential to the correction of the evil that there should be a second way of getting from Westminster Bridge to the City. The object was to prevent the traffic running along Bridge Street and sharp round the corner by way of Parliament Street to Charing Cross. The counter scheme did not effect that object, and it would entail an additional expenditure of £300,000. The scheme of the promoters of the Bill would achieve the desired result, and the only objection to it was its interference with one or two private residences. There was private inconvenience on the one hand, and public convenience on the other. In his opinion, the case on the part of the public was made out, and the decision of the minority of four was right, while the decision of the majority of seven was wrong. It was just the case in which the House ought to adopt its own view. He disclaimed any imputation upon any person who had opposed the scheme. He gave credit to the majority of the Committee for believing that the counter scheme was the better scheme. He gave the Duke of Buccleuch credit for believing that he had a better case than the public. But he could not admit the Duke or any other man to be judge in his own cause; and having read the blue-book, he had come to the conclusion that they ought to reject the counter scheme, which did not meet the main difficulty pointed out by Sir Richard Mayne, and for the removal of which legislation was most required.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having been a member of the Committee which sat nine years ago upon the embankment of the Clyde, he wished to say a few words upon the subject at present under discussion. He had long formed a strong opinion in favour of the embankment of the Thames, but he thought the embankment and the carrying a roadway from Whitehall Place to the foot of Westminster Bridge two distinct proposals. In the case of Glasgow it was necessary to provide for the traffic of a commercial district, and the Committee authorized a roadway and a railway along the quays. The case of London was different. The Committee had wisely rejected the proposal to pass a railway, even from Whitehall Place

  1463
  to Blackfriars, but they had proposed a roadway, because the internal communications to the City were obstructed: the Strand was insufficient for the traffic. They had also wisely rejected the roadway from Whitehall Place to the foot of Westminster Bridge; because, if it were carried to that point, the inevitable inference would be that it must be carried on between the Houses of Parliament and the river. In 1848 he had been employed as a justice of the peace for the Liberties of Westminster to swear in as special constables a number of the workmen employed in the House: some of them had been tampered with, and refused to serve. It then occurred to his mind, and to the mind of the magistrate who was acting with him on that occasion, that the terrace on the bank of the river might, in the event of any popular excitement, if a roadway had been caried along it, be made the point from which the Houses of Parliament would be assailed. It was his belief that Parliament had wisely decided that no thoroughfare should pass between the House and the river; and he trusted that the House would continue to adhere to that determination. The scheme of Mr. Pennethorne for making a new street from Whitehall Stairs, widening Parliament Street and the streets to the south of that House, reaching the riverside beyond the precincts of the House, was not a new one, for it had received the sanction of a Commission in 1844, consisting of men of the highest character and of the highest qualifications both of taste and judgment, and was in his (Mr. Newdegate's) opinion infinitely preferable to the footway or any roadway along the embankment from Whitehall Stairs to Westminster Bridge; while, if a street were carried from the foot of Westminster Bridge past the old Board of Control Office to the Whitehall end of Parliament Street, the traffic which at present crowded the crossing of Bridge Street and Parliament Street would be divided, and all danger or inconvenience to hon. Members in passing to and from the House would be avoided. This was part of an extensive scheme for the improvement of that part of the metropolis, and it was probably because no Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it agreeable to find the money for carrying it out that the scheme had not been undertaken sooner, and did not appear on the present plan. He believed that the decision of the Committee was perfectly right, ex-
  1464
  cept as to the footway along the embankment: they felt that very material facts had been withheld from them, and they found that if they recommended the House to limit themselves to this narrow scheme, they would virtually be delaying greater metropolitan improvements, which had been kept back from temporary considerations of expenditure, but which must be carried out at some future time.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets deserved the thanks of the House for bringing back the discussion to the intrinsic merits of the subject. He could not understand why, on a hybrid Bill like that before them, the House should forget all the considerations on which such measures were usually discussed, and should allow all the debate to turn on the name of the Duke of Buccleuch. He was quite tired of hearing the duke's name brought up in the discussion. In other Private Bills great landowners had appeared before committees by their counsel, and had had their interests considered; and if there had been any discussion afterwards on the decision of the Committee, the House, as far as he could remember, had not routed out the name of any single individual affected, and degraded itself by debating the question with reference to his interests solely. If only for the sake of its dignity, he hoped the House would decide the question on public grounds solely, and would leave the Duke of Buccleuch to take his chance with any other subject of the realm to have the road come before his house, and to take his compensation like anybody else if it were for the public advantage, or to have the road diverted in another direction if that were a greater advantage. But, at all events, let not the House of Commons present the unseemly spectacle of debating a great metropolitan improvement on the interests of a single individual. The right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who had been attacked by the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox), was perfectly well able to take care of himself; and with regard to the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), whom he had also attacked, probably the hon. Baronet knew his constituents best; but if the gallant Member at the next general election would contest Westminster on that question as a party man, no one would be more delighted with his success than he should. The

  1465
  case was a very simple one, and lay in a nutshell. The question was really this—what were they to pay, and what were they to pay it for? If he were possessed of unlimited funds, as a metropolitan improver he would embank not only the Thames, but every other river which flowed through a great city; but, not being in possession of unlimited funds, the question was, whether the advantages offered were equal to the price to be paid for them. A great deal of doubt had been thrown over that part of the question, but still the facts were clear. If the road were carried over the embankment in front of the houses of the lessees, the metropolis would have to pay for it; but if the road were not carried over it, the lessees would pay for the embankment. That was £90,000 saved; and if Lord Carrington's house were not taken, another £10,000 would be saved. Then came the question of compensation to the Crown lessees. The right hon. Member for Stroud had put that at from £45,000 to £90,000, but no man was a good judge in his own case; and, taking the lowest of these two sums, that would make £145,000 which would have to be paid for the luxury of carrying the road along the embankment to Westminster Bridge. If the embankment was upon a level, it might relieve the traffic; but, owing to the want of provision which marred all metropolitan improvements, a railway had been allowed to take such a level that that relief could not be afforded. Therefore the traffic would have to climb a hill to get to Westminster Bridge. The hon. and gallant Member for Marlow had, with great felicity, compared it with Ludgate Hill. [Colonel KNOX: I did not.] He regretted that his senses had deceived him; but the fact remained that there would be a hill, and they had it in evidence that heavy traffic would not mount a hill if it could be avoided. The heavy traffic would make the small detour by Parliament Street. Then, as to omnibuses, they went where they could pick up fares, and those fares they picked up where people lived. Nobody would live upon the embankment, and therefore the omnibuses would not go there. Then there were the private broughams and Hansom cabs. He hoped to hear no more about a conflict between aristocratic convenience and popular rights, for there could not be a more aristocratic measure than to make a road solely for broughams
  1466
  and Hansom cabs. But the point was not whether broughams and Hansom cabs should have a short cut, but whether it was worth while to spend £100,000 for the luxury. The House had been led upon a false scent—the red-herring had been dragged across their path—and they had been drawn away from, the financial considerations, which would not have been the case if they had had to find the money. If the outlay was to come from the Exchequer, the scheme would have gone the way of the British Museum job, the South Kensington job, and other brick-and-mortar jobs which had come forth so plentifully from the same source. But the funds were to be provided from a tax which was almost a solitary instance of a tax upon an article of first necessity. Persons living fifteen or sixteen miles from the river, who had no interest in the embankment, were to be taxed to pay for that prodigal, extravagant, job. He could not help thinking that the real object of the scheme was not before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given them a hint of the ulterior design to which this was the introduction. They were, it appeared, to have a terrace carried along the river front of that House to Chelsea, in order to make a grand boulevard for the ornamentation of the City. He repeated, that if he had unlimited means, nothing would give him more pleasure than to expend those means in ornamenting London; but he feared that in those matters they were getting into the hands of the "men of taste," who were the most incorrigible depredators upon the public purse that ever cursed an economical House of Commons. They seemed to consider that the House of Commons possessed Fortunatus' purse, and that if a thing had been done at Dresden or Paris, therefore it should be done in London. He sincerly wished that in any future scheme of reform means could be found for rating "men of taste," and that they could be provided with a single pocket which could be laid under contribution to provide funds for the tremendous extravagances which they urged upon the country. But, at least, working men who lived fifteen miles from the river, who cared nothing for the ornamentation of the City, ought not to have the burden imposed upon them. It might suit hon. Gentlemen opposite, having a Duke in full cry, to chase him merrily, and to ignore the simple question of pay-

  1467
  ment. He only hoped hon. Members, when next they met their constituents, would explain their conduct with regard to the coal duty. He repeated that the mere demands of the traffic were not sufficient to justify the expenditure to which they were invited, and the grander scheme for the ornamentation of the City was too extravagant to be entertained. Therefore, upon those grounds, putting aside all questions of private rights, he thought the Committee ought not to proceed with the plan of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr Denman) seemed to think that the members of the Committee had been unconsciously led to a certain conclusion out of deference to certain influences. As a member of the Committee, he could say for himself, and he believed he spoke the sentiments of those with whom he voted, that on arriving at a conclusion he was governed by no other consideration than the traffic. The objections to bringing a large amount of traffic suddenly upon Westminster Bridge had been already stated, and he believed there would be a great and increasing traffic upon what would be the great highway between the eastern and the south-western portions of the metropolis. There was also the inconvenience of bringing that traffic upon the point where it would cross the stream of traffic passing over Westminster Bridge. He thought the Committee were justified in their conclusion, notwithstanding the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne. When Sir Richard Mayne was before them, the Committee were not aware that they could cross-examine him upon points connected with the alternative scheme. The hon. Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) had referred to the block of traffic at the bottom of Ludgate Hill, where the traffic along Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill was struck by the traffic along Farringdon Street and Bridge Street; and it was because the Committee believed that there would be a worse block at the foot of Westminster Bridge, that they came to the conclusion at which they arrived. He repeated that the question of traffic was the sole consideration that had guided the Committee, and it was not fair for hon. Members to impute that they were governed by other motives; and if such an imputation should be again made, he begged to say that the hon. Gentleman making it was stating what was not the fact.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that he had not stated that the Committee were not governed by the consideration of the traffic. He believed that they were governed by public considerations, and the traffic was one of those considerations. All he had said was, that from the evidence he himself had come to the conclusion that the four were right and the seven were wrong.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, as so much had been made of Sir Richard Mayne's evidence, and the Committee had been taunted with not having cross-examined him, he begged to say he could not admit that gentleman's authority as decisive. Any one who travelled through London could judge of the traffic as well as the Chief Commissioner of Police. He would answer Sir Richard Mayne by Sir Richard Mayne. Here was Sir Richard Mayne's evidence before the Royal Commission. He was asked by Sir Joshua Jebb whether, putting aside the question of public or private interests, he would advise getting on to the embankment near Westminster Bridge, or getting on to it near Whitehall Place; and his answer was—"I think it would be very important that there should be an approach to it at Westminster Bridge, but I think (alluding to Mr. Pennethorne's plan) the other would, perhaps, be as good in effecting the whole object." [An hon. MEMBER: Read the next question.] He would do so. Mr. Hunt asked Sir Richard Mayne—"You mean in addition?" and his answer was—"Yes; both are of the greatest importance." The remainder of the same answer was this—" If persons were required to go the whole line from Bridge Street to Blackfriars, very few indeed would use it." How those last words were to be explained he did not know.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 7.
  Clause 8 (Works authorized).
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to move the omission, in line 33, of the words "subject to the limitations hereinafter contained." The first part of the clause provided for the making of an embankment and viaduct on the left bank of the Thames, and described the parishes through which the works would pass. The second part of the clause—in which it was he desired to make his Amendment—provided that, "subject to the limitations herein after contained," a public roadway should be made upon the embankment and viaduct 100 feet wide up to the eastern boundary

  1469
  of the Inner Temple, and not less than seventy feet wide thence to Chatham Place, with all necessary approaches. The limitations there referred to were contained in Clauses 9 and 78, the first of which was to the effect that a footway only should be made between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster Bridge. The slight alteration he proposed in the 8th clause would therefore raise the question whether the carriage-way should or should not be continued up to Westminster Bridge. He would not enter into the question of traffic, for that had already been fully discussed. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had travelled into another blue-book besides the Report before the House, and had found another of his mare's nests. Desiring to quote Sir R. Mayne in favour of one access only, he found that he was really in favour of two. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had touched upon every conceivable subject save the one before the House. He had made no Motion, but everybody who lived along the line between Blackfriars and Westminster came under the lash. He did not even spare those who inhabited his own nest. There was a proverb about a dirty bird, to which he would not further allude. The hon. Member attacked the Benchers of the Inner Temple—the very nest in which he "lived, moved, and had his being." He complained that the Benchers were to have the ground that would be reclaimed between their gardens and the proposed roadway. The Duke of Buccleuch would have precisely the same advantage; and if the Duke had acted in the same manner, a great deal of unpleasant discussion would have been avoided. His hon. Friend found fault with the Benchers, and was delighted with the Duke. ["No."] With whom then was he satisfied? Nobody could tell what he aimed at, what he desired, or with whom he was content. With regard to the whole line from Blackfriars Bridge to Westminster, there was not one dissentient till they reached Whitehall. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) claimed credit for a desire to advocate the interests of his constituents. But what had the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) told them? That not one of his hon. Friend's constituents raised a voice in the Committee. What did his hon. Friend say to that? Why, that they were "settled with," or "squared with," or
  1470
  something of that sort. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: No.] Well, that they had been "settled with." That was the term his hon. Friend would use when he interfered with a public improvement. They were a perfectly happy family along the whole line from Blackfriars to Westminster, with the exception of those persons living along Whitehall. For his own part, he did not believe that the Duke of Buccleuch himself was dissatisfied. He believed that any dissatisfaction in the committee-room arose from the cross-examination conducted by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. If any hon. Member read the evidence, including the questions put to the Duke of Buccleuch to make him dissatisfied, he would find that the dissatisfaction arose more from his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster than from the Duke. The question before them was, whether they would or would not strike out of the clause the words which had been so much objected to. If they did so, that would be an expression of opinion on the part of that House against any alteration in the roadway—against the substitution of a pathway for a roadway at Whitehall. What was the argument which throughout those proceedings had been adduced against making a roadway there? The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) thought he was reducing the argument to a reductio ad absurdum when he put the case of their making the road for the purpose of enabling persons in broughams and other carriages to go down to the City quicker than they otherwise could. If they were proposing to make the embankment for that purpose, there was something in the noble Lord's point; but they must remember that the embankment was to be made whether there was to be a roadway or not. They were to make it eighty feet wide; but then stepped in the provision that opposite Whitehall no one was to use it except he went on foot. With great respect for the Members who voted in the majority that carried that stipulation, he must say that never had such a conclusion been come to by any other Committee in the world. When the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said that the Duke of Buccleuch offered to pay for the embankment in front of his house, he must say that his Grace was not going to do anything of the kind. The Duke had made an offer, he believed; but it was on condition that he was to have the whole

  1471
  road to himself. That was his proposition; but, as there was to be a footpath, the public were to pay for it. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster cheered the noble Lord when he talked of the coal duties being put on; but his Friend did not hesitate to sanction the taking of money from the pockets of the ratepayers to make a roadway, and then to vote that the ratepayers should not ride along the road they had paid for. He should like to ask his hon. Friend and the other six members who composed the majority on the Committee, how they would explain to their constituents that they would not only impose the coal duties, but, in addition to doing so, would throw away the money when they had raised it. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; for they would expend it in making an embankment along which they would not allow any one who did not go on foot. Such a proposition was enough to surprise any one, and it was equally surprising to find that his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster cheered with all his heart and soul everything that was said against the interests of his constituents. The noble Lord said that the Duke was entitled to compensation. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: That the lessees were entitled to it.] Well, that the lessees were entitled to compensation. What other kind of compensation were they entitled to than that which had been given to all other persons living along the line of the embankment. The Crown would not build houses before the premises of those persons. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, asked why should not they utilize the ground; and then went on to accuse them of a design to make the embankment a place where little boys would play as they did in Trafalgar Square. In fact, his hon. Friend described the most frightful state of things that it would be possible to see on the face of the earth; and said they ought to make the place beautiful. They could not build on the embankment. They could not block out the light of the persons living along the line. The arrangement that had been made with the Societies of both the Temples, and with other proprietors along the river was that the ground between their houses and the embankment should be appropriated to them, and that they were not to build on it, but to preserve it as ornamental ground. That was the arrangement made with the two learned societies. His hon. Friend said that they
  1472
  could not be prevented from building on their own property; but did not his hon. Friend know that the buildings in King's Bench Walk and other portions of the Temple were already down to the water's edge. They could not be carried further. The arguments of hon. Gentlemen really destroyed one another. One said, "Nothing will go along the embankment;" but if no carriages used it, there would be no interference with the amenity of private mansions, while, if the embankment were so used, a great public benefit would result. The instruction to the Committee having been to make a roadway along the whole embankment, he contended, that as they had deviated from that plan, the House might properly take the subject into consideration, and the Committee should not suppose that any disrespect was thereby intended towards them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 33, to leave out the words "subject to the limitations hereinafter contained."
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, it was a mistake to put aside the traffic question, and to set up the Duke of Buccleuch instead. The Duke of Buccleuch had nothing to do with the matter; and the traffic question was the whole question. The point to be considered was, "How are you to free the traffic along Bridge Street?" If they had a road which branched off at the foot of Westminster Bridge, to accommodate the traffic between east and west, a great deal more traffic must necessarily be carried into Bridge Street than was there already, and they would therefore only aggravate the evil which they desired to cure. That was the point upon, which the Committee had to decide, and which the Committee did decide by refusing to bring that traffic into an already overcrowded street, where the lives of Members of Parliament were so much risked. There was another question of great importance. One of the disadvantages of the low embankment was that it would stop all the conveyance of heavy goods to the wharves on that side of the river, so that the road traffic would be increased considerably. Mr. M'Neil, the manager of a wharf near Blackfriars Bridge, said that by thus putting a stop to the conveyance of goods by barges his firm would have to make arrangements for the carriage of all their goods by cars, instead of by the river, and the street traffic would thus be enormously increased. Such would be the case with coals, and that was one

  1473
  of the considerations which guided the Committee, and which would, he hoped, be well weighed by the House.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that as the originator of the scheme and as one of the Committee who strongly advocated the embankment from Blackfriars to Westminster, he should give his cordial support to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) upon the constitution of the Committee of 1860, he had endeavoured, with the assistance of the First Commissioner, to make it as impartial a Committee as possible, and one that should fully represent all the interests concerned; and, remembering the character and position of men like the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), he thought these criticisms might have been spared. He was very sorry that it was not possible to carry the high-level embankment which had been suggested; but he was astonished that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Tite) and those who before never raised an objection about delivering the traffic at right angles on to the bridges, should now have such great objections to the present proposal. All the principal plans submitted to the Committee of 1860 contemplated the crossing of all the bridges by the embankment at right angles, and that was also the case with the bridges and thoroughfares of every capital in Europe. He thought the Committee on the Bill had acted with precipitation, for as soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had given his evidence, a Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe), that the embankment ought to stop at Whitehall Stairs. [Sir W. JOILIFFE: Not the embankment.] No, the roadway. The Committee affirmed that Resolution, because they were satisfied by an alternative plan of Mr. Pennethorne's. He (Sir J. Paxton), however, moved an Amendment, that as the promoters of the Bill had had no opportunity of giving evidence on Mr. Pennethorne's plan, it would be premature to conclude that the roadway ought to stop at Whitehall Stairs. That Amendment was negatived; but he believed that if Mr. Pennethorne's scheme were carried out, the embankment would be the laughing-stock of Europe. He could hardly have conceived that Mr. Pennethorne could have proposed to bring a road at so ob-
  1474
  jectionable an angle into Parliament Street. What ought to be done was this—to take down the block of houses in King Street as far as the new Government offices, to widen King Street, and then by means of the embankment and a road from the Horse Guards, which would convey the traffic from Victoria Street and relieve Parliament Street, they would improve the crossing at the corner of Bridge Street, which was intolerable.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, having given notice of an Amendment on this subject, and as my hon. and learned Friend has stated that the present Amendment, although it relates to another clause, really involves a decision on the 9th clause, I am anxious to state the considerations by which my vote will be governed. Sir, my natural desire in dealing with the 9th clause has been to make the same Motion as that of which my hon. and learned Friend has given notice, and to move that that clause be wholly expunged. I entirely agree, that if the arrangement which this clause professed to establish were carried out, it would, in the words of my hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Paxton), really make our legislation the laughing-stock of Europe. The first objection, which was urged and debated at great length last night, was the injury that it was proposed to do to the Crown lessees. That objection is now abandoned. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Then, if that objection is still maintained, and if the question is one between the interests of private individuals and those of the public, I shall be against sacrificing the interests of the public. But the great argument that has been used to night is, that this road is not wanted for the sake of traffic, and that it would be an injury to the traffic to have two roads instead of one. What is desired is, that in the embankment there should be a roadway eighty feet wide to Westminster Bridge; but when you come to Whitehall Stairs, your driver is to be stopped and told, "This is a very fine road, and free from obstacles, but you cannot go any further. You must stop, because we mean to spend £300,000 or £400,000 in addition; we mean to pull down a number of houses, and make another road to deliver you into the small and inconvenient crossing through Bridge Street, which is already insufficient for the traffic." That appears to me to be the most absurd reasoning, and my first impulse was to move the

  1475
  omission of that clause; but when I saw the great struggle made by private interests before the Committee, I considered that at this period of the Session there might be a risk of losing the Bill this year if we attempted the cure of this great and fundamental defect. It seemed to me, that as this clause was ingeniously prepared by the Committee, under pretence of delaying the decision of Parliament, it affirmed the permanent exclusion of the public, and that by putting in the Amendment which I contemplated, leaving the matter to the future decision of Parliament, the defect might be for the present cured, and that the Bill so passing would leave it open to Parliament to do next year what I trust and hope Parliament will do next year—namely, to throw that part of the road open between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster Bridge as well as the other. That course appeared to me to be the best, because there was no chance or possibility of that part of the road being made before next year; and therefore, if Parliament were next year to rescind the restriction, no inconvenience would be sustained by the public. That being the case, as far as I am concerned, I adhere to my proposal; and as my hon. and learned Friend has fairly stated that his object in striking out these words is to lay the foundation for afterwards striking out the 9th clause, and as my Amendment implies the maintenance of that clause, I could not consistently with my announcement vote for this Amendment, I shall vote, therefore, to retain these words.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it appeared, if he were to go to a division, the noble Lord on the Treasury bench would not vote with him, and that placed him in an awkward position. He did not think the course which the noble Lord was taking was the right one. What the noble Lord meant by voting for the retention of the words was that at some future time the footway was to be turned into a roadway; but why not determine to turn it into a roadway at once? Why let the Bill go up to the other House saying, "Some day or other, when it is convenient to us, this footway shall become a roadway?" He did not know that the other House would like the Bill any better with such an introduction. After due consideration, therefore, he felt it his duty to divide the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 109; Noes 149: Majority 40.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Footway only to be made between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster Bridge).
  MR. LOCKEsaid: I move that this clause be omitted.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: After the decision which the Committee has just come to upon the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, of course I do not intend to propose my Amendment. I shall not, therefore, resist the Motion to omit the clause.
  Clause put and negatived.
  Clauses 10 to 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Certain works to be first approved by the Conservators).
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he would propose the addition of the following proviso, "Provided that, except with the previous consent of the Charing Cross Railway Company in writing under their common seal, no stairs, hard, quay, wharf, pier, or landing-place, shall be made within 200 yards of that company's steamboat pier or landing-place at Hungerford."
  MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed with the object of the Amendment; but he thought, as it was framed, that it would interfere with the Thames Conservancy Act.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, that under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment, and renew it in an amended form upon the Report.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 22 to 27.
  Clause 28 (Reclaimed Land to be dedicated to Use of Public).
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would propose, as an Amendment, the omission of words, for the purpose of ensuring that all the portions of land reclaimed from the Thames should, without exception, be dedicated to the use of the public as places of recreation or ornamental grounds.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent certain portions of the reclaimed land from being employed for building purposes in aid of the Thames Embankment Fund. The Amendment would also interfere with other arrangements made with the view of saving the coal duties from heavy charges for compensation. He thought, however, that the discussion on the subject might

  1477
  be more conveniently raised on a subsequent clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 29.
  Clause 30 (No House to be erected in front of the Gardens of the Inner and Middle Temple).
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would move that the Chairman should report progress. The clause involved the question as to the appropriation of the land reclaimed from the river to public purposes, which was too important to be discussed after one in the morning.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as the subject matter had been amply discussed in the Committee upstairs.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 120: Majority 96.
  MR. STANHOPEsaid, he should move that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would have the effect of putting an end to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, it was impossible to proceed with the Bill at so late an hour—twenty minutes past one o'clock. He thought, however, that the unopposed clauses might be agreed to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 31 (As to Inner and Middle Temple).
  MR. AYRTONcomplained that the clause gave the garden, which it was provided should be made on the embankment opposite the Temple, exclusively to the Benchers. He thought the public ought to have the use of the garden, as it would be formed at the public expense.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that on the Temple waiving their right to compensation the reclaimed ground was to be made over to them, and he thought that was a very fair arrangement. The Temple Gardens were now practically public gardens.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, his chambers looked upon the Temple Gardens, and he could inform the House that those grounds were crowded every night with children and others. The Benchers, in fact, were the only persons in London who gave free admission to their gardens.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 32 and 33.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 180.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  LORD NAASsaid, he would move the omission in Clause 8 of the words "or otherwise," concerning which there had been so much discussion on a former occasion.
  Amendment proposed, in line 30, to leave out the words "or otherwise."
  Question put, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided;—Ayes 37; Noes 43: Majority 6.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
  Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 65: Majority 50.
  Question put, "That 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 43: Majority 8.
  Question, "That 'twenty ' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till Monday next.