Lords Sitting of 18 March 1853

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Marquess or Cholmondeley.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Slave Trade (Sohar in Arabia); Slave Trade (New Granada).

THE SIX-MILE BRIDGE AFFRAY.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, before their Lordships proceeded to the Orders of the Day, he wished to ask the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether he had any objection to produce a copy of tile papers which were moved for and granted last night in the other House of Parliament, in reference to the trial, or rather no trial, of the persons concerned in the Six-mile Bridge affray? He did not wish to raise any discussion at the present moment on the subject, but was desirous that the papers should be before their Lordships, in order that either he or some other noble Lord might bring the subject forward after Easter.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had no possible objection to the production of the papers.
The EARL of CARDIGANsaid, he wished to make an observation or two on the subject, and would only trouble their Lordships for a few moments. If there was any doubt as to whether he was regular in addressing their Lordships, he would move for the production of some papers. Having taken a great deal of trouble in investigating this matter, he felt most anxious as to the result; and notwithstanding the reproof which he had received from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) on a former occasion, he could not regret having brought the subject before the House, and he could not

397
help adding that he thought their Lordships would be of opinion, when the papers had been produced and had been read by them, that it was from the beginning to the end one of the most extraordinary cases that had ever been brought under the consideration of that House. When he had brought the subject before them on a former occasion, it was supposed that some expressions he had made use of with regard to the Army being hated by the people of this country, were not well founded; but he would now repeat it, and there was no doubt in his mind of the unpopularity of the Army. He would not now make any allusion to the great services of the Army, or show how much the country owed it; but if he wished any proof of the statement he had made he would find it in the conversation that had taken place "in another place," where more than one hon. Member applied expressions to the army serving in Ireland which fully justified everything he had said. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, in reply to a question as to whether it was the intention of Government to prosecute the priests, said, "Certainly;" and with a very fine flourish of words, gave a very positive answer—that whether the party was peer or peasant, priest or soldier, it was their determination that equal justice should be administered to all. Well, what was the result? Why, the soldiers had been not only prosecuted, but doubly prosecuted. The bills against them had been ignored, and notwithstanding that the private soldiers had been placed in the dock, and were tried afterwards in a most unnecessary way. What was the result as regarded the priests? Why, they got off perfectly free, and no notice was taken of their conduct—so that all those who had incited to the riot and affray had escaped harmless. But the whole of these proceedings would come before their Lordships on a future occasion, when he would express his opinions more fully on the subject. While the question had been under discussion, he had heard doctrines broached of a most extraordinary character, and which doubtless their Lordships would be equally astonished to hear. They were now told, that unless a candidate at an election had at the time he came forward some strong hope of success, all the disturbance which might take place at that election was to be attributed to him, on account of his rashness in standing for a county or a borough where he had no hope of success. And what did
398
their Lordships think the conduct of such a candidate had been compared to by a Member of Her Majesty's Government? It was compared to the case of a man engaging in rebellion against tyranny where he had no hope of its being a successful rebellion. He thought both Parliament and the country would be somewhat surprised that in this land of liberty—liberty of speech and liberty of action, and certainly of liberty to any person, duly qualified to offer himself as a candidate for the representation of his country in Parliament—they were now to be told that no man had a right to stand for a popular place where there was a chance of disturbance, unless he had good ground for hope of success. Again, when this most extraordinary case had been inquired into and animadverted upon by the most able legal authorities in this country, they were told that there was nothing so unfair or unjust as to attack a man in his absence. Why, the whole case arose out of the extraordinary doctrines held by the Attorney General in Ireland, and by a talented Judge in that country. What was the amount of the argument thus urged? Why, that the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, not having seats in Parliament, might adopt any course of conduct they pleased with perfect impunity, and no man must say a word against that line of conduct, because, forsooth, those officers were not present. How could they be present but by having seats in Parliament? He himself might now be accused of attacking an officer of the Government unfairly, in speaking of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his absence. But if there was anything unfair in it, he had no help for it, nor did he see any remedy, unless, in reward for the doctrines that right hon. Gentleman broached last night, he should be recommended by Her Majesty's Government to be brought up and made a Member of their Lordships' House. He (the Earl of Cardigan) sincerely rejoiced that he had, as a Peer in Parliament, brought the subject of the Six-mile Bridge affray under their Lordships' consideration. The more that case was inquired into, the more it was sifted, their Lordships might depend upon it the more clearly they would see that it was a most unjust and a most cruel case towards those soldiers who were more immediately concerned in it, and towards the Army at large; and it was more particularly unfair in having, at the same time, allowed the

399
priests to escape, who had goaded the people on to disturbance and riot.
The EARL of ABERDEENwould really submit to the noble Earl and the House the great inconvenience of referring to a speech made in the other House of Parliament, and of which the noble Earl could have no perfect knowledge. [The Earl of CARDIGAN: I heard it.] It was certainly quite irregular, and contrary to the practice ordinarily observed, to notice in one House of Parliament speeches made in the other;—and he must add that it was not altogether regular, either, to make allusions as to any previous discussion which had taken place in their Lordships' House. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had moved for all the papers connected with the transaction, and apparently with some intention of calling their Lordships' attention to it. In that case the noble Earl would have a convenient and proper opportunity of making what observations he pleased upon the subject. That being so, he should only repeat what he had said on a former occasion, namely, that the principle which had governed, and would govern, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, was to do full justice to all equally. With respect to the particular case to which the noble Earl had referred, it would be time enough to explain the circumstances of that transaction when the subject should be brought regularly before their Lordships, and he hoped he should then be able to give an explanation which would be satisfactory to the House and the country.
The BISHOP of EXETERwould not detain their Lordships more than a moment, and that only to express the gratification with which he had heard the observations just made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. The noble Earl had said, it was very irregular to notice in one House of Parliament the proceedings which had taken place in the other. He was certain the noble Earl would make the same declaration in the presence of a right hon. Baronet who was also one of Her Majesty's Government, and who on a recent occasion had made use of some expressions in the House of Commons of a very painful nature to him (the Bishop of Exeter). He was sure the noble Earl would, if he had not done so already, tell the right hon. Baronet how extremely improper it was for him to pursue the course he had.
"Copies of the several Inquisitions removed from the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland in the
400
month of January last, and transferred to the County of Clare.
"Of the Order of the Court under which they were so removed:
"Of the several Depositions taken before the Coroner of Clare, and of the several informations taken before any Magistrate, in relation to any of the Cases of Homicide, Riot, unlawful Assembly, or other Criminal Offence, alleged to have been committed at the Town of Six-mile Bridge in the month of July last, at the Time of the General Election:
"Of Entries in the Crown Book in any of the said Cases as to the Proceedings at the Assizes recently held at Ennis, founded on such Depositions or Informations:
"And of every Bill of Indictment preferred at the late Clare Assizes in any of the said Cases, the Names of the Witnesses indorsed thereon, distinguishing such as were so endorsed on sending up the Bills to the Grand Jury and others subsequently added on the Request of the Grand Jury:"
Ordered to be laid before the House.

DWELLINGS FOR THE LABOURING CLASSES.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURY The EARL of SHAFTESBURY rose to move that the following Resolution be adopted as a Standing Order:—
"That in every case of a Bill for giving power to any company, commissioners, or other undertakers, to take any houses, the Committee on the Bill shall require proof as to which of the houses are used wholly or in part as dwellings by persons of the labouring classes, and whether those houses can be taken for the purposes of the Bill without occasioning any pecuniary or other injury to such persons, and without being likely to occasion any overcrowding of any other dwellings; and, if it be not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that those houses can be so taken without any such consequence, they shall see that adequate provision be made by the Bill for the erection or adaptation by the undertakers, at the earliest practicable period (not exceeding three years after the passing of the Bill), and within a convenient distance from the houses to be taken, of such dwelling-houses for the labouring classes as will be proper and sufficient for the accommodation of at least as many persons as can reside in the houses to be taken."
The necessity for taking such a step as that which lie proposed to their Lordships, arose from the circumstance that the institution of all Bills for improvements, whether they were Bills relating to railways or docks, or were Bills for town improvements, invariably involved the violent displacement of large multitudes of the industrious classes. Those large multitudes of the industrious classes were driven from the localities to which they were attached, by their proximity to the scene of their labour; they were driven to seek lodgings at a great distance from their

401
employment, or they were compelled, if they did not go to a considerable distance from the place where they worked, which in most instances would almost involve the ruin of many families, to reside as near as possible to the spot, by going into dwellings already overcrowded, teeming with population, filthy, and infested with the diseases incident to a locality so densely populated. He should give a few illustrations of the effect produced by this system of alterations and improvements, producing displacement without provision being made for the reception elsewhere of the parties so displaced. A few years ago an improvement was set on foot in that part of the town which was known in St. Giles's as the Rookery, and a street called New Oxford-street was formed, which was driven through a hive of human beings, a locality overflowing with human life. What was the result? That one of the most frightful localities in the neighbourhood, and in especial a place called Church-lane, already overpopulated to an extent far beyond what it could properly contain, doubled its population in a very short time; and when an examination was made in 1848 by the Statistical Society, the report which they made stated that, the average number of inhabitants to each house having in 1841 been 24, they found, in 1847, the average number of inhabitants to each house 40. During that interval the houses had been pulled down which had to be removed for the construction of the new street. What was the result? The report said of Church-lane, that it presented—
"A picture in detail of human wretchedness, filth, and brutal degradation. In these wretched dwellings all ages and both sexes, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, grown-up brothers and sisters—the sick, dying, and dead—are herded together."
That, he could assure their Lordships, from personal knowledge, was not an overstatement, having frequently visited the locality. At the time when a great alteration was made in and about Farringdon market, a report was made, which was presented to Parliament in 1842, and in which it was stated—
"It is usually assumed that the general effect of the clearances,' as they are called, occasioned by the formation of new streets, though attended with the present inconvenience of disturbing the occupants, is ultimately of unmixed advantage, by driving them into new and better tenements in the suburbs."
But the report went on to show that this
402
was by no means the case; for, though in some instances it was difficult to trace the individuals displaced, yet it had been ascertained that—
"The working people make considerable sacrifices to avoid being driven to a distance from their places of work; that the poorest struggle against removal to a distance, from the opportunities of charitable donations, and that where new habitations are not opened to them in the immediate vicinity, every effort is made by bid-dings of rent to gain lodgings in the nearest and poorest of the old tenements. To the extent to which the displaced labourers succeed in getting lodgings in the same neighbourhood, as a large proportion of them certainly do, the existing evils are merely shifted, and by being shifted they are aggravated. On a survey of the newly-built houses in the suburbs to which displaced labourers can go, it appears that the labourer, to use the expression of Dr. Ferriar, is almost driven to hire disease.'"
Here was an account of another displacement which occurred in the parish of Whitechapel. One of the most crowded places in that parish was swept away in the formation of a new street, called Commercial-street. By the removal of one street only, Essex-street, no fewer than 2,000 people were displaced. It was doubted whether the same persons continued to reside on the spot, or whether they did not go to a distance; but the medical officer of the parish, Mr. Liddle, stated that precisely the same persons continued to apply at the workhouse for relief after their displacement, and that they found shelter in the neighbouring streets, namely, Lambeth-street, Blue Anchor-yard, &c., places already notorious for their excessive mortality, caused by filth and overcrowding. This Commercial-street was made in 1844. The population of White-chapel increased from 34,000 in 1841 to 37,000 in 1851; and there was evidence to show that the new street, though it displaced thousands from their former abodes, did not drive them from the parish, but merely added to the numbers in already overcrowded houses. In the same district, when the new docks (St. Katharine's) were made, Mill-yard and the places adjacent became excessively crowded by the immigration of a poorer class of people, displaced by the docks; and now, he understood, the London Dock Company were about to pull down 500 houses, and displace some 5,000 people, who had no tenements to which they could resort except such as were disgusting for their filth, and were already full of disease and death. The result was notoriously the same in the

403
neighbourhood of their Lordships' House when Victoria-street was first opened. When the time arrived for pulling down the houses in that neighbourhood—Ducklane and High-street—he remembered being on the spot, and seeing the disorder, suffering, and confusion occasioned by the progress of the improvements. That part of the town appeared as if it had been taken by siege. People were running about to see where they could find shelter. Some of their houses were pulled down over their heads; and he knew, from inquiries he had made only two days ago, that those very persons so turned out of their houses were now living in the actual neighbourhood, but in houses tenfold more crowded than those which they inhabited before. Here was another evidence of the effect produced—it was evidence of the effect produced by the removal of houses for the construction of the Blackwall Railway. The engineer employed on that occasion was asked—
"Have you had any (and what) occasion to examine the habitations of the labouring classes in the eastern districts of the metropolis?—I have witnessed much of the condition of these habitations; I was resident engineer to the Blackwall Railway, and we cut through some of the poorest property in that district, which is perhaps one of the worst-conditioned districts in London."
He said—
"It is a frequent argument in favour of projected thoroughfares through densely crowded poor districts, the great blessing they will prove to the neighbourhood, in distributing the inhabitants. In my opinion there cannot be a greater mistake. This crowded population may be displaced, but cannot be removed to a distance, for the nature or situation of the labourer's employment will invariably determine the locality of his habitation, and until, in carrying out such improvements, suitable accommodation is provided for the disturbed inhabitants—the evil of overcrowding in the immediate vicinity must be fearfully aggravated. In the disturbance of the population to make way for the Blackwall Railway, I could not fail to observe that the same poor people continued in the immediate neighbourhood, which before was greatly overcrowded. Although this railway cleared away some of the vilest property in London, I do not hesitate to say it was an injury to the neighbourhood. I observe that the medical officer speaks of this increased overcrowding as a cause of ill-health. It always must be so, unless a proper provision be made for the disturbed inhabitants; the labouring classes cannot go great distances from their work."
He was asked—
"Would it have been a hardship upon the Blackwall Company if, as the condition of their being allowed to take down a number of houses occupied by the labouring classes, they had been required at the same time to submit a plan for the
404
reconstruction, and to undertake the reconstruction of an equal number of improved tenements for the accommodation of such of the population displaced as might choose to have recourse to them?"
His answer was—
"So far from its being a hardship, it would, in my opinion, in all improvements, be a general advantage; in the case of the Blackwall Railway particularly; as they were compelled to purchase many plots of ground which they have not known what to do with, and are still lying waste, which would have answered this purpose well. They would have realised a fair interest, and the parties displaced have got a better tenement even at lower rates. I would decidedly recommend such a provision as the condition of Improvement Bills."
If the Black wall Railway had acted on that suggestion, and constructed houses, they would have made at least 5 per cent on those houses, whereas, as far as their shares were concerned, they did not realise at this moment more than 1¾ per cent. It might be said that those persons who were displaced had received notice, and ought to be prepared with dwelling-places for occupation when the time arrived for their being turned out of their habitations. It was all very well for leisurely and comfortable people like their Lordships to take notice; it was of little use to the poorer classes. The fact was they did not understand what it was, and lived always in hope that what was threatened would not take place; and even if they did comprehend the notice, the condition in which they were ought to be recollected. Living from hand to mouth, these poor people were called upon every day to look about for lodgings; now every day spent in the search was tantamount to a fine of at least 2s. The men were at work; the women could not leave their children, and must stay at home. That species of notice could not be turned to any practical account; and when their Lordships did proceed to legislate for the great mass of the working people, they must conduct their legislation with reference to the habits, feelings, condition, and even, prejudices of that class. He was at a loss to conceive any valid objection to the course he proposed. He had heard that some one said it was impracticable; but he could not see that it was one whit more impracticable to build up houses than to pull them down; to lodge people than to displace them; and if their Lordships made his proposition a Standing Order, and let it be known that they would allow no Improvement Bill to go forth from the Committee, without those provisions which he suggested, they might depend upon it

405
that they would find those provisions executed by the promoters in conformity with their orders. He was told such an order would be unjust. Unjust! Let their Lordships consider that if any Bill were brought in which affected the property of any of them, not only would the full value of that land be paid for, but full compensation would be given for any direct or indirect, future or immediate, injury that might arise to them as the consequence of the powers conferred by the Act. It was true their Lordships made a distinction between the holders of real property and those who were merely monthly tenants of the domiciles in which they lived. It was true the property their Lordships held was real property; it might be tangible property; but it should be remembered those people had as much property in the proximity of the locality in which they resided to that in which they performed all their work; and in driving them from their work, and removing them to a distance, you took from them their property, because you took from them the only source of profit they bad. Some consideration must be had for those who though neither owners, nor, as they were called, occupiers of these houses, were weekly and monthly tenants. You touched their property as much as you touched the property of the man to whom the house belonged—although it might be somewhat different in character, the interference produced precisely the same effect upon their social and physical condition. He could not see in what way this measure could be considered unjust; because it did not interfere with any existing rights; and it was only fair, that when companies came to their Lordships, asking for new and large powers; powers which affected the condition of so many hundreds, he might say thousands, of the population, that their Lordships should exact conditions, and such conditions should be required as should make those improvements as little oppressive as possible to those classes who did not derive any direct benefit. He might be told the evil prevailed only in the more crowded and central parts of towns. True, the great pressure of it was felt in the most densely-populated districts. The Standing Order might be limited to such localities in the first instance. But it was said that the rule was not applicable to railway companies, who thus would be turned into building companies. The fact was, that railway companies were at
406
the present hour great building companies. Let their Lordships look to the houses built by companies at Rugby, Swindon, Coventry, Crewe, Wolverton—to the great hotel at Paddington, and the great hotel at Euston-square. All these had been constructed by railway companies. When those companies wanted to do anything, they had no difficulty. They had the ownership and management of docks, canals, harbours, ferries, factories, and foundries—everything, in short, that could subserve their interests; it could not, therefore, be argued against this proposition that they would be more or less converted into building companies if they were required to provide houses for the accommodation of those of the poorer classes whom their enterprises displaced. It was thought by some that the proposed Standing Order might operate as a bar to internal improvement in towns. He could not believe it would be a bar in any way; but of this he was certain, that whatever delight might be taken in the improvement of London—whatever enjoyment there might be in a broader street—he decidedly maintained that, in a large proportion of instances, those improvements, so far as they affected the social condition of the people, were no improvement at all, but, on the contrary, very much increased the evil under which large masses of the population suffered; and, unless a check were put to that evil, it would become perfectly intolerable. By the Standing Order of the House of Commens, No. 142, relating to Enclosure Bills, the principle for which he contended had been recognised:—
"That in every Bill for enclosing lands provision be made for leaving an open space in the most appropriate situation, sufficient for the purposes of exercise and recreation of the neighbourhood."
In confirmation of that principle, he should quote a letter he had received from Mr. Peto, Member for Norwich, who had been more engaged in railway transactions than any man living, and had himself set a noble example of the care he took of the men under his control. In answer to a question from him (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whether he would concur in the proposed Standing Order, Mr. Peto said—
"I quite agree with the terms of the clause proposed. There may be some difficulty in carrying out the intentions of the clause without the aid of municipal action; but the intentions of the clause are such as should command support, and is a subject which should be brought before the country."

407
There remained but two objections to which it seemed necessary to direct the attention of their Lordships. One was, that this Standing Order, by the increased expense it would occasion, would deter companies from undertaking works of great magnitude. The second was, that it was unjust to fetter companies in their application to their Lordships' House. He did not think the Standing Order would deter companies from undertaking works of great magnitude. The proportion of the outlay to the whole would be insignificant, and the cost of a single mile of railway would suffice for all the purposes he had in view. As to the objection that such a Standing Order would fetter the companies in the application which they made to Parliament, why, the whole body of the existing Standing Orders acted more or less as fetters in this respect; but he was told that many of the present Standing Orders caused great expense without yielding a corresponding advantage, and that if some of them were slightly modified, more expense would thereby be saved than would be amply sufficient to meet all the necessities of his recommendation. If their Lordships had any doubt on this point, the Parliamentary agents could satisfy a Committee of the truth of this statement. He did not urge this question solely, although he did it principally, on the ground of the interests of the humbler classes; but he would also urge it upon their consideration, because the results to public morality and the public welfare were very serious. By hundreds and thousands of poor people being driven into these overcrowded localities, every form of disease, epidemic, and all the concomitant pauperism and misery, were engendered; and those epidemical disorders which were not confined to the densely-populated districts, but which spread to and penetrated the localities which were inhabited by the higher classes, might again be, as they had been before, the fearful consequence of those abominable evils. The ratepayers of the country would bear testimony to the truth of what he stated, because they had suffered from these effects, although they might not be so sure of the cause; and the people themselves (he had heard it from their own lips) and those who sympathised with them felt very deeply, and expressed it accordingly, that while the greatest consideration was given to the interests of the classes possessed of large amounts of property and capital, very little consideration
408
was given to the rights and wants of labour. He could assert, of his own knowledge, that the people of this country did look to their Lordships' House for the redress of many of their grievances; and he did trust—and he ventured to say further, he believed—that their wishes in this respect would not be disappointed. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.
The BISHOP of LONDONentirely concurred with what had fallen from the noble Earl, and begged most cordially to second his proposition, if it were regular to do so. It was impossible to overrate the evils—physical, social, and moral—which resulted from the overcrowding of the poor in the narrow streets and alleys of the metropolis; evils which, he believed, had in many instances been greatly aggravated by the improvements which had been effected in other localities. For his own part, he never travelled through the different parts of that great city, and witnessed the noble streets which had been formed during the last twenty years, without asking himself what had been the fate of the thousands of poor people who used to live upon their former sites? And the answer that he had been compelled to give himself was, that they had been driven to take up their abodes in the narrow courts and alleys at a short distance from where they formerly lived, and thus greater overcrowding and misery than ever was the necessary result. He did not hesitate to say, that in their attempts—and to a certain extent their successful and laudable attempts—to widen and improve the streets and thoroughfares of the metropolis, although they had gained something for the comfort and enjoyment of other classes, that advantage had been purchased at the expense, in many cases, of the physical and moral degradation of the poor; and thus, it was not too much to say, that in beautifying some parts of the metropolis, they had brutified others. He had received a communication from a clergyman who had expressed the greatest alarm at the consequences which must result from the destruction, in his neighbourhood, of 500 houses, containing probably 500 persons of the labouring population, there not being a house at present that was not fuller than it ought to be; and where, therefore, were these poor people to go to but to already overcrowded tenements? With regard to these companies, and with regard to the moral as well as the pecuniary interests of

409
those with whose rights they interfered, he conceived that there could be no hardship in imposing the condition which the noble Earl suggested upon companies who came to Parliament to ask for powers to carry out any enterprise which interfered with the interests of the poor—whose rights, he must say, had been too much overlooked in their legislation. The poor had their rights; and although they might not have rights of property, as that term was strictly understood, yet they had rights, the enjoyment of which was as valuable to them as the rights of property were to other persons. If they destroyed a rich man's residence, he was entitled to compensation, and, perhaps, it was of no consequence to him whether he removed to a distance of one mile or five miles; but if they turned a poor man out of his tenement he had no choice, he must of necessity live near to his employment, and thus was obliged to pay any price, however exorbitant, to secure shelter for himself and his family in some miserable abode that had not been swept away in the vicinity of their improvements. His own experience justified him in saying, that no pecuniary loss would ultimately fall upon the companies who might be required to make provision for the population they displaced. It was often the case that a railway company purchased a larger quantity of land than was absolutely necessary for the line, and the houses that were built upon it paid a rent fully equivalent to the interest derived from the rest of the capital. In the case of the London Docks, the land they took might be all used for the docks; but if their large profits should be thus reduced to 7 or 8 per cent, instead of 10, though they would be losers, or rather gainers, to a certain extent, there would be no real injustice inflicted upon them, and the community at large and the labouring classes would be greatly advantaged. He was not one of those who looked with much alarm upon the extension of this great metropolis, as long as care was taken to lessen the evils of overcrowding; and the country was deeply indebted to the noble Earl and his Colleagues in the society which they had instituted for establishing model lodging and dwelling houses for the people, thereby proving, what many were unwilling to believe, that for any amount of capital that was expended in the construction of houses for the labouring classes, the rent that was to be obtained would yield an ample return. It would therefore be no hardship on companies to require them to
410
make some such provision as was now proposed. At the same time, unless the Legislature interfered to put an end to the overcrowding of the poor in the narrow and noisome streets, courts, and alleys of London, he felt that little could be done by associated individuals to remove the evils under which the working classes laboured. Unless they endeavoured to provide for the people not only convenient and commodious dwellings, but all the appliances of health and comfort, such as an adequate supply of water and pure air, which were necessary for the preservation of health, they would do but little to promote their moral or religious elevation. He trusted the House would accede to the noble Earl's Motion.
LORD REDESDALEtrusted that their Lordships, in considering this subject, would not merely look to the evils which had arisen from the overcrowding of the population in certain cases—an evil to which no one was more opposed than himself, and for which he acknowledged the importance of providing a remedy—but he hoped they would consider also the practical effect of passing this Standing Order. It might be right in the case of certain Bills for internal improvements, and even in some railway Bills, that there should be some such provision introduced as the noble Earl proposed; but that was a very different thing from passing a Standing Order, making a provision of this kind compulsory in all cases where property of this kind was taken. There was to be an inquiry what houses were used as dwellings for the labouring classes; but often there would only be the evidence of the promoters of the Bill. Then there was to be inquiry "whether pecuniary or other injury to such persons" would be occasioned. How could any conclusion be come to upon that? The proprietor of houses let to such tenants, to get all the compensation himself, would give them notice to quit; they had no hold on the property. Then, as to inquiring whether "any overcrowding of any other dwellings" was likely to be oocasioned, of course it must be possible, since they must go somewhere; but as the inquiry would take place before the scheme was granted, you could have no positive proof, because you could not know where they go. If the Lodging-houses Act were properly carried out, what was called overcrowding would be precluded; and therefore you were to have proof of an illegal act having to be committed. All these difficulties would be urged before the Standing Orders Committee by practised agents, and

411
it was not clear how any practical conclusion could be come to. The company was to be required to erect new houses within three years; but the evil would have arisen long before that, and by that time, if the new Lodging-houses Act was properly enforced, the evil would be more or less got rid of. The new houses were to be "within a convenient distance." There might in certain cases be space for such buildings; but when the improvement could only be paid for by new buildings on the ground taken, it might be necessary to buy other property for the erection of these houses for the labouring classes, and it might be impossible to procure it except by buying houses that were already lodging houses. Such a Resolution applying to all cases would create insurmountable difficulties. Further, the noble Earl intended to create a new species of property, consisting of proximity to the place of employment; but it was obvious that this would not be confined merely to large towns, but would extend to any village in the kingdom, because if a labouring man's cottage was taken from him, he would equally suffer by being deprived of a dwelling near where he worked. For these reasons, seeing that great inconvenience would arise from the present terms of the Motion, and yet admitting that it might be desirable to introduce a clause embodying the principle of this proposition into particular Bills, he yet thought that the laying down of an inflexible Standing Order on the subject, to be of universal application to all Bills for improvements, would be highly inconvenient, and he believed the difficulties in its practical working would be found to be insurmountable.
The EARL of DERBYthought the House was indebted to his noble Friend for bringing under its consideration a most important subject, to which, indeed, the noble Earl had always devoted his own attention, but which, perhaps, had not hitherto received from the Legislature as much attention as it deserved in itself, and as it was entitled to receive from the helplessness of the class whom it chiefly concerned. He quite concurred with the noble Earl in thinking that we had, perhaps, in the consideration of Bills for the construction of railways, and effecting improvements in towns, paid a too exclusive regard to the rights of the owners of property, strictly so called, and too little to the rights and claims of those who might not have the same evidence to produce of the measure of the injury they were about to
412
sustain. He further concurred with the noble Earl in saying that he was afraid, in the case of many improvements, so called, and which no doubt were improvements—not introduced altogether for embellishment, as suggested by the right rev. Prelate, but with a view to sanitary advantages—the almost inevitable consequence and tendency in certain cases had been to aggravate the evil of overcrowding in particular neighbourhoods. Indeed, he did not see how it was possible to prevent such an incidental evil from arising; and therefore he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) that by acting too strictly on the principle proposed by the noble Earl, and by the interposition of too strict a set of conditions, that in densely populated parts of the town improvements required for sanitary purposes, and for the benefit of the health of the community, would be rendered impracticable. Take, for instance, such a district as that of Seven-dials, where you would find narrow streets, crowded houses, a dense population, no free circulation of air, bad health, disease—the consequence of the overcrowding. Suppose you desired, for sanitary purposes, to make a broad street through that district, in order to have a freer circulation of air. The very object of that improvement being in a given area to reduce the actual number of the houses, and to provide a better circulation of air for the inmates of those which remained, the result must be, that either a large portion of the inhabitants residing within that area must be displaced, or that they must overcrowd the houses in the immediate neighbourhood of the widened and improved street, and thus render a certain portion of the district more densely occupied than it was before the improvement began. He was afraid, therefore, that in such districts, if persons required in all cases to live within a convenient distance of the accommodation from which they were displaced—and this was especially the case with the working classes—in that case the result would be that there would be no improvement in the localities where it was most needed. He quite concurred with his noble Friend, that, so far as justice was concerned, where a private company, for a private object, sought to occupy ground and pull down houses, depriving a large portion of the population of their present habitations, and, from their habits, of their means of livelihood, there could be no question that you were fairly entitled to

413
call upon that company, undertaking the work for its private advantage, to compensate those whom it displaced from their means of subsistence, just as fairly as it could call upon them to compensate the owners of property in the district. But he could not but think that there was considerable force in the difficulties urged by the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), with regard to a Standing Order or Resolution, such as was proposed to be applied to every Bill. He could not but think that there was considerable force in the objections raised by the noble Lord to the wording of the Resolution, with regard to the inquiry to be instituted as to the amount of population to be removed, whether they would be subjected to pecuniary or other injury from the removal, and whether it was likely to cause overcrowding in the immediate district. If the population were to remain in the immediate neighbourhood, the result clearly would be overcrowding to a certain extent; but what the inconvenience arising from that overcrowding would be, or what pecuniary or other injury would be sustained, he could not exactly see how the Committee could come to a satisfactory result by means of the evidence proposed to be laid before them. But he could understand that there should be an inquiry, and he thought it very desirable, though he did not pretend to suggest a form of words, what proportion of population and what extent of human habitations would be displaced by the projected work, and that the projectors should be called upon to show what provision they had made, if any, for the purpose of the decent accommodation of that population; he could not help thinking that there might be an inquiry into these matters, and that it would be neither unjust nor impracticable to call upon companies, particularly those undertaking works for their own private advantage, to show whether they had made any and what provision for the accommodation of the inhabitants they were about to displace. The difficulty would vary in proportion to the density of the population and the value of the land; but to require that a company should erect new buildings within a mile for all the population displaced by a broad street running through the heart of St. Giles's, for instance, would be requiring an impossibility; you could not find the room for such dwellings, without producing the very evil complained of—overcrowding districts already filled. If he might venture to
414
make a suggestion to his noble Friend, it would be this:—concurring in his object, thinking the House ought to take some steps for being better informed as to the effect that such works would produce upon the comfort of industrious classes of society affected by them, he would suggest that his noble Friend would do well to consider whether it was not possible to embody his proposition in a form which should not require an impossibility of companies—whether words less definite and stringent might not be adopted. He concurred entirely in the object the noble Earl had in view, which he regarded as most laudable and praiseworthy; but he thought the stringent terms in which the noble Earl had couched his Resolution might have the effect of defeating the object he desired to accomplish. He conceived that, by using less definite terms and proposing less stringent measures, there would be a better chance of effecting that object. Their Lordships would at all events, he was sure, agree with him in the opinion that the noble Earl had done a great public service in calling the attention of Parliament to a matter, the importance of which in his (the Earl of Derby's) opinion, had hitherto been much underrated.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, it was quite unnecessary for him, or for any other Member of their Lordships' House, to acknowledge the importance of the objects which the noble Earl had in view in bringing this question before them. The motives of the noble Earl must be universally acknowledged and recognised; but he (the Earl of Aberdeen) quite agreed with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale), who had pointed out that in his desire to obtain a great good, the noble Earl had proposed that the execution of which was clearly impossible; and they must take care that in attempting to accomplish an object in which all must agree, they did not incur those practical difficulties which would render vain all efforts. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) need not trouble their Lordships with repeating the objections which had been already stated to the course proposed by the noble Earl, because some of them appeared to him to be quite conclusive. Every measure of improvement had its own character; but, agreeing fully that this was a subject well deserving the attention of the House, he was sure that if the noble Earl thought fit to propose an inquiry into the matter by a Committee, their Lordships would

415
have no objection to assent to such a suggestion. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) considered, however, that their Lordships were clearly not in a condition to pass such a comprehensive Standing Order as was now proposed, professing to embrace all matters of this description that might come before the House, and the execution of which would be found in many cases impracticable. He must, therefore, press the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion, at least for the present, and perhaps, upon further consideration, he might be able to frame some practical measure which would be better calculated to attain the results he desired.
The EARL of HARROWBYthought it was desirable to give this subject more full consideration before they agreed to a regular Standing Order. He would have been disposed to suggest that if equivalent accommodation was not provided, in cases of improvements or new works, for the labouring population whose homes were destroyed, the Committees should be instructed to report to the House. He certainly thought that the Resolution in its present form was too peremptory and universal in its application, and he considered that the best course would be to refer the question to a Committee, with the view of ascertaining in what way so desirable an object could be attained. Such an inquiry would be free from the objection to this Resolution, which was too general in its application. There would be no difficulty in a Committee ascertaining the nature and value of any property, as that might be obtained from the rating, and from information derived from the surveyors and parish officers. With regard to the difficulty that had been suggested as to planting the displaced population near the localities from which they were removed, he believed that by means of such structures as had lately been erected in various parts of the town, they might in a very small space accommodate a large number of persons, and provide them with many conveniences. He had some time ago seen the lodging-houses at Birkenhead, which, although they were very ill-placed, afforded accommodation with perfect ease to 400 persons in a space about as large as that occupied by their Lordships' House; and he therefore thought there could not be so much difficulty as was apprehended in placing a large number of persons in almost any part of the metropolis that might be selected.
The EARL of CARLISLEconcurred
416
most cordially and entirely in the observations which had been made by the noble Earl and right rev. Prelate as to the magnitude of the evil complained of, and the great desirability of providing some efficient remedy. He had felt the evil so much, that in the case of the improvements introduced under the Government with which he was connected, in effecting the metropolitan improvements, he had within a fortnight after he became Chief Commissioner of Woods proposed a Bill to enable the Crown to grant sites, free of any rent, for the erection of model buildings for the better accommodation of the poor. He found, however, that that measure was against all the punctilios of office, and perhaps against the rights of the Crown, and he had very precipitately to withdraw it. Ho thought it most desirable that a compliance should be required with some such beneficent provisions as those proposed in the Standing Order of his noble Friend. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had proved, however, in his own laudable and painful experience, that nothing was so difficult in this world as to do good to one's fellow-creatures in the way in which we should most like to do it. Desirable as the noble Earl's object was, and crying as was the necessity for some regulation on the subject, he (the Earl of Carlisle) thought the matters with which the noble Earl proposed to deal, required too much adaptation to the particular circumstances which surrounded them; to admit of their being subject to so stringent and peremptory an order, at all events in the shape in which it was proposed. He thought, therefore, it was for the noble Earl to consider whether he would propose to refer the matter to a Committee upstairs, or whether, by consulting with other parties who had taken much interest in this subject, and who were thoroughly conversant with the details and orders of Parliamentary proceedings, he might be able to free his Motion from the objections to which it was now open.
The EARL of WICKLOWobserved, that there could be no doubt of the philanthropy, or the good intentions, of the noble Earl who brought forward this question; but he (the Earl of Wicklow) thought the subject had not received the careful consideration which was necessary before a proposition of this kind was submitted to the House. It appeared to him that the noble Earl took it for granted that the property was in the persons who were in-

417
jured in the manner he had mentioned. Now, if the property was theirs, no new Standing Order was required, because it was necessary for improvers, whether the Crown or a company, if they destroyed property of any kind, to make compensation to the owners. Surely, however, the House would not, by such a Standing Order as was proposed, establish a new description of property in the case of those who were merely tenants of others, and who, as tenants by the month or by the week, were liable to be dispossessed at any time the proprietors might choose. Would the House, if they required the same number of houses that had been pulled down to be rebuilt, require also that the proprietors should receive the old tenants back into the new houses? If they did not, they would do nothing for the tenants; while if they did they might compel the landlords to receive tenants whom they did not wish to have. He would suppose the Standing Order now proposed had been in existence before New Oxford Street was built. The noble Earl had told them that, previously to the building of that street, the houses upon its site were crowded with sometimes four or five times the number of inmates they were intended to contain. Would the noble Earl be content, then, when new accommodation was obtained, that the people should continue to live in the same crowded state as before? He would not; and it would therefore be incumbent upon the persons who provided new accommodation, to provide four or five times more than had been destroyed. He (the Earl of Wicklow) would leave it to their Lordships to imagine how it would be possible to do this in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street or Regent Street, or any similar localities: the thing was totally impossible; and therefore he must say that if the Standing Order now proposed had been in existence some years ago, they never could have seen the improvements which had recently taken place in London, and which, though they might have been attended with a good deal of inconvenience to the unfortunate persons who had been deprived of their former homes, had on the whole been highly beneficial to the localities in which such improvements had been effected, by converting them from a nest of overcrowded houses into an airy, convenient, and healthy spot. He doubted whether even a Committee, if the noble Earl should think fit to move for one, could point out any mode by which the evil with respect to the occu-
418
pants of houses destroyed for improvements could be remedied, because such persons had no interest in the property for which the owners were entitled to compensation. He saw no more reason for debarring railway companies or the Government, by a Standing Order of that House, from carrying on improvements, than for preventing landed proprietors, or any other body in the community, from improving their property by pulling down houses, although such a measure might be attended with inconvenience to a portion of the population.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYwas understood to say he believed that in many cases monstrous cruelty had been exercised towards hundreds of thousands of Her Majesty's subjects by the removal of their houses. The noble Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale) had fallen into great error in alluding to the Common Lodging Houses Act. That measure related only to the common lodging-houses which were registered; but there were tens of thousands of persons living in houses which were not common lodging-houses, but where there were ten or fifteen persons in a single room. It was very difficult to define what constituted a common lodging-house; but it must be a house where lodgers were taken in by the night or by the week, where persons were constantly passing to and fro, and where the money was taken night by night. He saw that it would be vain for him to attempt to insist upon his Resolution. He thought, however, he had gained a great deal by the ventilation of the subject, and he had shown their Lordships that many of the public were directing their attention to that House, in the hope that a remedy would be provided for the great grievance under which a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects were suffering. He would therefore be glad to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and would move for the appointment of a Committee on the subject. He must say, however, that he would, with God's blessing, give their Lordships no rest until they had clone something to remedy the evil he had brought under their notice.
Motion, by leave of the House, with-drawn.
Afterwards it was moved—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire in what Manner and to what Extent it would be expedient to require that Provisions should be inserted in Bills introduced into this House by

419
which Dwelling Houses occupied by the Labouring Classes are proposed to be extensively destroyed to remedy the Evils produced by such a Displacement of that Population."
On Question, agreed to.

CHURCH IN THE COLONIES.
LORD MONTEAGLEpresented a petition, of which he had given notice, from Members of the United Church of England and Ireland residing in the diocese of Sydney, in the colony of New South Wales, against the establishment of any system of Church Government in the Australasian Colonies in which the Bishop, Clergy and Laity shall not meet and vote in one council with equal and concurrent authority. His Lordship said that the diocese of Sydney formed one only of the six dioceses in the colonies of Australia, and therefore he must not lead their Lordships into the error of supposing that this petition represented the feeling of the whole of the Australian Colonies; but he had every reason to believe that it expressed the opinions of a considerable proportion of the members of the Church of England in the diocese of Sydney. It bore many thousand signatures, including those of several members of the Legislative Council, of magistrates, and of many other persons of respectable position and property. The prayer of the petition was in itself simple; it involved no disputed question, and at that period of the evening he would not enter unnecessarily into any details relating to the petition, but would merely state the objects of the petitioners. They represented that the condition of the Church within the Australian Colonies had for some time past been most painful and unsatisfactory to the members of the Church throughout the province. The petitioners further stated that doubts had been expressed respecting the supremacy of the Queen as the head of the Church in these colonies, to the great dismay of the petitioners, who deprecated the assumption of a new ecclesiastical supremacy, inconsistent with the ancient and Royal Supremacy of the Crown, which now threatened their religious freedom. They stated—
"That the constitution and form of Church Government suggested in the minute of proceedings of the Bishops of the province of Australasia, held in November, 1850, and by the Lord Bishop of Sydney, before his clergy, assembled on the 14th day of April, 1852; and in the petition to Her Majesty, subsequently adopted by the Bishop and a majority of the clergy of the diocese at that meeting, are not in accordance with the opinions or wishes of the lay Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in this diocese
420
generally; and your petitioners most firmly protest against the establishment by law of any system of Church Government in which the bishop, clergy, and laity shall not meet and vote in one council, with equal and concurrent authority and jurisdiction, reserving to Her Majesty all the authority vested in Her Majesty as the head of the Church."
The petitioners concluded by praying their Lordships not to assent to any law at variance with the sentiments of the petitioners. He (Lord Monteagle) could not present this petition without expressing the earnest anxiety which he felt, in common, he was sure, with all their Lordships, with respect to the extension of the Church of England and Ireland in our colonial possessions. Whatever differences of opinion might exist with regard to the best mode of attaining that object, as to the object itself there existed, lie hoped, no possibility of difference among their Lordships. The progress which had been made by the Church of England in many of the colonies was one of the most encouraging and satisfactory facts in our modern colonial history; but he must be allowed to add—and he felt satisfaction in doing so—that it would be impracticable to attempt to realise in our colonial possessions the idea of a dominant or exclusive Church. In the discussions which had taken place last year and the year before, the desire to create a dominant and exclusively-privileged Church in the colonies had been disclaimed even by those who professed to be the most interested in the prosperity of the Church of England. He felt that this truth should never be forgotten; it was important as a matter of principle, and equally important as a matter of expediency; he felt assured that it was only by the abnegation on the part of the Legislature of any desire to introduce a dominant Church into our Colonial Empire that we should promote the real progress of our branch of the Reformed Church. He believed it was by admitting, as we were bound to admit, that there was no intention of seeking any exclusive privileges that the Church of England would have the best chance of fair play, of full advancement, and of an ultimate diffusion of its doctrines among all classes of our colonial fellow subjects.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid, that the question of legislation for the better administration of the United Church of England and Ireland in the colonies, was a matter of great difficulty, but at the same time he believed it was a matter of great necessity. It was certainly consid-

421
ered a matter of the highest necessity by the late Bishop of Sydney, whose untimely loss was most deeply regretted by all who knew him, and who left the colony, where he had so long exercised episcopal functions, and had obtained the esteem and good-will of those among whom he had so long resided, for the sole purpose of giving his opinion and hearing the opinions of others with reference to this subject. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) begged to intimate that he hoped in the course of the Session to submit to their Lordships a measure which he hoped would meet with the concurrence, not only of the noble Lord who had presented the petition, but of their Lordships generally, as well as of the members of the Church in the colony.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEdid not mean to trespass on their Lordships' attention for more than a few moments, but he thought it right to set at rest at least one of the alarms which had been created by recent circumstances in the colonies, and which were referred to in the petition presented by his noble Friend. He observed that one of the strongest apprehensions entertained by the petitioners was that the abolition of the supremacy of the Queen was aimed at by some of the bishops. Now, he understood that this most erroneous impression had arisen in consequence of the minutes which were passed at the conference of the Bishops of the Australian Colonies which took place at Sydney two years ago. He sympathised with the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken in regretting that the eminent man to whom he had referred had been removed by death before they had had the benefit of his opinions on this subject, into the general bearings of which he was not about to enter; but, as he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it most desirable that, at the earliest possible period, the misapprehension with reference to the opinions of the Colonial Bishops should be corrected, he would, with the permission of the House, read a few words from a letter he had received within the last fortnight from three of these bishops, and which, though having their three signatures alone attached to it, represented, as he understood, the opinions of all their brethren on the subject. Those three prelates were the Bishops of Quebec, Antigua, and Cape Town, who happened to be in England at present. After calling his attention as Secretary of State for the
422
Colonies to the necessity of legislation as soon as possible with respect to the difficulties to which the Colonial Church was subjected, they said—
"We beg most emphatically to affirm our hearty and loyal declaration of attachment to the supremacy of our Most Gracious Sovereign, and our earnest desire that we may remain, as heretofore, closely and inseparably connected with the United Church of England and Ireland; and we venture to express a hope that, in any measure which Parliament in its wisdom may see fit to sanction, provision may be contained for the maintenance of the supremacy of the Crown, and for preserving intact our connexion with the mother Church. We beg leave humbly to add, that in making this representation to your Grace, we speak not only in our own names, but in behalf of other Prelates of Christ's Church in the distant dependencies of the Crown, one of us being the delegated representative of all the bishops of the Churches in British North America, with the exception of the Bishop of Rupert's Land, who is known to be favourable to the general principle of the measures herein contemplated, but with whom there has not been sufficient time to communicate on the subject."
He (the Duke of Newcastle) would not enter into any discussion on the general question after the statement which had been made by the most rev. Prelate. He begged only to add, that he did not do so because he deprecated a premature discussion on this subject, and that he rejoiced to hear that the most rev. Prelate had his attention directed to it. He only thought it right to take the earliest opportunity of setting the public right with respect to the views of the Colonial Bishops on this point.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, that so far from the Bishops who had attended the Australian Conference indicating the slight-test disposition to interfere with Her Majesty's supremacy, much less to deny it, they had actually made the following statement, which was contained in a paper that had been sent to all the Bishops in England, and which he would read to their Lordships:—
"We, the undersigned Metropolitan and Bishops of the province of Australasia, in consequence of doubts existing how far we are inhibited by the Queen's supremacy from exercising the powers of an ecclesiastical synod, resolve not to exercise such powers on the present occasion."
The paper then proceeded in these terms:—
"But we desire to consult together upon the various difficulties in which we are at present placed by the doubtful application to the Church in this province of the ecclesiastical laws which are now in force in England; and to suggest such measures as may seem to be most suitable for

423
removing our present embarrassments; to consider such questions as affect the progress of true religion, and the preservation of ecclesiastical order in the several dioceses of this province; and, finally, in reliance on Divine Providence, to adopt plans for the propagation of the Gospel among the heathen races of Australasia, and the adjacent islands of the Western Pacific."
He would ask, was it fair in the petitioners to suggest the conclusion from words like these, that the proceedings of the Bishops had placed the Queen's supremacy in danger? The fact was that the Royal supremacy was asserted in the document to which he referred in the strongest possible terms, and in the manner in which the articles and canons of the Church affirmed it:—and when he spoke of the articles and canons, their Lordships would recollect that it was only they that any longer maintained the supremacy of the Crown. He would assert broadly and plainly, and he challenged contradiction to the assertion, that there was no longer in this country any authoritative and legal assertion of the supremacy of the Crown, except in the articles of the Church of England, and the canons of 1608. An attempt had been made in another place to base the principle of the Royal supremacy on the oath of supremacy. But that was a mistake—the oath of supremacy simply denied the supremacy of the Pope; and the fact was there was no oath of supremacy in the strict sense of the word; that had been abolished at the Revolution, and the Act creating the oaths which were sworn by their Lordships when they took their seats, simply denied the supremacy of the Pope, and asserted no supremacy of the Queen; and why was this? The fact was that the supremacy of the Queen, as imposed by the statute of the 1st of Elizabeth, and also by a statute of Henry VIII., was found to be perfectly irreconcilable with the articles of union with Scotland. It was because it was impossible for Her Majesty's subjects of Scotland to assert that supremacy, that the oath had been abolished; for when the union took place it was necessary that the oath should be equally satisfactory to the Scotch as well as the English Lords, and, therefore, the oath at present taken had been devised to suit Her Majesty's Scotch subjects as well as those of England, because it was known that the doctrine of the Queen's supremacy would not be endured by the members of the Kirk of Scotland. With respect to the claim of
424
the Petitioners for a system of church government, in which the bishops, clergy, and laity should meet and vote in one council with equal and concurrent authority and jurisdiction, it was clearly inadmissible. In the document to which he had referred, the Bishops said there must be synodical meetings, but that they ought to consist in part of the clergy and in part of the laity. It was true they said the laity must sit in a house by itself. Now he was not going to discuss the very intricate question of the rights of the laity in regard to this matter, because such a discussion could not fail to be distasteful to their Lordships. He would only say that these Bishops of Australasia did express a most decided wish that the laity should have their fair share in synodal action in that colony, but they did not propose that they should be in the same house in equal proportions. He challenged the noble Lord to show him a single instance of a synod in which the laity had been admitted with equal votes to the clergy. The Bishops did not wish to bring in the laity to be mere servants; they said that the laity should have a certain class of cases in which they should have equal power with the clergy. He would not now enter into a discussion on this question, because their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing it hereafter; but he would say this, that their Lordships would leave the House with a wrong impression on their minds if they supposed the Bishops to be hostile to the legitimate power of the Queen.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not let the observations of the right rev. Prelate with respect to the supremacy of the Queen pass unnoticed. He begged distinctly to deny that the supremacy of the Queen depended merely upon the articles of the Church of England, or of any Church. The supremacy of the Queen rested upon the law of the land established by Act of Parliament. What might he the incidence of that supremacy with reference to ecclesiastical matters in Scotland, was a matter wide of the discussion, which it would be improper to enter into on the present occasion; but it must not go forth to the public uncontradicted that the supremacy of the Queen in matters ecclesiastical rested merely upon ecclesiastical canons or the articles of the Church.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, he had

425
not asserted that the Queen's supremacy rested upon any ecclesiastical canon or the articles of the Church. What he did say was, that the only authoritative documents which declared the supremacy of the Crown, were the canons and articles of the Church. He was not aware of any Act of Parliament now in existence which created the supremacy of the Crown. The supremacy, they should recollect, was part of the common law—that the Queen is supreme in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil—supreme in all causes, temporal and ecclesiastical—no more supreme in one than in the other—but supreme in both. The supremacy of the Crown applied to both Church and State. The Queen was the supreme governor of all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, in presenting the petition, he had endeavoured to avert all asperities of controversy. If he were now driven into adverse discussion, the House would do him the justice to remember that the fault was not his. But he should ill discharge his duty to the petitioners who had done him the honour to place their statement in his hands, if he allowed the discussion to terminate without some free commentary on the observations which had fallen from the right rev. Prelate. He confessed he had heard, with some degree of surprise, that for the first time in their Lordships' House, a question should have been raised casting any doubt upon the supremacy of the Queen of England. [The Bishop of EXETER: No, no!] Notwithstanding that denial, he must say that doubts had been so raised by the arguments they had heard which struck at the true and legal title of the Queen's supremacy. The right rev. Prelate had asserted that the Queen's supremacy rested solely on the canons and the articles of the Church—thus appearing to substitute an ecclesiastical for a civil title. But on what did the canons and articles rest? Could they stand proprio vigore? What effect would they have on any lay subject of the realm unless they were confirmed by the law of the land, that is, by Act of Parliament? Did the right rev. Prelate mean to contend that a canon unconfirmed by statute was binding on any lay member of the Church of England? Inasmuch as the authority of the canons and articles rested only upon statute, he would venture to say, on the right rev. Prelate's own argument, that
426
the supremacy of the Crown rested upon the law of the land, and not upon any ecclesiastical law. He might have gone further and have shown that even in Roman Catholic times, under our Plantagenet ancestors, the prerogative of the Crown had been asserted boldly against the Pope, and that by the ancient law of England. The right rev. Prelate seemed to imagine that he had hit upon a conclusive argument against the Royal Supremacy when he said that Her Majesty was not supreme in the Church of Scotland, and, therefore, that Her supremacy over all matters ecclesiastical was contradicted by the law of Scotland. Why, who had ever imagined, in affirming the supremacy of the Crown, that such supremacy was claimed over all causes belonging to another Church of which our Sovereign was not the head? The people of Scotland would imagine it strange if a claim was made on the part of the Crown to be the head of the Church of Scotland; and the people of England would hear with equal surprise and sorrow that any doubt was entertained, on the part of a bishop, that the supremacy of the Crown had been held to rest on no authority higher than that of the articles and the canons. But that was not all. The right rev. Prelate had read a passage from a declaration of the three Bishops of Australia, for the purpose of proving that the petitioners were quite in error in supposing that any disposition was felt by any of the bishops of those colonies in the slightest degree to affect the supremacy of the Crown. He regretted that the right rev. Prelate had not sufficient light to read the document, and that some of the words escaped him, owing possibly to his want of the power of vision. How strange that they should imagine that there was the slightest disposition to interfere with the claim of the supremacy of the Crown, when the very resolution then entered into declared, on the part of the members of the episcopal bench, that they meant, on that occasion, no approach to any attack on the supremacy of the Crown. They said, "In consequence of doubts existing how far we are inhibited by the Queen's supremacy from exercising the powers of an ecclesiastical synod, we resolve"—what? Not to ascertain whether they were inhibited or not—not that they would not exercise those powers until their doubts were removed—but they come to this lame and impotent conclusion—we "resolve not to exercise such powers on the present occasion."
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, he had read the words.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he did not hear the words, but after the contradiction he would apologise to the right rev. Prelate. Still his (Lord Monteagle's) argument respecting the declaration of the majority of Australian Prelates remained unshaken. How could there have been more strongly made a suggestion, that the Australian Bishops would be disposed to exercise those powers on another occasion, if they found it expedient to do so, than the statement that they would not exercise those powers on the present occasion? And what did they proceed to do, somewhat at variance with their self-denying ordinances? They entered into resolutions, embodying propositions which they hoped would be favourably considered by the Home Government. They proposed, it would seem, practically that a kind of congé d'élire should issue from the Colonial Bishops, addressed to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, or to Her Majesty herself, for the purpose of recommending individuals to be in future selected for the office of colonial bishop. Here, again, was an approach to that very tender subject, the prerogative of the Crown in its appointments of the heads of the Church. But there was something more. The petitioners prayed, it is true, if church government of any description should be created in the colony, that with the ecclesiastical authoririties laymen should be associated. But in what manner and with what reductions was it proposed that this should be done? The right rev. Prelate justly said that the principle of lay co-operation was introduced in the resolutions, although in a different manner from that recommended by the petitioners. Now, he would state to their Lordships the manner in which it was proposed, for the purpose of justifying the feelings of alarm, and apprehension, and amazement, which had been produced in the colony. It was proposed that, with a view to the future government of the Australasian Church, there should be a provincial synod established for the whole province; that there should be a diocesan synod established in every diocese, thus forming seven ecclesiastical synods. It was also proposed that for the purpose of discussing all the temporal affairs of the Church, seven corresponding conventions should be established, composed solely of laymen. All questions touching ecclesiastical matters were to be reserved exclusively
428
for the ecclesiastical synods; but the questions touching temporalities were only to be reserved for the other or lay body. Now, in bishops the Church looked to their capability of guiding their clergy, judging of the qualifications of candidates for orders, and maintaining order. They were expected to be likewise examples of piety and of purity of faith. But assuming all this, next to the spiritual purity of the faith, the next great gift to be prayed for the Church was, the maintenance of the peace of the Church. But, if any mode could be imagined which was certain to occasion eternal dissensions and divisions, it would be to create in a colony like Australia seven ecclesiastical synods, to be presided over by six bishops and one provincial, and seven conventions for temporal purposes presided over by laymen, having in some cases concurrent rights, and all to be created without any reference to any British law, and without reference to the legislative authority of the colony. Were the laymen or the ecclesiastics to agree each for themselves about what was spiritual and what temporal? The probability of such agreement was shown in the proceedings before them, and referred to by the petitioners. One of the steps which the Australian bishops had taken was most extraordinary. Among other things, they stated they would submit to the law of the land in respect to marriage, "provided it appeared to be consonant with Church law." Was ever anything so monstrous as to talk of submitting to the supreme law of the land provided it were consonant with something else? But they had gone a little further. Their Lordships might be aware of the establishment of a great and promising University at Sydney, which had been encouraged by the Governor and the Cabinet Legislature in the most generous spirit. What did the Australian Bishops state in relation to that establishment? Why, that they were "inclined to tolerate" the University of Sydney, but not to the disparagement of separate diocesan institutions! An inclination to tolerate is a mode of expressing a reluctant acquiesence, and implying the possibility of taking a very opposite course. The right rev. Prelate had endeavoured to persuade the House that the petitioners had no provocation, and no ground for alarm, but that they were suffering from an imaginary grievance. He (Lord Monteagle) contended, however, that the petitioners had good cause of apprehension from the proceedings of the bishops. If the bishops

429
wished to preserve the episcopacy, if they desired to continue the union with the Church at home, from which he believed the Colonial Church never could be severed without the greatest danger to themselves—a union, therefore, which he prayed might long be preserved—if they desired peace and unity and enduring safety, let them abandon resolutions of this character, which they now, unhappily, seemed desirous of carrying into effect,
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On Motion that the House do adjourn until Monday the 4th of April,
The EARL of DERBY said: Before this Motion is agreed to, I wish to address one or two observations to the House. Although the holidays proposed are of a rather longer duration than usual, more especially considering the early period at which Easter falls, yet I offer no objection to the length of the proposed adjournment, nor to the period to which the noble Earl proposes to adjourn. Indeed, if the noble Earl had proposed, in accordance with what has been the usual practice, that we should adjourn for three or four days beyond the time fixed upon for the reassembling of the House of Commons, I should have seen no reason for offering any objection to such a course. I should be glad however, and I have no doubt the House would be glad, to be assured by the noble Earl, that it is not his intention for the first three or four days after our meeting to proceed with any business of importance, but that we meet with the view of carrying on the legal business of the House, rather than with the intention of dealing with any measures of great political importance. I wish to take this opportunity also of repeating to the noble Earl opposite the question which I put to him at the commencement of the Session, and to which I was at that time unsuccessful in obtaining an answer—namely, what measures are likely, upon the part of Her Majesty's Government, to be submitted to the consideration of the House in the course of the present Session? At that time the noble Earl declined to give me any information with regard to the proposed measures of the Government; but he informed us that in a short period his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack would state what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the great measures of legal reform:—and,
430
accordingly, a few days afterwards that noble and learned Lord did enter very much at large, and in a speech of great ability, into the consideration of that question. Beginning with stating that upon one question the noble and learned Lord who had preceded him had done so much that nothing more remained to be done; adding that upon another question there was a commission already existing for the purpose of making certain inquiries; and that upon a third it was necessary to obtain further information before proceeding with legislation—he came to the conclusion at last that the amount of legislative progress in the matter of legal reform would be in the course of the present Session of the slightest possible description. In point of fact, the noble and learned Lord has taken upon himself, apart from legislation, a task of very considerable importance and duration—one which he confesses he took upon himself in a fit of romantic enthusiasm; but which I can only say I hope he may have health and life to carry through, for if he have, he certainly will be blessed with a longer period of existence than ordinarily falls to the lot of man. With regard to legislation, the noble and learned Lord has confined himself to the reintroduction of a measure which has been introduced for the last twenty years into this House, for the registration of assurances, which was rejected last year and in former years by the House of Commons, and with regard to which the learned and noble Lord has proposed one important modification which appears to be contradictory to the main principle of the Bill; for, the main principle being the publicity of the registration, he introduces a clause by which that object may be defeated, and people may be able to keep their deeds secret. However, that Bill is all that has been done, and I must confess that the able statement of my noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor went far to shake my confidence, not in the desirability but in the practicability of that measure, and made me think that very probably it may not very undeservedly meet with the same fate that it did last year, and consequently that the amount of legal reform may this Session be absolutely nil. In the other House of Parliament estimates have been passed for the naval and military services founded upon the amount of force which the late Government laid down, and which the present Government, I am happy to

431
think, do not deem it necessary to alter. Further than that, a Bill has been introduced in the other House to enable persons of the Jewish persuasion to sit in Parliament. That is a measure also which has been rejected before by the House of Lords, and it is one which I trust the House of Lords will reject again. In that respect, again, the amount of legislation will be probably nil. Another Bill bas been introduced to which I have the strongest possible objection—I mean one intended to interfere, as I think most unjustly and most unconstitutionally, with the Protestant Church in Canada; and these two Bills, so far as I know, constitute the whole programme of the legislation of the present Session. We are also told that in the course of the present Session, we do not know when, the noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons will not bring in any distinct measure, but will inform the House of the course which the Government intend to pursue upon the great subject of education. The Reform Bill, which excited a great deal of expectation among a portion of the community, will not, it is announced, be brought forward in the course of the present Session; and with regard to the education question, the noble Lord has insinuated that it is not his intention to bring forward any very extensive or comprehensive scheme. We have also been told—I hope erroneously—that it is the intention of the Government permanently to legislate upon the affairs of India during the present Session. This is all that has yet been announced on the part of the Government as the business which is to occupy the attention of Parliament during the present Session. If there are other measures which it is the intention of Government to introduce, I think that the time has now arrived—now that we are about to adjourn for the Easter holidays—when this House of Parliament should be informed as to the nature of the business to which their attention is likely to be directed; and I am very anxious that the same result should not occur this year that has upon former occasions—that Bills should not be neglected to be brought in at an early period, and then at a later period be brought in without previous notice—that they should not be passed at the eleventh hour through the House of Commons, and then be sent up to your Lordships' House, who, having been occupied during four or five months doing nothing, are then to be called upon
432
to legislate on subjects of the greatest importance at the very close of the Session, and when very few Peers are present. If the Government intend to bring forward no measures of importance, let us be told so at once. If they do intend to bring forward measures of importance, let them do so without delay; let this House take its fair share of the business, and let not all the business be huddled in together at the close of the Session. If this be important with regard to anything, it is particularly so with regard to India, for Indian affairs are now beginning to excite great general interest in the public mind. The noble Earl has announced his intention of permanently legislating upon a portion of that question in the present Session; but if he has determined so to legislate, he must have done so without waiting for, and consequently without being influenced by, the examination, evidence, and report of the Committee which has been appointed upon Indian Affairs; and there can therefore be no reason why that portion of the measure upon which the Government have made up their minds should not be placed before Parliament with the least possible delay. I am anxious to know what measures it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce in the present Session of Parliament. I am anxious to receive an assurance that whatever measures are introduced shall be placed before your Lordships in due time, and that we shall not again have a recurrence of the procrastination of all the important business of the Session in this House within the last two or three weeks of the Session of Parliament.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Although the course which the noble Earl has taken appears to me to be altogether unusual, I can assure him that he need be under no apprehension that this House will not have its full share of the business that is likely to occupy the attention of the Legislature during the present Session, or that measures will not be introduced in due time to afford ample opportunity for deliberation. I shall give due notice of the Bills to be introduced into this House; and I do not think myself at all called upon, concurrently with that promise of full notice, to say more at this time upon the subject of the measures to be introduced. The noble Earl has alluded to the large subject of Education. Upon that I can state that notice will be given on the first day of our reassembling.

433
Generally speaking, whether introduced in the House of Commons or in this House, full time will be allowed for the consideration of all the measures to be proposed. As to our meeting on the same day as the House of Commons, certainly it is not for the purpose of entering into any business beyond that of the legal proceedings, but it is more for the purpose of giving notice at an early date of some of the measures which the Government intend to bring forward.
House adjourned to Monday the 4th of April next.