Lords Sitting of 11 March 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1a Marriage Law Amendment.
2a Inclosure; Bank of England Payments.

INDIA—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE— who had given Notice of Motion for Copies of any Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India and his Excellency the Governor General or the Governors of the Presidencies of Bombay or Madras relating to an Alteration in the Legislative Council of India: Also, Copies of any Minutes of the Council of India in this country, or of any Committee of the Council, upon the same subject: and to ask if Her Majesty's Government are about to propose to Parliament any Legislation thereupon—said, that in consequence of an Answer which had been given on this subject recently in "another place" it became unnecessary for him to ask the Question of which he had given notice, but he still considered it was necessary to move for the Correspondence. The Secretary of State for India, when he was asked a question on this subject last Session, said that he was then in correspondence with the Governor General of India on the subject, and he did not wish to give a premature opinion upon it; but in answer to a question put again on Friday last, the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had that day received all the information on the subject and all the assistance which could be expected to be received from India; and, therefore, he should lose no time in introducing a Bill into Parliament. Now he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) understood that papers of importance having been received, and having been referred to publicly by the Minister, their Lordships ought to be put in possession of them. He did not blame Sir Charles Wood for any delay which had taken place on this subject, because it was absolutely necessary to obtain all the information he possibly could before proceeding to legislate. The subject was, indeed, one of vast importance, upon which the Government ought to have all the assistance that Parliament could give it; but before Parliament could be in a position to afford such assistance it was necessary that it should be in possession of all the information. At the time the

1685
Legislative Council was formed in 1853, Sir Charles Wood, who was then, as now, Minister for India, stated that he anticipated the result of its formation would be to introduce into India an improved spirit of legislation, with which it was probable that all who went out from this country would be thoroughly imbued. So far was this anticipation from being realized that when, about three years ago, a Bill for improving the criminal procedure of India was sent out from this country, the learned Gentlemen, Members of the Legislative Council who had been bred up in the English law, actually proposed that from the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, to which all other men, European or Native, were to he subjected, one class, and one only should be exempted, and that that class should be the civil servants of the Government. So monstrous a proposal was not to be found in the annals of any despotism which ever existed. To suppose that English capitalists and men of position in India would submit to the provisions of a stringent law, from such a mere boy fresh from college, who had just got an Indian appointment, was exempt, was most absurd. Another reason for immediately considering this question was, that various members of the Council were agitating for enlarged powers of discussion. There were two points on which he hoped their Lordships would bestow especial attention before they legislated on the subject. One was whether it was possible for a single Council at Calcutta to legislate properly for the whole of a vast territory like India. The other was whether non-official Europeans and Natives ought not to be represented in the Legislature. He held that there was at present too much centralization in the administration of India, and that an infusion of local knowledge and sympathies was required. He approved the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1859, that a number of non-official Europeans and Natives ought to be introduced into the Legislative Council. He was satisfied that to retain our Empire in India we must throw open situations of a higher class to the Natives, and strengthen ourselves by their counsel and assistance. The present Governor General had already acted upon this principle with excellent results. These were subjects with which Parliament and the Government must speedily have to deal, and they ought to be put in possession at the earliest possible moment of all the information that
1686
could throw any useful light upon them. Under these circumstances he begged leave to move an Address for the papers set forth in his Notice.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was sufficient to reflect that the subject of the Motion involved the question of legislation for our vast Indian empire to be convinced that it required the most serious consideration. The noble Marquess appeared to be acquainted with the course which the Secretary of State for India intended to take, and to be aware that the right hon. Baronet had stated in "another place" that he hoped to he in a position in the course of the present Session to fulfil the expectations which he held out last year, of introducing a Bill upon the subject. He thought it would not be proper for him, under these circumstances, to enter into the details of a question upon which the views of the Government would be made known to Parliament when that measure was introduced. To a certain extent it was true that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in possession of information which he had sought from the Governor General of India, and other persons well qualified to judge of the matter; but the complete series of papers containing that full information which his right hon. Friend wished to have before proposing to legislate had not reached this country, although he hoped it would arrive within a very short period. Some of the papers of which the Government were in possession only came to them on Friday last; and he thought the noble Marquess precipitate in asking on Monday to have them laid upon the table of the House. He hoped, therefore the noble Marquess would not at that moment press his Motion. With regard to the admission of non-official Europeans and Natives to the Legislative Council, it was a subject of great difficulty and importance, and it was one to which the Government would give the most careful consideration; but he could not enter into any details anticipatory of a measure which it might be hereafter the duty of Government to submit to the House. With regard to the Natives, however, he was confident that the conciliatory treatment extended to them would be one of the highest claims to honour of the present Governor General. Lord Canning, with the full approval of the Secretary of State and of Her Majesty's Government, had inaugurated a course of action towards the Native Princes and Native gentlemen of India

1687
which would form a new era in the history of that country, and develope in those who were the objects of his policy the greatest feeling of gratitude and loyalty. There was no wish on the part of the Government to conceal from Parliament any information which would assist them in arriving at a just conclusion upon this important and difficult question; and before the Bill to which he had referred was presented to Parliament, the fullest information would be laid on the table of both Houses. The Reports of the Committees of the Indian Council moved for by the noble Marquess partook of the character of office minutes in other departments, and were not intended to be laid before Parliament; and as to the other papers he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Motion under the circumstances to which he had adverted.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he thought the noble Earl was quite justified in declining to produce the papers moved for at the present moment, more especially as it appeared that other papers were expected, which he believed would arrive shortly, and which it would be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take into their consideration before coming to any decision. The information, however, afforded by the noble Earl filled him with alarm, for he could foresee clearly that the Bill, if introduced at all, would come into the House of Commons at a late period of the Session, would be postponed from day to day, and would reach their Lordships at a time when there would be an assemblage, probably, not much more numerous than the Legislative Council itself, which, though nominally consisting of twelve Members, seldom mustered much more than seven. He had felt this inconvenience last year in contending against what appeared to be the general opinion of the country, and certainly of the House of Commons, on a question of great importance, when he was really ashamed to divide the House for fear of showing to the public how small a number of Peers took an interest in the matter. Tins Bill was, if possible, of still greater importance, for the Bill was really one to give a Constitution to the great empire of India. He trusted, therefore, that an effort would be made to bring it forward as early as possible.
LORD LYVEDENhoped the Under Secretary for India would give a more definite answer to the House when the Bill was to be introduced. It was not a measure
1688
which need be postponed for the purpose of obtaining the additional information referred to by the noble Earl. The questions to be decided were questions of theory and principle, and all the information requisite to enable them to come to a decision was already before them in the Reports of the Committees of 1813, 1833, and 1852. This Legislative Council, he believed, had been condemned by every one, and all they had to consider, therefore, was, whether they would return to the old system, or whether there was any new scheme which could be proposed. It was a sort of ad captan-dum proposition introduced into the Bill of 1853, and since its establishment it had been the cause of much impediment in the government of India. No doubt there were many papers, such as those containing the opinions of various persons of high authority on Indian matters, which might be produced; but he hoped the Secretary for India would make up his mind to bring in the Bill directly after Easter, especially if it had to be submitted to his Council; for, knowing the lengthy habits of these gentlemen in writing, and considering everything, he despaired of any Bill becoming law this Session.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it should also be remembered, seeing the length to which these Indian authorities indulged in writing, that these papers would be of a tremendous length.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexpressed his willingness, after the explanation of the noble Earl, to withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

DIVORCE COURT AND DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving for a Select Committee to consider the Law respecting the Parties who are entitled or ought to be entitled to sue in the Divorce Court in England and in the Court of Session in Scotland for a Dissolution of Marriage, said he had no intention of entering at present into the constitution of the Divorce Court, or how far additional judicial assistance was at present required. An Act was passed last Session which would expire in July 1862, and by that time it would be seen how far it would be necessary to add to the judicial strength of the Court. At present he would only express his belief that if it had not been for the long Shedden case,

  1689
  Sir Cresswell Cresswell would have gone a long way towards clearing off the arrears. What he wished now to bring before the House was the important subject of what parties were entitled, or ought to be entitled, to sue in the Court. Until very recently marriage was considered indissoluble in this country—that was, no judicial tribunal could dissolve it—but, practically speaking, any person who was sufficiently wealthy might obtain an Act of the Legislature to dissolve his marriage, having first gone through the preliminaries of bringing an action for crim. con. in the common law Courts, and obtained a divorce a mensâ, et thoro in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Having done these things, he might then get a Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament, which must lastly receive the Royal Assent. This generally cost from £1,000 to £1,500. Those who were not wealthy enough had no remedy. A Commission was issued of which he had the honour to be the head. The Committee took great pains to inquire into the subject, and by the assistance of its able Secretary, Mr. Fraser Macqueen, who might be said to have devoted himself to this subject a Report was produced, which recommended that divorce should be entirely withdrawn from the Ecclesiastical Courts, and that there should be a civil tribunal which should dissolve marriages for the cause of adultery. Their intention was that this Court should be open to England and all the dependencies of the English Crown. The law at present existing in Scotland was to be left untouched, and a Court similar to that in England was to be established in Ireland. In 1857 a Bill was passed establishing a Court for England; but, unfortunately, all attempts to extend the change to Ireland had as yet been unsuccessful. The proposal to establish a Divorce Court in Ireland excited great alarm there, and it was then proposed to allow Irishmen to sue in the English Court. A measure for that purpose he himself twice introduced, but it met with successful opposition on both occasions. He had never for a moment proposed to do anything that would encroach upon the rights of the Roman Catholics of Ireland; but the Irish Protestants were consequently left in a very unsatisfactory position, for they could only obtain a divorce by going through the old expensive and unsatisfactory process. It had been decided that Sir Cresswell Cresswell's Court had no jurisdiction in Irish cases. Their Lord-
  1690
  ships were of course acquainted with the case which had recently created so great excitement throughout the country — he meant the case of Mrs. Yelverton. Some time ago that lady sued before Sir Cresswell Cresswell for restitution of conjugal rights. The case was "Yelverton versus Yelverton," and the Judge-Ordinary then said in effect, "this is a Court for England, not for the United Kingdom, or for Great Britain. For the purpose of this jurisdiction Scotland and Ireland must be deemed foreign countries equally with France and Spain." Now, he thought it well deserved consideration whether, for the relief of our Protestant fellow-subjects in Ireland, there should not he established in that country a separate Court for divorce, or whether the advantages of the Court now sitting in Westminster Hall should not be opened to them. Then there was the case of Englishmen residing in India. Believing that the Act would apply to all the dependencies of the Crown, he had imagined that these persons would have been enabled to sue in the Divorce Court at home; but it was laid down by the most eminent authorities that if they had acquired what was called an Anglo-Indian domicile they could not procure a divorce in any English Court. Since 1857 two Divorce Bills had passed this House, and there could be no doubt that this and the other House still had jurisdiction; but the point respecting this Anglo-Indian domicile remained in abeyance. Then, again, the conflict of law between Scotland and England produced lamentable effects. The Scotch Judges insisted on the right to dissolve the marriage of any one who came within their jurisdiction; while the English Judges held that, unless the parties were domiciled in Scotland at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the dissolution was a nullity. The first case was that of Lolley, who, having married an English wife, went across the border and procured a divorce in Scotland. If he had married again in Scotland, the second marriage would have been lawful, and his children legitimate; but, returning to England and marrying here, he was convicted for bigamy and sentenced to transportation, and his children of the second marriage were illegitimate. Thence a rose this strange conflict, that the children of the second wife were legitimate in Scotland and illegitimate in England. Such a conflict of authority led to most inconvenient results. He had, therefore, last Session proposed to enact that a divorce which was valid in any

  1691
  part of the United Kingdom should be valid all over the Empire; hut with this restriction, that in Scotland the right of dissolving marriage should not be exercised unless the parties were domiciled in Scotland. This restriction was necessary, or otherwise the door would be left open to endless confusion. He had the greatest possible respect for his brethren in Scotland, both the Judges and the advocates—no part of the world were there more enlightened men and learned jurists; but on this subject be thought they entertained an erroneous opinion. Not only did they claim jurisdiction in respect of divorce over all persons after forty days' residence in Scotland, hut ratione originis, rations delicti, and ratione citationis. Such claims were incompatible with the laws of independent nations. Story, the great American jurist, laid it down that a jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage depended on the domicile. Yet in "Tollemache v. Tollemache," where there had been a Scotch divorce the parties were divorced again in England. He was anxious that there should be harmony of legislation on this subject. The Scotch Judges had a notion that the English Courts wanted to encroach upon their jurisdiction, and to give much greater jurisdiction to the Courts at Westminster, than to the Court and Session at Edinburgh. He denied the existence of any such wish, his object being that in both countries the jurisdiction respecting divorce should rest on exactly the same principles. He should be perfectly ready, if necessary, to fix on one period of time—say one or two years —and to provide that if there had been during that time a bonâ fide matrimonial residence either in England or in Scotland, the respective Courts should have power to dissolve the marriage. He should have been prepared to introduce a measure at once dealing with the whole subject, but thought it would be more discreet to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, to consist of Peers both of England and Scotland, and he hoped that, as the result of their full investigation, some legislation would take place before the close of the Session. The noble and learned Lord then moved for the appointment of a Select Committee.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he feared there would be a universal combination across the Border to defeat any interfeience with the marriage law of Scotland; but he was not entirely without hope that the Committee would have a good effect, as the Royal Commission undoubtedly had
  1692
  in securing the passing of the divorce law in this country. But with regard to the Scotch divorces there was another difficulty, which it was extremely hard to grapple with, but which he hoped they would get over. It was this: not only did the Scotch Courts claim a jurisdiction over all persons in that country, but they dissolved marriages on different grounds from those on which a dissolution could be decreed in this country. Such an anomaly on such an important subject was a discredit to both countries. No such distinction ought to exist; the question of who should be at liberty to sue in the Court here ought at once to be dealt with. He only pointed out these matters, as he did not think they ought to be too certain that they could achieve a satisfactory result. When the Bill of 1857 was introduced it applied exclusively to England; but he was asked whether he intended to extend it to Ireland, and he answered, "certainly not;" but he added that he intended to introduce a measure of the same kind for Ireland. A change of Government, however, prevented him from doing this; hut he believed that his noble and learned Friend opposite did make the attempt. [Lord CHELMSFORD: Not whilst I was in office!] There was a strong prejudice in Ireland against giving the Divorce Court in England jurisdiction over cases arising in Ireland, though he never could understand the ground of the feeling; for they had now to come to Parliament for a divorce, and the only effect of allowing them to go to the Divorce Court would be to cheapen the proceedings. He himself could see no rational ground why all Her Majesty's subjects should not be enabled to receive the benefits of Sir Cresswell Cresswell's Court, if their misfortunes necessitated such proceedings. The administration of the Court under that learned Judge had given universal satisfaction. He hoped that the proposed Committee would not consist of lawyers only, but that the Members would be so chosen, especially in reference to the localities with which they were connected, as to give universal satisfaction.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that there was a strong feeling in Ireland against the extension of the existing law of divorce, or of the Divorce Court in any shape, to that country. An attempt of a similar kind had been made more than once on former occasions, but he rejoiced to think that it had failed, though recommended on the

  1693
  high authority of the two last Lord Chancellors (Lord Cran worth and Lord Chelmsford). Nor was there any danger that this decided opposition both of the Irish people and their representatives should now be withdrawn. There was more unanimity against it than he ever remembered upon any other subject; and he thought it would be found not less difficult to carry such a hateful proposal now than when it was first introduced. The manners and the morals of that country did not cause any necessity for such a measure. Liberals any Conservatives, Whig and Tory secretaries, and ex-secretaries all combined in opposition and the measure was justly abandoned. If the Committee were moved for simply to collect information he had no objection whatever. He warned his countrymen to be prepared for resistance, he would take an early opportunity of moving for a Return of the number of divorce cases which had come before Parliament from that part of the kingdom. He denied altogether that the English experiment had been successful. He trusted that their Lordships would recollect the peculiar circumstances under which the Bill of 1857 was passed. There was a strong feeling on the part of many against the Bill as a whole; there was a strong feeling on the part of many others against some portions of the Bill; but there was an extraordinary union between those who promoted the Bill and those who suggested Amendments with a view to its rejection; he believed some Amendments were suggested for the purpose of making the Bill so repulsive as to ensure its defeat. This did not originate with his noble Friend Lord Cranworth. He recollected that the measure was proposed by him as a very simple one, as one not intended to alter the law of divorce, but only to improve the tribunal before which such cases were tried, and to put an end to those somewhat discreditable scenes their Lordships too often witnessed at the bar of that House. But when the Bill came to be considered in "another place" the outline of the measure which had been drawn by his noble and learned Friend was greatly extended, and their Lordships were then called on to consider not merely the tribunal but fatally to multiply also the causes of divorce. To what extent this led to an increased number of applications for divorce he was not yet able to state, but there was, undeniably, a continuation of many of the evils for which the Divorce Bill was proposed as a remedy.
  1694
  For instance, it had been urged as a strong ground in favour of the existing Divorce Bill that great harm was done to morality under the former system by the publication of the details of proceedings in crim. con. actions, but he thought no reader of the journals could venture to assert that public morality had gained by the change. He trusted that the Committee would be fairly constituted, and witnesses impartially called, and he then felt confident that he might trust the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, it was quite true that there had always been opposition against the extension of such a measure as that referred to to Ireland; but the truth was, that whenever the matter was discussed in that House, the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), and he alone, raised the opposition. Every Peer in the House who was connected with Ireland was in favour of the proposition except the noble Lord. The noble Lord, no doubt, was influenced by the consideration that Ireland was a Roman Catholic country, and wished to avoid giving offence to the religious feelings and prejudices of the community; but he should bear in mind that the Roman Catholics were not the only persons in Ireland, and that their prejudices ought not to be allowed to deprive the Protestants of Ireland of the benefit of the Act which had been passed in regard to England.
  Motion agreed to.
  And on Friday following the Lords following were named of the Select Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  E. Doncaster.

  E. Caithness.

  E. Wicklow.

  V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore).

  L. Polwarth.

  L. Redesdale.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Panmure.

  L. Monteagle of Brandon

  L. Cranworth.

  L. St. Leonards.

  L. Wensleydale.

  L. Chelmsford.

  L. Kingsdown.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILLS—DISPLACEMENT OF POPULATION.

  INSTRUCTION TO SELECT COMMITTEES.
  THE EARL OF DERBY,in rising to move an Instruction to the Select Committees upon Metropolitan Railways, said:—My Lords, the present hour and the present state of the House are not very encouraging for us to enter upon any lengthened discussion of a subject which possesses no particular attraction in itself, although it is of vital importance to a very large and

  1695
  helpless class of the population. I have adverted to the subject more than once, and I shall not now trespass long upon your Lordships' patience; but I have recently received some curious information which I think is worthy of your Lordships' attention as to the progress that has been made in increasing the density of population in London. I have had placed in my hands some statistics—with the details of which I shall not trouble your Lordships now as they will be printed in a few days—which show the comparative populations and number of houses in the City parishes, both within and without the walls in the years 1801 and 1851. Your Lordships will not perhaps be surprised to hear that the population of the City parishes was slightly smaller in 1851 than it was in 1801, there being a diminution of some 200 or 300 upon a total of 129,000 or 130,000. But it is remarkable that while the population had remained stationary the number of houses since 1801 had not only not increased, but had actually diminished to the extent of about 3,000; and, therefore, it appears that the same population which in 1801 inhabited 17,000 houses, were in 1851 crowded into 14,000 houses. There is something, too, which is rather curious when we look at the respective districts. In the parishes within the walls there has been the greatest decrease in the number of houses—2,776; but then there has been a corresponding diminution of population in those parishes to the extent of 19,000 souls. The result is that the average number of inhabitants of each house within the walls is the same in 1851 as it was in 1801—namely, 7½ to each house; but in the City parishes without the walls, to which the poor have been driven by improvements effected in the Metropolis, I find that the houses have decreased in number about 300, while the population has increased by 19,000. Thus, while the proportion of inhabitants to each house in the inner parishes is 7½ as it was in 1801, in the outer parishes it has increased to 9 and 6–7ths in each house. The figures which I have now quoted have reference to the year 1851; but your Lordships will be perfectly aware that since then great improvements—and great improvements they undoubtedly are—have been going on in the City, the result of which has been to displace a very large number of the inhabitants. In a pamphlet published by Mr. Charles Pearson, the City Solicitor, referring to the immense improvements which
  1696
  have taken place in Cannon Street, Victoria Street, and elsewhere, it is stated—
  "The noble street improvements undertaken by the Corporation have swept and are about to sweep away thousands of industrious artizans and mechanics from their humble dwellings, to make way for the spacious streets and splendid warehouses destined in this age of progress to take their place. To supply the lack of dwellings which these clearances make, the Corporation have recently voted a large sum to purchase land and erect lodging-houses in the neighbourhood of Victoria Street."
  That was a most laudable step on the part of the Corporation; I do not know whether it was taken spontaneously, or whether it was the condition on which they obtained the power of executing these great improvements. I hope it was the former; but, however good may have been their intentions, they certainly have not been fulfilled, and I am afraid great apprehensions are entertained that these projected works will never be executed—at all events on the site originally intended. On Thursday last an official report was made to the Common Council of all the lands belonging to the Corporation which were vacant for building purposes, and after enumerating various sites in Copenhagen Fields and elsewhere the report went on to say—
  "There are also several sites vacant, under the control of the Corporation of London, outside the City—namely, on the east and west sides of Victoria Street, the west side of Saffron Hill, Turn-mill Street, &c."
  That is the particular site where these lodging-houses were to be erected to make provision for those who were ejected by the City improvements.
  "It should, however, be noted that all that portion of the ground which is situate on the east side of Victoria Street and the west side of Turnmill Street, has been agreed to be sold to the Metropolitan Railway Company for the sum of £179,000, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent."
  Not only is the Metropolitan Railway Company about to compete for this ground; but the Metropolitan Extension Company, in its course of half a mile, has served with notice half the population, and marked off half the houses in the parish through which it runs. Your Lordships will observe that it is not only those who are displaced by the railway that have to be considered, but every work of that character necessarily brings with it a large number of employés, who, from the nature of their avocations, are obliged to reside on the spot; and these compete with the displaced population in the neighbouring districts, which are already crowded, and conse-

  1697
  quently raise the price of houses and increase the difficulty of procuring lodgings. It was the consideration of these circumstances which led my noble Friend, the Earl of Shaftesbury, to propose a Standing Order on a former occasion. I have heard from him to-day, expressing his regret that he cannot be present, and his sanguine hope that no effective opposition will be offered to the proposal which I am about to submit. The Standing Order proposed by my noble Friend had reference not only to railways, but to all works of improvement, the character and condition of which were to displace a large portion of the population. He proposed that in all these cases it should be a Standing Order that the case of all Bills proposing the construction of railways and other works, the execution of which necessitated the displacement of a portion of the population, the persons who sought to carry out these improvements should provide residential accommodation equivalent to the number of persons who would be displaced by them. When that proposal came to be discussed it was evident that the application of a general rule of that description would in practice be impossible. But the principle that in deciding whether a particular undertaking should or should not be sanctioned inquiry ought to be made into the circumstances, and whether the promoters were fairly chargeable with the cost of providing residences for those displaced by the improvements, was deliberately affirmed by every one who spoke in that debate, and by none more forcibly than my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. Since I last addressed the House I looked back at the language used by my noble Friend, and I find it was as follows:—
  "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. … Admitting that it might be desirable to introduce a clause embodying the principle of this proposition into particular Bills, he yet thought the laying down of an inflexible Standing Order on the subject to he of universal application to all Bills for improvement." [3 Hansard, cxxv. 410.]
  My noble Friend, I will venture to say, had the entire concurrence of those who heard him, both in the principle which he laid down and in the exception which he took. On that occasion I took the same
  1698
  view as my noble Friend; but I suggested that some general instructions might be framed by which information in each particular case should be given to the House of the proposed amount of displacement attending every improvement Bill of this description. The late Earl of Aberdeen was at that time First Lord of the Treasury, and he suggested that a Committee should be appointed relative to the subject. A Committee was accordingly appointed to inquire into the question, and their labours resulted in the following Standing Order:—
  "That before the First Reading of any Bill for making any Work, in the Construction of which compulsory Power is sought to take Thirty Houses or more inhabited by the Labouring Classes in any One Parish or Place, the Promoters shall be required to deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, a Statement of the Number, Description and Situation of the said Houses, the Number (so far as can be estimated) of Persons to be displaced, and whether any and what Provision is made in the Bill for remedying the Inconvenience likely to arise from such Displacement."
  The object with which that Standing Order was drawn up could only have been that in case, from the circumstances set forth, it should appear to the Committee desirable to insert clauses for the purpose of meeting the inconvenience created by the particular Bill, they should have the power of doing so. But, according to the statement made the other night by my noble Friend, it would appear that Committees were not to examine into the accuracy of the returns made by the railway companies, or to express their opinion with reference to it. If that be the case, then this Standing Order is nothing but a nullity; and it is impossible that such could have been the intention with which it was introduced and agreed to. Lord Shaftesbury used these words—
  "This Resolution would go far to remove the general complaint that was now made; and he had to express his thanks to the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, for the great service he had rendered in the framing of the Resolution. If he might judge by the letters he had received from Mr. Cubitt and others, he was satisfied that by adopting this Resolution their Lordships had gone far towards instituting the best relations between capital and labour that were capable of being made in relation to this subject." [3 Hansard, cxxvi. 1292.]
  It was clearly the intention of my noble Friend and of the House that this Report should not be a mere dead letter, more especially because the class that would chiefly suffer have no locus standi, and in

  1699
  nine cases out of ten it would be absolutely impossible for them to come before a Committee. A. B. might have no legitimate ground of complaint, being a weekly tenant, if he were turned out on account of railway operations or by the voluntary act of his landlord; but when 8,000 or 9,000 persons are simultaneously turned out by the passing of a particular measure it is no longer a case of individual hardship, but becomes a social grievance and of political importance. And it is in that light, and not with reference to the individual case, that I think it important your Lordships should lay down some rule by which, in every instance where improvements are contemplated, it will be the duty of the Committee to inquire into the accuracy of the facts stated, and to see whether there may not be considerations connected with the displacement of a large portion of the population which may not counterbalance the advantage to be derived from the projected improvements. I will take another illustration. The North London proposes a branch from the North Western, running direct to Threadneedle Street through the heart of the City, and reducing the present circuitous route of five or six miles to two and a half. I have been told within the last twenty-four hours by a Member of the other House, a Gentleman with whom I have only the slightest acquaintance, but who takes a deep interest in the subject, and has examined this line of railway, that with one slight exception it will pass in its entire length of two and a half miles through a dense mass of habitations of the industrious classes, and those not of the poorest, but of a decent and respectable character, and will displace according to one calculation 480; to another 800, and to another no less than 1,200 houses. I ask whether the displacement of such a large number of houses is not a fit subject to be considered in Committee, and whether the removal of such a large number of persons may not counterbalance the advantage to the gentlemen on the north side of London of being brought in ten minutes' less time to the Bank of England. I believe that the number of houses which it is stated will probably be taken by that railway is 487, and by some extraordinary calculation it is made out that the average number of inhabitants is only two to each house. These are respectable houses of a decent class. In the City generally the number of inhabitants to each house varies
  1700
  from seven and a half to ten; but yet we are told that here is a line of houses of this class, the average number of inhabitants in which is only two to each house. That is a subject which would legitimately come within the bounds of investigation by a Committee. It was suggested a few evenings ago by the noble Duke opposite the (Duke of Somerset), that no Instruction is necessary, because it is competent to Committees to inquire into these circumstances, and, he seemed to think, to require provision to be made in the outskirts of a sufficient number of houses, and also the running of frequent and cheap trains to bring the people to their labour. I will not discuss the merits of that proposition. It has some advantages, and, I believe, would be found to have some inconveniences; but the question as to whether such a matter comes within the purview of a Committee is one upon which there seems to be a difference of opinion between the noble Duke and my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, because I understood my noble Friend to say that, although the railway companies are bound to lay this paper on the table, a Committee cannot without an Instruction enter into the discussion of, or report to your Lordships upon, the circumstances of any particular case. If Committees have power to inquire into the circumstances and to recommend a remedy, I want nothing more. But, if they cannot do so, it becomes necessary that an Instruction should be given to the Committees which are now entering upon the consideration of an extensive system of internal railways; otherwise the Standing Order which you have laid down as the remedy against so great an evil as the simultaneous displacement of great bodies of the working and industrious classes becomes a nullity—it is a mere form, and nothing more. If, therefore, my noble Friend is right, I confidently and earnestly press your Lordships to sanction an Instruction to these particular Committees to inquire into this subject. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committees on the Metropolitan Railways, now sitting, to inquire into and report upon the Number of Houses and of Inhabitants likely to be removed by the Works of the respective Railways; and whether any Provision has been made, or is required to be made, for diminishing the Evils consequent on a large simultaneous Displacement of the labouring Population."
  LORD EBURYsaid, that the entrance of railways into the heart of London was

  1701
  not altogether so disadvantageous to the displaced classes as his noble Friend seemed to suppose. He had that day been informed by Mr. C. Pearson that he had made agreements with three of the largest Companies to convey 1,000 passengers per day from a distance not exceeding ten miles to London and back for 2d. each; and he had also found persons who had guaranteed to the railway companies the amount which would be required in case the speculation did not succeed. He hardly saw how the desire of his noble Friend was to be realized, because if the Committees were simply to make reports upon this subject, those reports might become as completely dead letters as was the Standing Order. He was afraid that they might, by adopting this instruction, give rise to a notion that this particular social question could be settled by legislation; a notion which, if it became prevalent, would, in his opinion, lead to much disappointment. He was also anxious that their Lordships should do nothing which would at all counteract the great commercial en-terprizes of this country; because by doing so they might diminish the demand, and thus deprive those very persons whom they desired to serve of that which was absolutely necessaryd to their very existence.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that this question should be taken up as a general question, and not with reference to railways only. There were only two schemes for the extension of railways into the Metropolis now before their Lordships, the carrying out of which would lead to the demolition of 100 houses or upwards. He held that the diminution of accommodation for the working classes was due, not to the railways, but to altogether different causes, such as the increase of population, and the substitution of warehouses for dwelling-houses; and if their Lordships endeavoured to obstruct the unavoidable displacement of small houses by large ones, they would be interfering in a most undue manner with the expansion of this great city, of which they saw such great evidences around them, and which was occasioned by the increasing wealth of the inhabitants. The comparison of the decrease of inhabited houses in the City between 1801 and 1861 proved nothing, as it was not till within very recent years that the railways began to penetrate the populous districts of the Metropolis. Indeed, thirty years ago, scarcely a rail-
  1702
  way existed in the Metropolis. When the South Western Company extended its line from Vauxhall to Waterloo Bridge no complaint was made. The question their Lordships had now to decide was not merely whether the instruction proposed by the noble Earl should be given in these individual cases, but whether they were prepared to prohibit any further extension of railway communication in the Metropolis. That was what it amounted to. Were they prepared to deny to the vast suburban population which had settled along the various lines quick and ready access to London, and to put a stop to scheme?, the effect of which would be to facilitate commercial operations, and relieve the streets from the enormous traffic with which they were now overcharged? The proper remedy for the displacement of the labouring classes was to provide easy access and cheap trains to houses suited for them in the outskirts of the City. There were at present a great number of clerks and shopmen who resided in the suburbs and daily came to town by railway to pursue their avocations. The change from the densely crowded unwholesome streets of central London to the open, healthy suburbs could not fail to be beneficial to the working people; and, so far from metropolitan railways inflicting injury by this displacement of the miserable and wretched property through which it ran, they really conferred a benefit both on the labourer whom it forced to migrate to a healthier neighbourhood and to the Metropolis itself. As to the number of houses destroyed by the new lines, that could readily be ascertained by reference to the plans and sections deposited in the Private Bill Office. He hoped these considerations would weigh with the Government.
  LORD REDESDALEcould not admit that the effect of the Resolution would be to stop the formation of railways in the Metropolis. He was sure the noble Earl entertained no such intention. All that he desired was that the Committee should direct their attention to the question of making some provision for the displacement of the working classes, whether by cheap conveyance to the suburbs or otherwise, in order that if they saw any practical remedy they might make it a condition of the undertaking, instead of leaving it to the freewill of the company. He (Lord Redesdale), however, doubted very much whether, if the Motion of the noble Earl was carried, and an Instruction to the

  1703
  Committee agreed to it would result in much good, though it might perhaps induce the companies to make some concession in respect to cheap trains which they might other wise not do. He held precisely the same objections as formerly to dealing with the subject in a general way. He thought each case should be disposed of by itself, for there were many different circumstances connected with each line of railway which would have to be considered. In the case of metropolitan improvements provision could be readily made for the displaced population, because a certain portion of the new streets might be set apart ns dwellings for the working classes. In the case of railways there was greater difficulty in doing this. In some instances, however, the railways interfered very slightly with house accommodation. The Charing Cross and City Terminus Railway, for example, traversed a district covered with warehouses, wharfs, and other buildings of that sort, and not with streets of dwelling houses. He approved the suggestion which had been made that accommodation should be found in the large terminal stations for the people employed there. At present the Standing Order did not produce much benefit, because no persons appeared before Committees to press upon them the necessity of providing for the displaced population. He thought it was very likely that this Instruction would not result in much good, if, as was probable, the Committees thought that the importance of the railways justified the displacement of this largo body of persons, and that the convenience in one way more than compensated for the injury inflicted in the other. It must be recollected that the running of cheap trains could only be secured from the companies before the House. They might force the Charing Cross Railway, for example, to carry persons at a very cheap rate from Cannon Street to Charing Cross, but there would be a difficulty in making the South Eastern Company carry them at the same rate out of the Metropolis. The question, however, was full of difficulties, and each case must be dwelt with on its own particular merits. The fact was that the claims of these poor people were never brought before the Committees at all, and if a question was asked the companies said that they were not prepared to build houses for them, that their money was appropriated to other purposes, and their circumstances were such that they could not become great building spe-
  1704
  culators. He could not suppose that the returns were strictly accurate. He believed that it was even admitted by the railway companies that they enumerated only those inhabitants whom they supposed properly to belong to the labouring classes. If inquiry were made before the Standing Orders Committee probably the companies would be more correct in making future returns. He thought it a very good opportunity for inquiring into the subject, and if by the introduction of provisions into these Bills a remedy, however slight, could be devised, something would be gained; but he believed it would be found impossible to do anything to meet the evil of a large simultaneous displacement of the labouring classes except in a very slight degree. At the same time, even if no remedy at all could be found, he thought inquiry would tend to promote contentment.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees has helped the Motion very much by what he has stated. I admit the evils that exist in regard to the displacement of labourers by public improvements. Since the last discussion I have received several communications, and the result has very much confirmed the view which my noble Friend behind me ventured to state to your Lordships. One communication is from Mr. Harvey, the Commissioner of the City Police, in which he states that the married sergeants of the force find great difficulty in getting proper lodgings, and that he has proposed that the City of London should build houses for them. That is a very proper mode of dealing with the subject, and I hope that to a certain extent it will meet the evil. I stated the other day that there was great difficulty in getting speculators to build houses for the poorer classes, on account of the small rate of interest; but although the facts which I then stated are correct, the information which I have since received gives me better-hopes of something being accomplished in that way. I am told that one charitable lady has provided accommodation for 94 families, and that instead of being a loss they return about 3 per cent on the outlay; and that Mr. Greenhill has also succeeded in providing accommodation for the labouring classes with great pecuniary success. No doubt, there is a great displacement of these classes, but with regard to the evil being so much aggravated by the railways, I have received a letter which I shall take the liberty of reading, because it applies to

  1705
  the particular district to which the noble Earl has again alluded to-day. It is dated—
  "Vicarage, Cripplegate, March 7.
  "My LORD,—You—will be aware that some few days since a petition was presented by Lord Derby to the House of Lords from the incumbent of St. Bartholomew, a district of this parish of Cripplegate, deprecating the passage through that parish of a proposed branch of the Metropolitan Railway. Myself and my churchwardens, together with all the chief inhabitants of any influence in the parish, take a precisely opposite view to that which was thus and then represented, and consider that it is only by the adoption of some such means as that of the passage of a railway that the vice and wretchedness which prevail in the dwellings of the poor in parts like these are likely to be obviated, and those sanitary regulations established which are as essential to morals and religion as they are to health and decency. We further consider that any difficulty to which the poor would be called on to submit in finding appropriate and convenient dwellings elsewhere—a difficulty, however, which we believe to be far more imaginary than real—is worth infinitely less regard than the removal of the physical and moral evils which of necessity arise to the classes in question from their present degading and corrupting mode of daily existence. We have, therefore, prepared and signed the accompanying petition, which we venture to beg of your Lordship the favour of presenting to the House of Lords in our name, with such remark thereupon as your Lordship may think proper to offer.
  "P. P. GILBERT, M.A.,
  "Vicar of St. Giles's, Cripplegate,
  "(Signed for myself and Churchwardens)."
  With regard to the particular Motion of the noble Earl, if it is to come to nothing, as the Chairman of Committees intimates it is likely to do, I do not think I have any great objection to it. But it is throwing a certain responsibility upon these Committees which we ought not to cast upon them unless it is to lead to some good. I confess that I do not think the Committees are likely to imagine a remedy which has failed to suggest itself to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who has devoted his attention for years to the subject, to the noble Earl who has moved this Instruction, and to the Chairman of Committees, whose pleasure it has been to take the subject into consideration. It appears to me that there are only three remedies. One is to force the railway companies to build a corresponding number of houses in another part of the town. The noble Earl, however, has stated the objection to railway companies undertaking duties which do not properly belong to them. Besides, that remedy would not meet the cases of individual hardship, which, after all, is the gist of the matter, because the larger—the
  1706
  social—question must be left to settle itself. The noble Earl has rather exaggerated in saying that 6,000 persons will be displaced at one moment. I think that practically that cannot be the case. The works of these railways must take some time, and the displacement of these persons must be a gradual operation. Another remedy which I think most useful is to require cheap trains to carry artizans from healthy dwellings in the suburbs to the scene of their work, and this we are told is being-carried out by agreement with the City authorities. But, at all events, it may be provided by the introduction of well-guarded clauses into these Bills. The third remedy-is to suspend these great works of metropolitan improvement, and that, for every reason, I strongly deprecate. I am in the habit of travelling on the continent, and. without referring to Paris, as quite out of the question, but taking Vienna, Madrid, Berlin, Munich, and a host of other places, I must say there is no capital of any pretensions whatever where metropolitan improvements have not been more rapid and efficient than in this, the capital of one of the richest and most emergetic nations in the world. I certainly should deeply deplore if these great works of improvement —these helps to commerce and industry— were suspended, and there is a little danger of that by the Instruction now moved. It is quite clear from the Standing Order of Lord Shaftesbury that it is competent for the Committees to enter into this question. It is clear that by this discussion and by the able statements of the noble Earl, this subject will be fresh in the minds of the Members of those Committees; but I should sincerely and earnestly deprecate this Motion if the Committees, feeling at a loss to suggest a remedy, should take the extreme view and altogether suspend these great improvements. If it is clearly understood that this Instruction is not in any degree whatever to operate on the minds of the Committees towards wishing to suspend these Bills, I cannot see any great objection to it, although I think it is superfluous, and not likely to do good. But unless it is clearly stated by the noble Ear], and borne in mind by those who form the Committees, that such is not to be the effect, however reluctant I feel to deal with a suggestion on philanthropic grounds of the noble Earl, I shall feel bound to object to the Instruction being given.
  LORD COLCHESTERthought that the Instruction would only have the effect of

  1707
  carrying out a little further that which was now a Standing Order of their Lordships' House. He was himself Chairman of one of the Committees, and he did not wish to have any additional labour thrown upon him. At present, he believed the railway companies were not sufficiently accurate in the returns of displacements which they gave in, and the enactment of this Instruction would make them more particular. It did not require that the Committee should say what should be done, but merely to report whether anything had been done or ought to be done. He could see no objection to agreeing to an Instruction to that effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that all would acknowledge the careful manner in which the Select Committee of their Lordships' House discharged their duties, but he thought that the question committed to them by the adoption of this Instruction was much too important to be decided by a single Committee. They were, in fact, to say whether the importance of a railway or any other scheme was overbalanced or not by the inconvenience of the displacement which the carrying out of it would create. But why should the Instruction be limited to railways, or, if it were restricted to railways, why to metropolitan railways? On what principle would their Lordships say that the poor of London should he protected while the poor of Birmingham, Manchester, and other large towns should be unprotected? If their Lordships adopted the Instruction he should move to extend it to all improvement Bills without distinction.
  EARL GREYsaid, he did not think that there was any great difference of opinion among their Lordships as to what ought to be done. As far as he had heard, it did not seem to have entered into any noble Lord's head to suspend the Bills at present going on. He believed that these metropolitan railways were among the most important improvements which could he proposed. They would go a long way towards solving the great difficulty of the dwellings of the poor which had been so much discussed lately, and if properly executed would be of great general advantage. On the other hand, it could not he disputed that considerable inconvenience might arise while the work was going on from the demolition of houses, and it could not but be desirable that when Committees were considering these Bills they should also consider whether means could
  1708
  not be devised for preventing these inconveniences. An Instruction of this sort would call the attention of Parliament more pointedly to the subject. No doubt, railway companies were becoming more aware that it was for their own convenience to give large facilities to the working classes; but he doubted whether their attention had hitherto been called very seriously to the subject, and it would probably be very desirable that in each Bill security should be taken that trains for their convenience should be run. It was only that very day that the traffic manager of the South Eastern Railway, in course of his examination before a Select Committee, stated that his directors had made every provision for the convenience of the working classes. Upon this he (Earl Grey) asked whether any train arrived in town early enough to allow men to go to their work by it. The answer was that the first train arrived at half-past seven o'clock. The effect of the Instruction, if adopted, would be to direct the attention of railway companies to the propriety, if possible, of making arrangements for bringing working people from the suburbs at such an hour as would enable them to go to their work at the docks and other places. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) asked why the Instruction was confined to the Metropolis. The answer was because the inconvenience here was tenfold greater than in provincial towns, where there was not the same difficulty in obtaining dwellings for the working classes. As to the formation of new roads they did not create the same inconvenience as the construction of railways. It would strengthen the hands of the Committee if such an Instruction were passed, and he did not believe that its effect would be to suspend any of the useful works which were now proposed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYunderstood then that the effect of the Instruction would he merely to enable the Committees to inquire and report without empowering them to suspend the operation of any Bill, or to propose as a condition of its passing that certain provisions should be introduced. Such a power would he most unjust to railway companies which had brought forward their Bills not knowing that any such provisions would he required, or that they would have to meet before the Committee any difficulties which might be started on the subject of suburban residences or early cheap trains for the

  1709
  working classes. The effect would be to prevent many of the improvements which their Lordships must all be most anxious to see carried into effect, and which had been described as most essential to the salubrity and the morals of the parishes through which these railways passed. Doubtless, the railway companies would make no difficulty in establishing cheap railway trains for the working classes, provided such trains were found necessary; hut, if even they should offer, as the Eastern Counties' Board had offered, to convey working men to and from town for 2d. a-day, the reduction from the day's wages would be so considerable that few, he feared, would avail themselves of this opportunity. He hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) would confirm the view just taken—namely, that the effect of the Instruction would only be to call more prominently to the attention of the Committees Lord Shaftesbury's Standing Order, and that it would not impose on the railway companies conditions which had never been required from them before, and which might force them to suspend the progress of their works. If this, and no more, were the effect of the Instruction, the Government would not object to it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the reason why he confined the Motion to the case of railways, and of metropolitan railways, was, that he wished to limit it to cases which were immediately before the House. He had proposed the other day that a general Committee should be appointed and that a general inquiry should take place as to the effect of all works of improvement in connection with Lord Shaftesbury's Standing Order. To this it was objected that during the progress of this inquiry a number of other works which would necessarily come within the terms of that Order would be placed in difficulty, and that the promoters would not know whether to proceed with them or not. He therefore proposed an Instruction applicable not to railways in general, or to metropolitan railways only, but applicable to certain Bills now before the House, but with an intention to act upon the Resolution in future in respect of all railways and public works likely to be attended by the displacement of the poor. As to the power which he proposed to give to these Committees, it was one which they possessed in every case where the parties came before them, and the ground for the extension of this power was that here, from their peculiar position, the parties could
  1710
  not appear before the Committee, and could not state their own case. If a railway passed through one of their Lordship's estates, even although it inflicted no very serious injury, the person aggrieved might appear and state reasons why the line should be varied, or why another line pointed out should be preferred. He only asked their Lordships to give to the poor a right which the rich possessed already; namely, the right of stating their case before a Committee who might then judge whether provisions might not be introduced diminishing the evil of which they complained. The noble Lord who had just spoken asked that in no case should the Committee have power to suspend these works. Now, in 19 cases out of 20—he might almost say in 999 out of 1,000— such an idea could never enter the minds of the Committee, who would not think of negativing in consequence of this Instruction these or any other works which were referred to their consideration. He agreed that these railways in the main were of great advantage, and he had no wish to interfere with their progress; but he did wish, as far as possible, to reconcile that progress with the interests and the welfare of the inhabitants of the poor districts through which they passed. The Committee would have no power to reject the Bills, but they might insist on the introduction by the promoters of certain clauses for the purpose of diminishing the evils which would be occasioned by the prosecution of these works. This was the case at present with regard to every company. Of course, if the company said, "Rather than introduce the clause we will drop our Bill," that was a question for their own consideration; but if the Committee were not to have the power of insisting on the insertion of particular clauses there was no use in inquiring into the subject. Supposing any such clauses to be inserted, the promoters might appeal against them when the Bill came up for further consideration by their Lordships, or they might drop the Bill. He did not believe it was possible to lay down any rule on this subject, or to say that in every case the Bill should pass, however strongly the Committee might feel that the evils were great and the advantages problematical. In 999 cases out of 1,000, he repeated, there would probably be no question as to the suspension of these works. All he proposed was that the Committee should be empowered in this, as in every other instance, to require

  1711
  conditions for the purpose of remedying any evil which might be pointed out in connection with the displacement of population. He hoped that under these circumstances the Government would not oppose the Motion, especially as it appeared that the Committees were willing to undertake this inquiry.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.