Sitting of 11 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Party Processions (Ireland); Piccadilly Improvement; Trafalgar Square; Marriages (Ireland); Soap Allowances.
2o. Joint Stock Banks Regulation; Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Merchant Seamen; Controverted Elections.
Reported. — Sudbury Disfranchisement; Detatched Parts of Counties; Butter and cheese; Actions for Gaming Discontinuance (No. 2).
3o. and passed:—Assessed Taxes Compositions; Colonial Postage.
Private.—2o. Willenhall Chapel Estate.
3o. and passed: — Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Stone's Estate; Necton Tithes.
PETITIONS PRESENTED, By Sir R. H. Inglis, from St. Anne's, Westminster, for better observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Rashleigh, from Deanery of Triff Minor, for Alteration of Parochial Assessments Act.—By Visct. Clive (20 Petitions), against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. — By Sir E. Knatchbull, from Sir J. E. Honeywood, for Inquiry.—By General Lygon, from Worcestershire (6), against the Repeal of the Corn Laws—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Mallow, for Inquiry (Tolls and Customs, Ireland).—By Visct. Clive, from Churchstoke, in favour of County Courts Bill. — By Captain Plumridge, from H. Crease, against Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors Bill. — By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Middleton (Corks), and by General Johnson, from Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, for Alteration of Poor Law Amendment Act.—By Sir James Graham, from Yeovil Union, and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,

623
for same; and from Edmonton Union, for Repeal of all Local Acts. — By Mr. T. Buncombe, from J. Mazzini, for opportunity of Refuting Charges.—By Mr. G. Craig, from North British Railway Company, and by Mr. C. Russell, from Chester, Liverpool, and Birkenhead, against Railways Bill.—By Colonel Wood, from Road Trustees of Brecon, against Turnpike Trusts (South Wales) Bill.

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF DISSENTERS.
Mr. Christierose to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to certain Civil Disabilities which affected Dissenters from the Established Church. One of these was, their exclusion from practice, as advocates in any of the Courts of Doctors' Commons. He wished to ask, whether in any future measure respecting Ecclesiastical Courts, the Government would take steps to remove this disability. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) when he returned to office in 1834 had, in an address to his constituents at Tamworth, declared that he was opposed to the policy of continuing any Civil Disabilities on Dissenters. Bearing that in mind, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of Government to take any steps for the removal of the Disabilities to which he had referred?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that his attention had not been called to the subject to which the hon. Member referred, until he received the note apprising him of the hon. Member's intention to put his question. With respect to Gray's Inn and the Middle Temple, he was not aware that there were any regulations affecting Dissenters more than any other class of subjects. It was the practice that those who had not taken degrees, or spent a certain number of terms at one of the Universities, should be obliged to spend five years from the time of putting their names on the books of the Inn before they could be called to the bar; but this practice applied to all persons, without distinction. As to the deposit of 100 l. by those who had not taken University degrees, it was also a general regulation, which was adopted because the party entering the University had to pay a sum of nearly the same amount. His (Sir R. Peel's) general opinions on this subject were those which he formerly entertained, and to which the hon. Member had referred, but his attention had not been called to the subject since. He would, however, direct his attention to it during the recess, but let him add, that it would be better for all parties that whatever was done should be
624
done with the cordial consent of the presiding authorities, rather than be forced upon them by legislation.

INCENDIARY FIRES IN NORFOLK.
Mr. Wodehouserose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, of which he had given him notice, respecting the Incendiary Fires in the county of Norfolk. He would, in the first instance, call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the case of two men named Knowles, who were tried at the last Spring Assizes before Lord Abinger, in Norfolk, for incendiarism. They were found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years' transportation; but soon after they received a full pardon and returned home. Now, if he were to ask on what grounds that exercise of Her Majesty's Prerogative had been advised, and that the right hon. Baronet should decline stating those grounds he should bow and acquiesce in that determination; but he did not ask the question. Whatever were the grounds, he must say that prosecution for incendiarism was rendered almost useless in that county. The subject had been brought under notice in the other House, a few evenings back, and it was there stated, as was the fact, that the course pursued with respect to the two men he had named had placed the noble Lord, the Lord Lieutenant of that county in a position of great responsibility. It was the earnest desire of that noble Lord to treat the poor of the county with great kindness, and he was the more inclined to do so as such kindness would tend to mitigate the severity of the Poor Law. He would also state, that whether the outrages which took place in the county of Norfolk were on manufacturing or on agricultural property, it was the great object, as it was the bounden duty, of the Lord Lieutenant to keep the peace; but if he failed in that, or if his efforts did not give satisfaction to the Government, he was ready at once to place his high office in their hands without a murmur or without a sigh. He hoped the Government would bear the state of the county in mind. In a few days from the present he should be called to his county to act on the grand jury, and probably, when the calendar was examined and found very heavy, they (the jury) would have to hear a rebuke for not having performed their duty. The magistrates would do their duty — the

625
Lord Lieutenant would do his duty; but if that noble Lord were to remain, he (Mr. Wodehouse) would ask in his name, in the name of the high sheriff, in the name of the magistrates, but, above all, in the name of the agricultural population of the county—in their names he would ask, and what he was about to ask of the Government would, he was sure, be admitted to be only fair—it was, that justice should be fairly and impartially administered. They asked no more, they sought for nothing vindictive; all they sought, and they were fully justified in seeking it, was, he repeated, that justice should be fairly and impartially administered.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he was placed in a situation of some embarrassment by the course which his hon. Friend had adopted. His hon. Friend had given notice of a question, and he had waited patiently for it, but no question came, that he had heard. There was indeed some not very clearly defined charge against him (Sir J. Graham) as to the manner in which he had administered justice in the department over which he had the honour to preside. If his hon. Friend anticipated that, he would have declined stating the grounds on which he had advised the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative in the pardon of the two men who had been tried before Lord Abinger at the last Spring Assizes in Norfolk, he had judged most correctly; but, without stating those grounds, he would say that that advice had not been tendered to Her Majesty without a full consideration of the case, and without a firm conviction that the ends of justice would have been defeated if they had not been pardoned. As to the request made by his hon. Friend respecting the administration of the law, he begged to assure him that he had the most anxious desire that it should be administered fairly and impartially, tempering justice with mercy. Mention had been made of the name of a noble Lord—the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Norfolk. Now, in justice to that noble Lord, he must say that he had received from him the most valuable assistance in his efforts to preserve the peace of his county—that the noble Lord and himself had worked in a most harmonious manner—and that up to the present moment he was not aware that any feeling of dissatisfaction existed in the mind of the noble
626
Lord on any subject connected with his high office.

RAILWAYS—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for the adjourned debate an the second reading of the Railways Bill having been read,
Mr. J. Brightsaid, that having given the Report of the Committee on which the Bill was founded the fullest consideration, and having read the Bill, and listened to the debate of the other evening with his best attention, he had been forced to the conclusion that the measure which proposed to give to the Executive such extraordinary powers in respect to all future Railways, was not conducive to the public interest. He had listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, and in that speech, extending as it did over more than two full hours, he could perceive no other purpose than an intention to disguise the real objects of the Bill rather than to explain them to the House. If he (Mr. Bright) had understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he stated that it was not intended to give any powers of purchase to the Government, or to include the principle of Government purchase in the measure, and that the Clauses relating to purchase had been introduced rather with the view of leaving the question open and Parliament unfettered, than to subject them to any decision at present upon that point. But the right hon. Gentleman also stated (though that was somewhat inconsistent with the other parts of his speech) that he conceived the question of purchase, or the power of purchase, was one of the most important in the Bill, and that if the House could be induced to come to an agreement upon that point, the remaining Clauses of the Bill were but of minor consequence, so much so, indeed, that the Government had not decided whether or not they should postpone them, or some of them until another Session. He found, then, and the Report of the Committee bore him out in his opinion, that this power of purchase by the Government was, after all, the most important feature of the Bill, and every one who understood the English language, and took the trouble to read the Bill through, could not fail to arrive at the same conclusion. Out of the forty-eight Clauses which the Bill contained, no less than sixteen related to this power of purchase, and of those sixteen, eight distinctly mentioned that power in terms it was impossible

627
to misunderstand. Clause 7, which had been already alluded to, enacted—
"That whatever may be the rate of divisible profits in any such Railway, it shall be lawful for the Lords of the said Committee, if they shall think fit, at any time after the expiration of the said term of fifteen years, to purchase any such Railway, with all its hereditaments, stock, and appurtenances, in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty, upon giving to the said Company one calendar month's notice in writing of their intention."
Clause 8 had this passage—
"And the Lords of the said Committee shall exercise the option of purchase by this Act provided in regard to the Railway belonging to the said Company, within three years after the time when such revised scale shall have ceased to be in force, the amount of purchase money to be paid for the said Railway, in default of any agreement to the contrary between the Company and the Lords of the said Committee," &c.
Now, he could not conceive what meaning could be attached to these words, unless it was to sanction the principle of purchase, and give the Lords of the Committee the power of forcing agreements to purchase under the Act. In clause 9, again he found—
"And be it enacted that if the said option of purchase shall be exercised by the Lords of the said Committee in respect of any Railway, the Company from whom such Railway shall be purchased shall deliver up the same, with all its lands, tenements, hereditaments, works, and appurtenances, in a good and sufficient tenantable repair, with a good and sufficient stock of carriages, engines, horses, and other working stock, live and dead, for carrying on the ordinary traffic upon the said Railway, to the Lords of the said Committee, upon payment of the purchase-money thereof in manner hereinafter provided."
And Clause 12 ran thus—
"And be it enacted, that when any Railway, in respect of which the Lords of the said Committee shall exercise the said option of purchase, shall be under lease, the annual divisible profits of such Railway shall be estimated according to the provisions hereinbefore contained, in the same manner as if such Railway were not under lease."
So also as to Clause 14, he found it proceeded—
"And be it enacted that in the event of the purchase of any Railway by the Lords of the said Committee, under the provisions in this Act in that behalf contained, the purchase-money, or so much thereof as shall be payable under the provisions herein contained, shall be paid to the Directors of
628
the Company of Proprietors of the said Railway, and shall be distributed by such Directors among the shareholders in the same Company, rateable according to their respective shares and interests therein."
In Clause 16 also it was enacted, that after the payment of the purchase money, &c. &c., the railway, with all its appurtenances,
"Shall belong to and shall by virtue of this Act be absolutely vested in Her Majesty in right of her Crown, and shall be taken to be part of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown within the survey of the Exchequer in England."
And so on through not less than eight Clauses of the Bill there was specific mention of the power of purchase; and if it was not intended to give the power, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain why so much of the Bill was occupied by enacting and describing that power, which was not to exist or be exercised at all. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider for a moment how Acts of Parliament were generally interpreted, and whether they were to be construed by their own words, or by the explanations given by the Minister of his intention when submitting the Bill to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well, that if, fifteen years hence, the question of what was the true interpretation of the Act should come under discussion, it would be held that Parliament had sanctioned the principle of purchase, and that the application was merely a question of degree. This had been the case on other questions. Some years ago Parliament, had sanctioned the principle of legislative interference with the hours of labour in factories. This year it had been proposed to carry that interference still further; and those by whom that greater interference was advocated, contended that the principle having been once sanctioned, the application of it was a question merely of degree, and not, therefore, important. The right hon. Gentleman had argued the other evening, that the Executive could not of itself buy up railways, but that Parliament must be appealed to on the subject, as Parliament would have to vote the money. They all knew Parliament would have to find the money, but they also knew that if this Act were passed, and Government bargained for the purchase of any particular railway, there would be very great difficulty, at a future day, in dissuading Parliament from finding the money to put into force the provisions

629
of an Act deliberately sanctioned by the Legislature. Besides, in Clause 7, the right hon. Gentleman provided that only one month's notice of the purchase should be given, and was it to be supposed that this one month's notice would furnish sufficient time for the Parliament to inquire into the desirableness, and confirm the policy of the purchase of a railway? Would it not amount to this?—that the Executive would decide the question of purchase or no purchase; that having determined on the former, they would give the month's notice, and then come to Parliament for the money, expecting that it would be voted as a matter of course. He would maintain that this Bill did sanction the principle of purchasing railways by the Government. Whatever the intention of the Government was, no man could read the Bill without coming to that conclusion, and that was the conclusion that the Railway Directors and the public had come to. It would have been better, he thought, if the right hon. Gentleman had himself considered the full effect and meaning of those Clauses relating to the power of purchase, instead of asserting that those who had read them were wrong in the construction they had put upon them, and that they were influenced in their opposition to the measure by interested motives. He did not believe that the principle of purchasing these great works by the Government was one that was deemed by the public to be advantageous. It was altogether a new principle in this country. Private enterprise had done much for this country—much more than the Government or the Executive had ever done, and more than private enterprise had perhaps done for any other country. There was a wholesome absence of interference on the part of the Government in this country in all those matters, which experience showed might wisely, safely, and beneficially be left to private individuals, stimulated by the love of gain and the desire to administer to the wants and comforts of their fellow men. If, however, we were now for the first time to depart from this long recognised principle—if this great change proposed by the Bill was to be made, he wished to know upon what principle it was to be made, and why? No case had been made out hitherto for the adoption of the course proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the charges exacted by the railways of this country as being larger than those of the Belgian and other foreign railways. And he had also
630
spoken of the high profits and large per centage realised upon the capital invested. But there was no proof whatever, taking the gross amount of capital sunk, that anything like exorbitant profits had been made, perhaps not more than 5 per cent., and he doubted whether it was so much, taking all the railways together. From a statement which had been for some time before the public, and which, as it had not been contradicted, he supposed might be taken as correct, he found that four only out of the seventy railways in this country paid 10 per cent., one pays 7, two pay 6½, four 5, and all the other fifty-nine paid from 4 down to nothing. There was no proof, therefore, that railway proprietors were grossly exacting from the public, as was charged against them, or that the public were suffering from high charges and oppressive conduct on the part of the Railway Companies. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of third-class trains. Now, no man more than himself wished that the working classes should have every accommodation on railways, and the full enjoyment of the improved means of communication which they afforded, but, in his opinion, to no class did the railways give (even under the present regulations) more facilities of travelling than the working classes. That this was the case in the manufacturing districts he knew, and no one who was acquainted with those districts would be of a different opinion. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had adverted to the monopoly of the Railway Companies. The right hon. Baronet said:—
"There was an impression now prevailing, that the railway interest was exceedingly strong—that the monopoly was a very powerful one—and that it was extremely difficult to propose any measure for controlling them. He (Sir R. Peel) was inclined to think that they were going too far, and that their monopoly might be very great; but he would advise them to husband their strength."
No less than four times in that speech had the right hon. Baronet charged the Railway Companies with being monopolists, and all the odium which attached to that character he had thrown upon them. Now, of all men, he had least expected to hear such a charge from the right hon. Baronet, who had not been usually so strongly opposed to monopolies, nor so courageous in the denunciation of them. The railway monopoly—if it were one—had conferred great benefits on the community;

631
it gave them a cheaper and more safe mode of travelling. Even the Report on which the Bill was founded admitted the great benefits the railways had conferred upon the public; and yet the right hon. Gentleman had taken that Report on which to base a law for interfering, in the most extraordinary, unprecedented, and, as he (Mr. Bright) contended, uncalled for way, in the whole management and regulation of railways and the profits of their proprietors. Now he found from a published statement which had not been disputed, that within the year 1843, 70 railroads constructed at an outlay of 60,000,000 l., had conveyed 25,000,000 passengers 330,000,000 of miles, at the average cost of about 1¾d. a mile, and with but one fatal passenger accident. It was most unjust, therefore, to charge against these great establishments the odious term of monopoly. There were no establishments in this country carried on with such admirable management and arrangement as the railroads. There was nothing in the Government establishments which could compare with them in the nicety and admirable propriety of their management. Government ships were not so well arranged. No person who went in Government packets could say but that the conduct and accommodation which he met with on board those packets was not inferior to what was to be met with in packets under the management of public companies. Again, the management of the Post Office was not such as would justify them in placing in the hands of the Government the conveyance of passengers. What a long time had passed before a reduction in the rate of postage was obtained; and how long since had hon. Gentlemen opposite ceased to rail against the penny postage? At that very moment the mails from London to Manchester were sent by a roundabout circuitous way, instead of going by a way which would convey them an hour earlier; and though representations had been made by the Corporation and Chamber of Commerce of Manchester over and over again upon the subject, no remedy had been provided. He was convinced that if under this Bill the management of railways should devolve upon the Government, it would not be long before the public would deeply repent having entrusted them with such a power. But there were other questions besides those of economy connected with this subject. There was the constitutional question whether it were
632
fitting that any Government should be entrusted with the enormous amount of patronage which this Bill, by giving them the control of railways would place in their hands. The London and Birmingham Railway alone employed from 1,500 to 2,000 persons, with salaries varying from 70 l. to 1,000 l., and they spent more than 200,000 l. for wages, stores, tools, and a variety of other expenditure. The Great Western Railway must pay more than this even, and the whole of the railways together paid an amount that was enormous; and if the management of these establishments—the expenditure of these large sums of money, and the patronage of so many appointments, were to be placed in the hands of the Executive Government, would it not give them a great and dangerous influence over the various electoral bodies, and affect the freedom of the constituencies of the country. Would not the power of conferring 1,500 or 2,000 appointments between London and Birmingham, with salaries varying from 70 l. to 1,000 l. a year, naturally give Government a very powerful influence over the constituencies of those places, and of every borough near which the railway passed. See what was the case already in regard to the Post Office patronage. He (Mr. Bright) was at Kendal on the day of the last election, and was then informed that the guard of the mail coach, on passing through that town, was taken from the coach, and compelled to vote for the Government candidate, to whose political opinions it was known he was opposed. Where, then, would be the independence of the constituencies, if the Executive Government had the railways under their control, and employed the patronage which would thus devolve upon them as they too frequently did in other cases? The same effects which now resulted from their influence in such places as Rochester, Pembroke, Devonport, and elsewhere, would exist in every borough through which a railway passed. And if the system which was found to be so prejudicial to the independence of the constituencies in those towns in which it was now exercised, was to be extended to almost every town in the kingdom. There was nothing in the shape of reduction of fares, that could at all compensate the public for the injury that would be thus inflicted upon the country. He wished to see a powerful Government — powerful in the opinions of the people, but not in the amount of patronage at its disposal, and

633
the number of places it could hold out as rewards to those who supported them at elections. He was prepared to contend—and the experience they had had proved the fact—that the evils attending railways, as now managed, were very small indeed, and the inconveniences to the public of rare occurrence. To no one had railways been of greater advantage than to himself. For the last two years he had travelled as much by railways as any man, and for civility, propriety of conduct, safety, convenience, and fairness in every respect, he could say that no establishments in this or any other country could stand a comparison with the railway establishments of England. But even if there were some evils, the remedy proposed by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade was an inefficient one. It was well known that Government Establishments were worse managed than any others, and less in harmony with the wants and feelings of the people. But beyond that the constitutional principle of the Bill was a dangerous one, and he should oppose it upon that if there were no other ground of objection. There was another point to which he would advert in a few words, viz., the revision of fares. He admitted that when Railway Companies had the power conferred on them by Parliament to pass over everybody's land, and take people's property for the public advantage, they might be properly called on by Government to submit to some regulation; and he was not prepared to say that a revision of the fares charged was not one of them. But unless care were taken the application of the power might be attended with considerable danger. By the Bill seven years was the time within which no revision of fares was to take place; now that, he thought, might be a dangerous provision, as preventing those improvements by which the public would in the end benefit. He knew a case in point. A friend of his (Mr. Bright) had an improvement in railway wheels, by which the great wear and tear which, as now constructed, they were subject to, would be in a great degree avoided, and of course the expense of working them diminished. Suppose any railway, whose profits were at, or approaching to, 10 per cent. should be desirous of taking up that invention, they would not think it prudent to do so, because, if the saving should increase their profits beyond the 10 per cent., the Government would have the power of interfering to compel them at
634
once to diminish their tolls or to surrender their line. If, however, the term were fifteen or twenty-one years, instead of seven, the Company would feel justified in making the experiment. He thought, however, that there would be no difficulty in making arrangements with the Railway Companies as to the revision of tolls, if that were the object desired; he was not authorised to say as much, but from what he knew of these Companies, he was sure there would be no difficulty on that point. But if the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to give the Board of Trade the power of purchase, merely as a threat in terrorem to force the Companies into agreements with the Board of Trade, he would assure the right hon. Gentleman that he altogether mistook the character of those bodies. He knew they would rather meet the Board of Trade now on the subject than after the Bill should have passed. Now, as to the third class passengers, he lived upon a line that had a greater third class passenger traffic than any other—that was the Manchester and Leeds line. No population in any district had derived so much benefit from railway communication as that amongst whom he lived. Some objections had been urged, he believed, against this railway at its first establishment, with regard to the accommodation afforded to third class passengers; but there had been great improvement of late years, and the Directors had become convinced that their best interests were identified with those of the public, and that the greater the inducements they could offer to all classes to travel by their line the greater was the profit to the proprietors. He would suggest to the Government, as there were other means of obtaining all the control that was necessary for the public interest over railways, that the Government should abandon this novel and obnoxious principle of purchase. Under all the circumstances of the case, and considering that the Railway Companies had expressed their willingness to meet the Government fairly and openly, he thought the Government would do well to consent to postpone the measure until next Session. In conclusion he would make one remark on the tone adopted by those who had spoken in favour of the Bill. He must say he did not think it right to cast a slur on railway proprietors with respect to the opposition to this Bill. It was most unfair, and it was not true that the opposition to the measure was based on sordid and mercenary motives,

635
and was confined, as had been stated, to agents and others who transacted railway business in Parliament. The opposition was general, and rose from an apprehension which was increased by the anxiety of the Government to press on the Bill at that late period of the Session, when it had been so short a time before the public and the parties interested. To the Railway Companies he, for one, entertained a feeling of gratitude he was not able to express: if he thought they had done wrong, he would not ascribe it to a tendency to do wrong, but to one of those errors to which all men and all bodies of men were sometimes liable. They were, no doubt, liable to error, but on all occasions they had evinced a laudable anxiety to do right. The charge of monopoly, as against these bodies, was most unfounded; they had none of the vices of monopolies about them; on the contrary, they were amongst the greatest benefitters of mankind. Monopolists never benefitted the public, and he would call upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and his friends around him, when they charged the Railway Companies with being monopolists, to look about them and see if there were not other monopolies of a much worse character which were much more deserving of his attention. He had no wish to go into other questions, but he desired simply to defend those whom he believed to be amongst the most useful and meritorious body of men. These were his views; and, after considering the subject fully, and reading with attention all that appeared in the Report of the Committee, he had come to the conclusion that the power of purchase was bad in itself, and not to be tolerated; and as to the minor parts of the Bill, if those only were necessary, it would be far better to postpone the measure until another Session, when the Railway Companies would be prepared to meet the Government on fair and equitable terms. Under these circumstances, he should vote for the Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Seymourhaving been a member of the Railway Committee, was anxious to state the grounds on which he should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill. All the Committees that had been appointed to investigate the subject of railways had come to the unanimous opinion, that the interests of the Railway Companies were not so identical with the interests of the public, that the public were to be left entirely at the
636
mercy of the Companies without their being subjected to any control whatever. The whole system of rates and fares which was introduced into every Railway Bill was a proof that Railway Companies could not be left uncontrolled, but that some degree of control was necessary. Then, if control were necessary, he asked, was that control to continue the same in degree for ever,—was it to be permanent, and for all future time, and was there to be no means of revision? He wished to know, as every Railway Company came to that House for powers to interfere with property, to take away the grounds of the rich and the poor, to deprive many parties of land for which no adequate compensation could be given, and interfering in a thousand ways with the private rights and all the associations connected with those rights,—whether it was not just and fair that the public should be guaranteed certain advantages? After suffering their ground to be taken would they let them have no share in the benefit? On that ground he thought there was a right of revision over Railway Companies. He could not, however, conceive that any interference would be just to those Companies, except that which considered the amount of their profits. He thought not only their expenditure, but their profits should be considered, or else they would unjustly deprive men of a return for the outlay of their capital. He admitted it would be possible for some Companies so to adjust their expenditure as to limit their profits to 10 per cent. and thereby prevent the interference of Parliament. He thought the Government should have the option of purchasing the railways in such cases; he knew of no other way in which the power of revision could be secured and rendered effectual. It was said that the interests of the public could always be trusted to the interests of the Companies, that the Companies could always adjust their charges so as to give the greatest amount of accommodation. The contrary had been proved in every case. It had been constantly and repeatedly shown that the profits of Railway Companies were not identical with the accommodation they gave; that it was to their advantage to carry a few passengers at a high rate of charge, instead of a greater number and at a low rate. On that account, he said, revision became necessary, and for that reason Parliament must provide that the public should have a share in the benefits which accrued from railways. With respect to the principle

637
of the Bill, which made a particular provision for the interests of the poor, he was of opinion that all in that House were agreed the moment had arrived at which an attention to their wants and interests was necessary. The main principle of this Bill was to establish future revision by Government; the rest of the Bill consisted of the machinery which was considered necessary to carry out that principle; and if, when they got into Committee, any better means could be found by which that revision could be secured, so that the public might gain the benefit they were entitled to, he should be most willing to give it his cordial assent.
Mr. Bernalsaid, this measure was so peculiarly important on many considerations, that he could not refrain from delivering his sentiments upon it. He would have passed by all those attempts at insinuation which had been thrown out, that every Gentleman who had felt it incumbent upon him to express dissatisfaction with the principle of the measure had an interest in some Railway Company; but he thought it a ridiculous principle, that where an hon. Member was disposed to object to any particular measure, his vote, or his speech, or his sentiments, should be challenged as proceeding from personal interest. He thought railway proprietors might well give the results of their experience and state the information they had acquired for the benefit of those Members who had not turned their attention to the subject. He therefore, felt it necessary to apologise, when he declared, that he did not possess, nor ever possessed any share or interest in any Railway Company whatever. This was one of those Bills the principles of which must be considered in its details. There were three principles contained in it: first, the power of revision over particular railways hereafter to be constructed; then, the power to be given to the Government of purchasing any particular line; and, lastly, that which proposed to make it a popular measure, the giving a facility to the poorer orders for travelling in third class railway carriages at a reduced fare. As far as he was acquainted with the sentiments of the House, there seemed to be no one adverse to this popular principle. Though he agreed that accommodation should be provided for the poorer classes of our fellow-subjects, that proper third class carriages should be provided for them, and that the scale of fares should be moderate, still he thought they ought not to declaim all at once against
638
Railway Directors, accusing them of being misers, extortioners, and men grasping for profit. He would ask, how were the humbler ranks provided for previous to the introduction of railway travelling? How were they provided for outside stage coaches? And as to their facilities for travelling, when he recollected the old heavy waggons on the Dorchester road, or the North road, he did not know any class of society who had been more directly benefited by the institution of railway than our poorer brethren. Labourers and persons of small resources, had formerly but very limited means of transport, beyond those afforded by mere walking. Moreover, artizans and others, condemned by their occupations, to the fatigue, confinement, and deteriorated atmosphere of densely-crowded habitations, were now, by the cheap and occasional facilities offered by different Railway Companies, enabled to partake of the advantage and amusement of excursions, which hitherto had been utterly denied to them, as if they had been, as it were, the privileges of only their more opulent fellow-subjects. Now, he would go to the main point of the Bill — namely, the principle of giving any future Board of Trade, or any future Government, the option of purchasing any line of railway; a principle which he termed one of centralization. Now, he asked hon. Gentlemen, when they considered the great improvements that had taken place in this country, all of which were the result of private speculation—when they looked around them and considered the private undertakings, when they looked at the grand result of the whole computed by its details, he asked, whether this principle of centralization which was calculated to stop all private speculation, would limit the enterprize and the prosperity of the country? This principle, it was said, was to be introduced after a lapse of fifteen years; but, he said, they ought to look at the measure as if it was to commence to-morrow. The Board of Trade might come down upon any unfortunate Railway Company, the benefits of which might have been reduced to 5 per cent. Such a power as that he decidedly objected to. When the railway question was first mooted, there might have been a culpable degree of negligence on the part of the Government; they suffered the thing to take its course; but what they now proposed to do was to crush in the bud the rising hopes of the proprietors of those railways which were just commencing.

639
From communications that he had received he understood many Railway Companies had been embarrassed by the sense of coming danger, or by the suspicion of a sense of danger. He asked, then, what was the monopoly so dreaded? Did the Government propose to interfere with the Great Western Railway—or with the South Western Railway — existing monopolies? No; all they proposed by the Bill was to interfere with any present established railway, when any branch line should be constructed—they only wished to catch them in the net they had been making. Now, as to this additional power which the Government would be invested with, onerous as the cares of the Government were at that moment, could they suppose they could conduct ten different lines of railway, with boards, clerkships, and other contingent patronage—were they to imagine that a body of clerks, sub-clerks, agents, and sub-agents, all under the control of the Board of Trade, would not exercise an enormous influence over the elections of the country? With respect to the revision of the railway fares, he was informed that some of the Companies were anxious to have this supervision over their finances established, whilst others were suspicious of the interference of the Government, and refused to admit such a principle as that of subjecting their financial affairs to public inspection, such as that would prove to be. There were, however, weekly returns made at present of the traffic and number of passengers on the different railways, and these were published in the different papers. With a little extension, these returns might be made the means of an harmonious arrangement between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies for coming to a periodical settlement of the accounts. But the Bill now before the House was not likely to produce those harmonious effects; it had excited suspicion, alarm, and dislike amongst the Railway Companies; it had occasioned a great deal of distrust among the embryo Railway Companies; and many projected lines would be completely checked by its effects. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware he had taken a most dangerous step, and it was no excuse for him to allege, as he understood might be alleged, that the origin of the measure did not rest with the Government, but that a measure similar in principle to the present had been found in the department at which he was the head, and which had been sketched out by the predecessors
640
in office of the present Ministers. The Bill in its present shape, was objectionable under every aspect in which it could be viewed, and he therefore would offer it his hearty opposition.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that he was prepared to defend the vote which he had given on a previous occasion with respect to this Bill. He objected to the tone which had been assumed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He did not complain of the allusion made to himself by his right hon. Friend, but he complained of the allusion which he had made to an independent set of Gentlemen in that House, whom he had described as being the unconscious instruments of crafty designing persons out of doors. Surely his right hon. Friend could not think that such men as the hon. Member for Reading and those hon. Members who acted with him—that such men as Mr. Saunders and Mr. Hudson, whom his right hon. Friend praised so much—surely he could not think that when such men as these—men of ability and capacity—met to express their strong opinions against this Bill that they were the unconscious instruments of crafty and designing agents out of doors. His right hon. Friend had said that after the course that had been pursued—after the manner in which the opposition to this Bill had been got up, he would not consent to postpone the Bill, and his right hon. Friend had turned to him (Mr. Colquhoun), and asked him if he had read the third Report of the Committee, and his right hon. Friend had said that the third Report was a short Report, and had been laid before the House months ago. Now, he had read the third Report so far back as April last, and if he were to show to his right hon. Friend the marginal notes which he had made on it, he was sure that his right hon. Friend would consider them to be rather plain than complimentary. There were parts of the third Report to which he had not the least objection, but there were two principles mentioned in that Report which called for that strong expression of opinion which they appear to have elicited. His right hon. Friend had asked him why, if there was anything in that Report to excite alarm—why had there been no stir—why had there been no move until now? The answer to that was plain, they all knew that there were many Reports—many of them very bold Reports indeed,—which slumbered in the Library, and lay there entombed in perfect

641
silence, stirred by nobody. Now, he believed, until this Bill was brought forward that nobody thought that any measure would be founded on that Report. His right hon. Friend had said, was it not surprising that if this measure was so objectionable, that persons connected with railways had, until now, made no stir in the matter. Now, nothing could be more unwarrantable than for his right hon. Friend to come to that House, and with imperfect information on this point, to mislead the mind of the public. As early as the 29th of June the railway press had protested against the principles embodied in the measure. Week after week, long before the appearance of the fifth Report, the Railway Chronicle had been circulating warnings with respect to the recommendations of the Report. [The hon. Member read an extract from a number of this paper of the 29th of June, which contained a warning with respect to this intended measure, and referred to similar warnings which had been previously given by the same paper.] Yet, notwithstanding these repeated warnings, his right hon. Friend seemed to tell them that nothing had been sounded into the ears of the Government with respect to this Bill but the harmonious sounds of public approbation. His right hon. Friend said, that, were he to postpone this measure, twelve months hence, there would be a still stronger opposition to it than at present. Why, what did this prove? If the fears and doubts of those who opposed the measure were groundless or exaggerated, a year's time would have the effect of dissipating or allaying them; but if they would not be so dissipated and allayed, would not that be an additional proof that they were neither exaggerated nor groundless. Surely, if misrepresentations had been circulated respecting this Bill, these misrepresentations would be put down by free discussions. If his right hon. Friend was satisfied that in a year hence the opposition to this Bill would be stronger, was it not a proof that there was something in the principle of this measure calculated justly to excite disapprobation? He had been informed that the hon. Member for Manchester had intended to bring forward a Motion on this subject with the concurrence of the railway proprietors, but he understood that the hon. Member for Nottingham, on his own responsibility, and without communication with the railway proprietors, was to make a Motion, Therefore, so far as the railway
642
proprietors were concerned, they would not be responsible, and he was sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham would see that on himself alone would rest the responsibility of his Motion. His right hon. Friend had stated that it was a farce to say that this measure had given a shock to railway property, and he said that he would be able to show that since this measure had been brought forward railway shares had risen; and his right hon. Friend, with his usual ingenuity, had cited in proof of his assertion that the Great Western shares had risen in value some hours or days after the railway deputation had had an interview with the Government, and had ascertained its intention to proceed with the Bill. This was a very inconclusive mode of arguing, for suppose he were to take the converse side, and to assert, that the measure had operated most injuriously on the railway community, for the Caledonian Railway shares, which had been at a premium of several pounds per cent., before its promulgation, had sunk to a discount after the Government's intentions had become public, whilst the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway shares had been rapidly falling from the same cause,—this mode of argument would be manifestly unfair, for neither in the latter any more than in the former case, had the Bill produced any effect, the rise in the value of the Great Western Railway shares having been produced by the failure in another place of a Railway Bill, calculated to oppose the traffic of that line of road. Besides this, the state of the share-market could not be fairly adduced as systematic of public feeling with respect to a Bill under consideration, for that market was governed more by the exigencies and contingencies of capital and by the state of the money-market than by any other cause, and he might, with just as much reason, tell the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to withdraw his measure, because a broker had informed him the share-market was dull, as the right hon. Gentleman could tell him that the Bill ought to pass because Great Western shares had risen in value. He would now read what the Spectator newspaper said upon this subject, and he thought that the opinions of a calm, disinterested and enlightened observer was entitled to attention, [The hon. Member proceeded to read an extract from the Spectator newspaper, in which the writer stated that 56,000,000 l. of railway property would be subject to the operation of this Bill, and said that if the

643
projectors of those railways could have anticipated that regulations of this sort would be adopted, few, perhaps, of the present railways would have been executed.] The Bill before the House had two great objects,—one to give the Government a right of revision, and the other to invest it with a right to purchase. [Mr. Gladstone: The Bill gives the Parliament, and not the Government, the right to purchase.] The remark of the right hon. Gentleman was wide of the argument which he was about to sustain. He would put a case, and suppose that in the year 1834 the Government of that day had brought forward the Poor Law Amendment Bill, with all its machinery complete, with the exception of giving a power to levy money for the poor-rates, and had called upon the House to pass that Bill, which would, to all intents and purposes, be wholly inoperative and dormant; but suppose that, in the following year, the Government had come down to the House, and by one vote obtained the power of levying a poor-rate, in that case the whole of the dormant machinery of the Poor Law Bill would have been at once called into action. When the Government, therefore, brought forward the present Bill, he contended that a most important step towards an act of legislation of the nature he had pointed out had been taken. Whether that step was for good or bad, if the Bill were passed, the country would be upon the threshold of the experiment to which he had referred. All that would then be necessary to complete it would be, for the Minister to come down on a supply night with an estimate ready prepared for the purchase of a railway, and to tell his supporters that the question was one upon which the Government staked its existence. He made these observations without any reference to recent events; he spoke from a conviction that he was only anticipating the course that would be followed, and he asserted, that in the contingency to which he had referred, the Government would have the unlimited power of purchase, and that it would, moreover, always, in its supporters there, secure an advantage in dealing with every particular case which no individual Railway Company could ever hope to have. In many cases it was obvious that they would have a very large majority, and that an important decision would be placed at the peril of a single vote of that House, proposed in Committee by the Government, upon an estimate, and only opposed by a slender and divided opposition
644
on the part of individual Members not immediately personally concerned. If once, under such circumstances, they let the Board of Trade open the door to all the power and patronage which would follow, there would be no knowing where the Government would stop. No doubt they were fully alive to their interest. It was remarkable that not only the present President of the Board of Trade, but also the ex-President, influenced no doubt by old official feeling, were both the most strenuous advocates of the measure. He said that under such circumstances it would be most dangerous to pass any measure of this sort upon which they had not at least many months to deliberate. They talked of "monopoly." It was obvious that all Companies with a large amount of capital were difficult to compete with; and it was also obvious, that with respect to any sort of competition with them there was always a tendency to compromise on the part of the rival interests. The Water Companies of the metropolis were an instance of this. They always began by quarrelling with each other, and, as a shareholder had remarked to him the other day, they invariably terminated their squabbles by some arrangement injurious to the public; but still competition was the clear remedy of all such grievances. Why were the charges, for instance, of the London Dock Company so reasonable? Because they knew that if their charges were excessive, there was a certain margin of profit which would induce other Companies to embark in rival speculations. If Parliament found that in the case of a railway—the Grand Junction, for instance—a Company was charging inordinate fares, it was competent for Parliament and the Government to interfere with a view to favour by its sanction some competing line. What would be the consequence? Long before the new line was completed, the old one, most probably, would adopt an equitable scale of charges. The argument of monopoly, therefore, was a bugbear, and afforded no reason for the introduction of such a Bill as this. But, further—he thought parts of the Bill likely to operate injuriously. Let it be recollected that a Government might, under this Bill, take a railway into its own hands, reduce its charges until it became unprofitable, and then throw it back, a ruined property, upon the hands of its former managers. Again, a railway at its outset might perhaps be so restricted that it would only pay a dividend of 2 per cent., but

645
at the expiration of a certain time, in consequence of a confluence of branch lines, and from other causes, it might become profitable. Nevertheless, the Government, under this Bill, might take the line into their own hands at the original value, and, perhaps, in a time of great and general depreciation in the securities might throw a number of its shares upon the money-market, to the injury of numerous individual interests. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, said he would sooner hear the Gracchi talk of sedition than railway proprietors talk of competition; but he (Mr. Colquhoun) would sooner hear the homilies which Robespierre used to deliver on religion than the Government proposing schemes to take mercantile enterprises into their own hands. The experiment had been tried over and over again; and, from the King of Holland, who turned sugar dealer, to our own Government, it had only proved this, that Governments had no business to interfere in mercantile concerns. Mr. Laing, in his examination before the Committee, stated his opinion that where railways were profitable concerns, the Government might purchase them; and from that the House was left to infer how very sanguine an opinion of profit the Board of Trade entertained upon this subject. But Captain Lawes proposed that the Government should buy up all the railways in the country, saying there would be great economy in the management and great saving of expense, and he calculated that saving at 25 per cent., but afterwards reduced it to 10 per cent. Then the same Gentleman seemed to be afraid that some parts of the country would have no railway communication at all unless the Government took it in hand; but that was in the face of the most notorious fact, that in Belgium they were obliged to travel immense circuits because the Government ran their lines only through those parts of the country that were profitable, and left the other parts untouched, but which private enterprise would enter and be satisfied with a moderate profit. Captain Lawes also proposed, that private Companies should construct the railways, and then the Government should step in and purchase them. In answer to a question from the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, whether he thought that ultimately all railways would come into the hands of Government, his answer was—"Quite so." And when the
646
right hon. Gentleman further asked him whether he thought there would be a sufficient inducement for private parties to make these railways if they were allowed to keep them for a continuance in their hands, his answer was to the same effect. Such was the theory of that hon. Gentleman. It must be remembered that Railway Companies started at a time when all landed proprietors were strongly opposed to them—when all had a perfect dread of railways being near their property; and then let them consider the expense of railways in this country as compared with those of Belgium and France. In those countries, if they wished to run a line of railway across the kingdom, they could do it with no other expense than that of construction; but, in this country, they were obliged to go backwards and forwards and take the most extensive lines to avoid various estates. It was quite obvious that Railway Companies were put to great expense by that process, and they must remember likewise that, fourteen or fifteen years ago, they had not the same things which they now have in their favour. Why, the Eastern Counties Railway cost us much as 10,000 l. a-mile for the purchase of land, in consequence of the enormous sacrifices they were obliged to make to the proprietors of land through which the railroad ran. Parliament had entailed great expenses upon these Companies, and yet they would now turn round upon them, and say, "You have incurred a vast expense of 32,000 l. a-mile on the average (the cost in Belgium being only 7,000 l. a-mile), and now we will take them into out own management." To say that, was to forget the elements of expense which they themselves had occasioned by their own Parliamentary arrangements. Let them remember, too, that in the United States railways did not cost more than 4,000 l. a-mile, and yet with our enormous expense of construction, our fares on goods and passengers were lower than those which were charged in the United States. It was the same in the case of the French and Belgian railways; and yet they proposed to substitute for the present system a Government system, which they said was wise and cheap. The hon. Members for Finsbury and Coventry said, by this measure they would obtain public economy find public advantage. But had those hon. Members looked into the state of things in Belgium? In that country the capital for making the railroads was borrowed at 4 per cent. and

647
they received only a dividend of 2½ per cent.; the other 1½ per cent being made up by public taxation. If their railways had cost the same as ours, then they would have received only 1½ per cent., and the other 2½ per cent. must have been made up by a tax upon the public. Suppose that system had been followed here when railways were first made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to ask of the House a vote of 2,000,000 l. to make up the deficit in the railway communications of England, and the public would have been taxed to that amount, in order to obtain that economy of fares which some hon. Gentlemen so anxiously sought for. Upon those grounds he objected to this Bill; and, if it were carried, he could only anticipate that which they had all condemned—a competition between the Government and private companies so unfair, so intolerable, so ruinous, to railways, so unjust to the public in the long run, so unfair to all classes, so full of patronage, corruption, jobbing, and mischief, that he could not consent to give any other vote than the most direct negative to the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that when he looked to the railway map and saw how England was networked over, and that the same thing was fast extending in Scotland, he thought the time was come when Parliament ought to interfere, and he gave the Government every praise for having boldly interfered by introducing this measure. He would refer to statements, which would show at what expense third class passengers were conveyed, and he believed the House would then see how necessary it was that some changes in the present system should be made in respect of that class of passengers. He found the following remarks on this subject, in that influential journal, The Times. [The hon. Member read several extracts from the article to which he alluded, and which were to this effect:—That communications had been received from several correspondents, imploring the conductors of The Times to advocate the cause of the poorer class of railway travellers; that it appeared that the directors of all the great lines of railway were as parsimonious as they could be in providing accommodation for the passengers by third class trains; and that this parsimoniousness was manifested in a greater degree on the Great Western Railway than on any other line. After referring to several statements as to the time occupied in performing
648
journeys by third class trains, the article stated, that unless those facts were satisfactorily explained, the result must be to bring such undertakings within the managerial scope of the Board of Trade.] Much had been said of the influence exercised by public opinion in bringing Railway Companies to their senses; but, although these remarks appeared in The Times in the early part of last winter, no change had taken place. He found from Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, that on the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway third class passengers were not provided with seats, nor was luggage allowed to be placed in the third class carriages, lest it should be used for seats; while the Manchester and Leeds Railway Company thrust goods of every description into the third class carriages, leaving the passengers to shift for themselves. He could show the House that there was a systematic plan of conveying second and third class passengers for a certain distance on railways, and then of "dropping" them, in order to induce them to proceed by first class carriages. [An hon. Member moved, that the House be counted, but it being found that more than forty Members were present, the business proceeded.] He would now state to the House the rate of fares for 100 miles, charged by several Railway Companies for third class passengers. On the Liverpool and Manchester Railway the fares were 16 s. 8d. per 100 miles; on the London and Birmingham Railway, 12 s. 8d,; on the Great Western, 10 s. 4d.; on the Dublin and Kingstown, 5s. 6d.; on the Manchester and Leeds, 8s. 4d.; and on the Glasgow and Greenock, 2s. 3d. The rate per mile by the third class carriages, was, on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, eight farthings; on the North Union, seven farthings; on the Newcastle and Carlisle, seven farthings; on the Grand Junction, seven farthings; on the London and Birmingham, six farthings; on the Eastern Counties, six farthings; on the North Midland, six farthings; on the Lancaster and Preston, six farthings; on the London and Blackwall, four farthings; London and Greenwich, four farthings; Midland Counties, four farthings; South Eastern, three farthings; Edinburgh and Glasgow, three farthings; and the Glasgow and Greenock, one farthing. He hoped that the working men of this country would not cease to petition Parliament until they obtained safe, and comfortable, and cheap conveyance by railways, and were allowed

649
to take with them a reasonable quantity of luggage. Hon. Gentlemen would see, from the list he had read, that on the Glasgow and Greenock Railway third class passengers were conveyed at the rate of one farthing per mile; and that Company found that their conveyance was attended with so little expense that they expressed their pleasure that it was in their power to do a great amount of good, while they were obtaining a return for their capital; and intimated that they would be glad to convey a much larger number of passengers at the rate of a farthing per head per mile. He wished to call the attention of the House to the course which had been; adopted by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. That line of railway was opened in 1830, and its extent was thirty miles. In the first instance the first class fare was 5s.; it was then raised to 6s.; and at the present time it was 7s. The second class fare, when the railway was opened, was 3s. 6d.; it was afterwards raised to 4s. 6d., and now it was 5s. Such was the liberality of the Directors of that Company that there was not a third class train running between Liverpool and Manchester. The working classes might travel between Glasgow and Greenock at the rate of a farthing a mile, while between Liverpool and Manchester, they were compelled to pay 2d. a mile. He found that two of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee on whose Report this Bill was founded—Mr. Baxendale and Captain Lawes—had recommended the conveyance of large numbers at low fares in preference to the conveyance of small numbers at high prices. He (Mr. Wallace) fully coincided in that opinion; and it was with a view to promote competition that he gave his support to this Bill. He was decidedly in favour of competing lines; and he could not conceive how any objection could be entertained to such competition. He thought the fair remunerating return that might be expected by railway proprietors for their capital was 6 or 7 per cent. The proprietors of the Liverpool line, however, received 12 per cent, and they had laid out large sums on the erection of expensive hotels, which were of no service whatever to the poorer classes of passengers, and for the support of which they ought not to be called upon to pay. He thought no reason could be shown why they should not have a competing line of railway to Liverpool. He believed that in many cases it was so contrived that trains
650
on the connecting lines between different railways should not meet at the stations; and the consequence frequently was, that unless the second and third class passengers chose to pay first class fares, they were subjected to considerable delay. He understood that this practice prevailed on the Dover and Folkstone line. He believed, also, that a systematic opposition had been adopted to the conveyance of the mails at the cheapest rate, and in the most expeditious manner. In 1837, a Committee sat on this subject. He, and if he was not mistaken, the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Somerset), sat upon that Committee. The Committee to which he referred came to the conclusion that it was expedient that power should be given to the Post Office authorities to run their own engines on any railway, with a train carrying a limited number of passengers, without being subject to the payment of tolls. He was always an advocate of that system. He considered it necessary, in order to prevent any abuse, that thy profits derived to railways with respect to the mails should to subject to proper control. If he had any complaint to find with the Bill, it arose from the circumstance of the measure not going half far enough. He would wish the Bill to deal immediately with existing railways. He should be glad to see the Bill extended, taking by valuation any line of railway, as they did other species of property. He should like to see the experiment tried on the railway between London and Liverpool, or between London and Dover. He had no particular predilection as to which. He should have no objection if the Government made a line for themselves, in order to facilitate the communication between England and Ireland. He would support any one of these plans, if brought forward immediately. He believed that the matter had been brought under consideration in a manner calculated to excite the notice of the country. He did not care whether the railways were placed under the control of the Board of Trade, or any other Board, he did not care by what name they called it. He trusted soon to see the present system altered for one more consonant with the feelings of the country. He should give his cordial support to the present Bill.
Mr. C. Bullerwished to state the grounds upon which he should give his decisive opposition to the Bill. Having formerly expressed sin opinion that railways might become subject to general management, and the altered state of circumstances

651
having induced him to come to a different conclusion, it would not become him to speak with asperity of those who still entertained that opinion. Still he must remark upon the extraordinary tone of imputation towards others, and of self-laudation as regarded the Government, which had been assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in his last address to the House. It would appear from that speech as if the opposition to the Bill had been got up with the most basely interested motives by a considerable number of Railway Proprietors in that House, and by their parliamentary agents, whom the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard as his most formidable opponents, and that the only virtuous and patriotic body concerned was the Government, who were solely actuated by that which the right hon. Baronet sometimes told the House was the only consideration that entered into his mind—"a sense of duty"—and that they stepped forward now only to protect the public against a mass of interested parties leagued against them. He (Mr. C. Buller) had heard a good deal of this tone of self-laudation on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, and he was sick of it. Even if the present Government were right in stating themselves to be in opposition to private interests against the public good, still he could not help contrasting their present conduct with that during their ten years of opposition. He could not share in those feelings of animosity and suspicion towards Railway Proprietors which were so readily avowed by some hon. Gentlemen. He could not view them as public enemies, as the right hon. Gentleman assumed them to be. Whenever he (Mr. C. Buller) travelled by a railway in by far the most comfortable public carriage he had ever travelled in, at three times the rate of speed that had ever been attained on a common road, and at the same rate of expense that used to be changed in a stage couch, he could not but think that Railway Companies had done good service to the country, and deserved respect and thanks. It would not be well rashly to interfere with so great a benefit as the railway system. It was undoubtedly the greatest addition to the comfort and convenience of the people that had ever taken place in our times. It was very easy for the hon. Member for Greenock to retail stories against Railway Directors, or particular shareholders. No doubt there were evils in the management of the present
652
system, but were there no evils in the system that was proposed to be substituted? He regarded those evils as so great, that it behoved the House to consider the subject attentively, before they sanctioned any interference. But his great objection was, the being called upon to legislate upon such a subject in such a hurry. Were they to throw aside all considerations of the necessity for mature deliberation and full information before deciding upon interfering with a very important interest? Were they to throw aside these considerations, and adopt any plan which, at this period of the Session, the Government might choose to put forth? There had been, he admitted, other important subjects sufficient to occupy the attention of Parliament; but it had never entered his head that the Government would bring forward such a Bill for the first time in July, founded upon five Committee reports, and call upon the House to give their assent to it. When the provisions of the Bill were considered, it would be found they went the entire length of countervailing one of the great systems upon which commercial affairs had been conducted, by substituting Government for private management; and it established interference with private property to an extent unprecedented in legislation. Now, it might be possible that this was required, but he advised that they should not enter upon the subject hastily. Let the question be placed fully and fairly before the public. Let public discussion be observed, and the opinions of practical men taken, and if Government changes were necessary, let them be made after due deliberation. At the first sight, he had a great objection to the Bill, because it appeared to him to be contrary to all our habits and institutions, and not generally in accordance with the spirit of an usage, that undertakings hitherto carried on by private enterprise should be taken up by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the inoperative nature of the Bill, but it could not be supposed that the Bill had been so drawn as to be clogged with inoperative Clauses. The first Clause rendered the tolls of future railways liable to revision. Then there was the 16th, which is a most remarkable Clause, inasmuch as it not only allowed a general notice to be given that railways might be purchased at the end of fifteen years, but it stated in whom the property was to vest—it was to vest in the Crown. But above all, there was the 38th

653
Clause, which was exceedingly stringent, and by which the Government was to get the control over all existing railroads as well as those hereafter to be made. The public were quite right in the interpretation that had been put upon this Bill, that it laid the foundation of a system by which Government were to take a great portion of the railways into their own hands, and not only that, but the 38th Clause gave the Government the power to make contracts with existing railroads, for it enacted that it
"Shall be lawful for any Railway Company to enter into contracts or agreements on behalf of the Company with the Lords of the said Committee, binding the Company to such terms as may be agreed upon with the Lords of the said Committee, either in regard to subjecting the Company to all or any of the provisions of this Act, or to lowering fares, or affording additional accommodation, or to giving security for the completion of future undertakings, or to any other thing whatever agreed upon between the said Company, and the Lords of the said Committee."
Couple that Clause with the power of revision, and with the fact, that whenever an existing Railway Company had to apply to Parliament for an increase of power, or for extension of their line, they were subject to the revision of Parliament. Now what was this Clause, but a power to the Company to enter into agreements with the Lords of the Treasury, and place the power in the Board of Trade, instead of in Parliament? The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to contend that a Government interference with these matters was contrary to our habits, and adverse to that system under which this country had prospered beyond all the world. It was truly extraordinary that at this day it should be necessary for any one to stand up in the House of Commons to vindicate the advantage of private enterprise in public works over Government management of them. It now seemed, however, that that maxim was contrary to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and he was bound to say, that they had shown a great itch for meddling in such matters. He did not wonder that his right hon. Friend, the ex-President of the Board of Trade, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who now filled that post, for it seemed necessarily inherent in that office to believe that no affairs could be properly conducted, except under the official red-tape system. What public undertaking was there which had not been better carried out by private enterprise than by a Government?
654
Our turnpike roads were formed by private enterprise, while those of France were made by the Government, and the consequence was that ours were far superior. The posting system in France was in the hands of Government—was it equal to ours? The lighting of towns in England was done by private associations, and was the lighting of any towns comparable to ours? Then there was that great system of canals with which this country was intersected; those were not formed by the Government, but by private individuals. Even the buoying and lighting our coasts was not left to the Government, but was done by the Corporation of the Trinity House. That great work the Bedford Level was a work of private enterprise, and not of a Government. Then how had the Empire itself been extended by private exertion? The United States were not planted by the efforts of a Government, but of private individuals. If those things were done in the old times by our ancestors, it was not now that we were going to put ourselves in leading-strings under a Government, and throw aside all those principles under which the country had so greatly flourished. [Lord Stanley, we believe, here suggested voluntary emigration.] The noble Lord boasted of this wonderful voluntary emigration as carried on under the auspices of the Government, but it was to be questioned whether it would produce effects like the settlement of America. [Lord Stanley had alluded to private enterprise.] He hoped the noble Lord would apply that principle to railways. He could not but feel surprised at the conduct of the hon. Member for Grcenock—that he, who had all his life attacked that one public department which pretended to be the carrier for the public—he who had attacked one Postmaster General after another, only diversifying his censure by representing their various shades of incompetency—that he should come forward and desire to place Railway Companies under the management of a public officer similar to the Postmaster General, was indeed astonishing. Now, if this Post Office, for example, had been a matter of private competition, or managed by private individuals, could it be believed that it could have been conducted so inefficiently as it had been? But there were worse departments than the Post Office. Look at the Admiralty, the last, body to adopt any marine improvements, who retained their prejudices against steamers after they had been adopted by everybody

655
else, and persisted in retaining their 0-gun brigs, that were called coffins, not only from their external appearance, but from their carrying their passengers sooner or later to an untimely grave. Why the packets established by private enterprise crossed the Atlantic in a third of the time occupied by the vessels the Admiralty persisted in employing. But it was thought by some that if this Government interference with railways was established, the public interest would be taken care of; and the hon. Member for Greenock seemed to imagine that all the poor people would be carried at the rate of a farthing a mile. But with the experience we had had of Government, did it appear that there was that disposition to cheapness on their part? Look at the old mail-coaches, for example. For a long time, even when they were the worst coaches on the road, they were the highest priced. He would take another instance; you have Government packets from Calais to Dover, where the passage was the shortest across the Channel, the passage from Dover to Boulogne being three or four miles farther; but the packets going to Boulogne were cheaper than those going to Calais. Private steamers from London to Boulogne charged a less price than the Government packets from Calais to Dover. He was not accustomed to stand up in that House and recklessly, and without reason, applaud the wisdom of our ancestors. He did not say that everything they did was right, but neither did he foolishly say that everything they did was wrong; but if they could discover that the principles upon which this country had hitherto acted were sound and consonant with reason and justice, they should not lightly throw them aside for the sake of a system which had been as yet untried. Whenever they put a great branch of the public business into the hands of the Government there was ever found an apathy and a resistance to improvement, and, above all, great political jobbing. He conceived, that past experience was by no means calculated to incline them to transfer the management of these great undertakings from private enterprise to Governmental management. He, however, acknowledged that this was not the chief reason why he objected to the present measure. His main reason for opposing the system of centralization was, because he considered it to be inconsistent with the best characteristics of our national character. The English were a self-relying, a self-acting people. They were not accustomed
656
to look to the Government for their bread, or to turn to them in every emergency. The system of centralization tended to make men machines instead of making them powers; it made them slaves instead of freemen. It was alleged as a powerful argument in favour of this Bill, that it was a great measure of interference on behalf of the poor of this country. They were told that by the 25th Clause a step was, for the first time, taken to secure a cheap conveyance for the poor. Now, he was exceedingly delighted to see such a course taken as this. It was perfectly in accordance with his own principles that the Government should in such matters as this interfere for the benefit of the poor, and to secure to them some of the benefits arising from the civilization and improvement of modern times; but he must own that he was not prepared for any Government proposing to provide a benefit for the poor in such a manner as this. If the House came forward and said that the Government should provide a conveyance for the poor man, he could understand it, because he should suppose that it would be at the expense of the public; but what did this generous Bill do? It provided for the poor man at the expense of the railway proprietors. A railway might be productive, or it might be wholly unproductive, and, indeed, might be carried on at a great loss, but still the proprietors were always to be taxed for the benefit of a poor man. This was not a system worthy of the legislation of this country. If it was intended to provide for the benefit of the poor, the country ought to do it at their own expense, and not at the expense of private individuals. But, in truth, he did not understand how this Clause in the Bill was to work. How was this distinction between the rich and the poor to be drawn? Whenever the present railways made the third class at all comfortable, what was the consequence? Why, a great many Gentlemen travelled in that class. There could be no provision made which could secure exclusively a benefit of this kind to poor men. He should like to ask a question, which might be considered as rather having a personal relation to himself, and Gentlemen might suppose that he was thinking more of himself than of the great object of this debate, by asking it; but still he should like to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was the "Jack Cade" now? It was not proposed in the Factory Bill that the master

657
manufacturers should pay the same rate of wages for ten hours labour as had been paid before for twelve. Those who advocated that measure, did not say that their benevolence should be at the expense of the masters; but that it should be borne either by the poor themselves, or by the public, by a proportionate increase in the price of goods. He must say that the proposition contained in this Clause, came with an ill-grace from the men who charged the advocates of the Factories Bill with being the Jack Cades of the present time. He (Mr. C. Buller) always thought that the charge against Jack Cade was, that he endeavoured to settle the price of all commodities, and that he determined to cheapen the quartern loaf and the barrel of beer. But what did the Government of this day do—they who raised the cry of Jack Cade against the supporters of the Factory Bill? Why, they came forward and proposed to cheapen the cost of conveyance of the poor man, not at the expense of the public, but at the cost of private individuals. He would admit that it was an exceedingly right thing that the Government should provide for the cheap conveyance of the poorer classes of the people; but those who proposed to limit the hours of labour ought not to be met with the cry of "Jack Cade," by the Government who brought forward such an extreme proposition as that contained in the 25th Clause of this Bill. The tendency of the Bill would be rather to encourage than suppress the present railway monopoly, for what must be its effect? For some time to come, it must uphold the monopolies of the existing railways. Take the railway in which he himself was most interested, the Great Western Railway. It had at the present moment a perfect monopoly, as far as it could have it, into the county of Devon; it had a monopoly of conveyance to Exeter. Now, what was the security which the country possessed against that monopoly becoming oppressive? It was this, that the South Western Railway ran down to Southampton, and then there was a good coast line from Southampton to Exeter. Now, it the Great Western should abuse the powers it possessed, and should attempt to extort enormous profits from the public, that would immediately lead to the construction of a competing line, and thereby bring down the charges to a level with the ordinary profits on capital. Nothing could be effected by the Bill in the way of preventing the existing monopoly, but, on the
658
contrary, it would tend to uphold that monopoly by preventing the formation of competing lines. There was another very important reason why the House should not interfere, with the management of railways at this particular moment, and that was, that there was a great prospect of a material change being made in the system of working railways. By a very able Report of some of the most eminent engineers, it was admitted that atmospheric railways were perfectly practicable. The plan advocated by them had received the sanction of the highest practical and philosophical authority in Europe—M. Arago. Now, if that plan should be adopted, and should succeed, the whole system of railways would be altered, and henceforth, where-ever you could get a turnpike road, you might have a railway. Was the House then prepared, while having before them the prospect of such a contingent and possible change, on the pretence of protecting the public, to impose such restrictions on the future improvement of railways, as should prevent so great a benefit resulting to the country? The whole object of the Bill seemed to be to prevent improvements on existing railways, and to prevent the formation of new ones. The existing railways would not like to be brought under this Act. They would not be able to ask for new powers or make a new branch line without bringing themselves under this Act. He trusted he had not occupied too much of the time of the House in bringing these views under their notice. He thought he had addressed to the House arguments of sufficient weight to induce them to feel that they ought, at least, to pause before they adopted a Bill which would irrevocably abolish the present system of railway management. He believed that the mischiefs stated to result from the monopoly of railways were exceedingly hypothetical. The present system was very different from what it was five or six years ago. Then there existed only certain main lines of railway, but now the phrase was, that the whole country was covered with a net-work of these railways. That of itself was a safeguard against any of the evils of monopoly. What he contended for, therefore, was, that the House ought not by the adoption of this Bill, to deprive the public of that safeguard until they were assured upon the best authority, and from the fullest information and discussion, that they had hit upon some definitive plan that should secure to the country

659
the good management, the further improvement, and the cheapness of railways and railway travelling. He begged at the same time to be understood that he perfectly adopted the principle that railways should be under the control of the Legislature. Certainly subject to that control which was imposed by law. He never heard that trade of any kind was to be free from law altogether. But his great difference from the advocates of this measure was this—adopt, if you please, regulations, but do so by legislation, and not by transferring the power of the Legislature to the Executive Government. Bring forward your plan. Surely legislation on such a subject as this deserved the consideration of one recess—the discussion of one Session. Let there be a Bill brought forward next Session, in which should be given in a legislative form the alterations and restrictions it was the wish of the Government to put on railways. To any such measure as that he (Mr. C. Buller) would give his most serious consideration, and should be prepared to adopt whatever might appear necessary to protect the public. But what he asked the House not to do was, not in a hurry to press such a Bill as this, which relieved the House from the trouble of legislation altogether, and handed over the entire control and management of railways to the Executive Government.
Mr. S. Wortleywished to guard himself, at the outset, from being supposed to acquiesce in the assumptions of hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill as to the likelihood of any injury to private enterprise of the value of which he was thoroughly sensible. They were not, however, called upon to decide whether these undertakings should be carried on by the Government or by private parties. All that was asked was that Parliament should reserve the option of dealing with such undertakings in future; and this seemed as just as it was prudent: but, then, it was said, if this were all, why have a whole machinery of Clauses? To this the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had truly answered, that if any words could be devised by which the immediate operation of the measure should be excluded, and a mere reservation alone secured, he would adopt them. To affirm merely, that Parliament should have the power hereafter of dealing with the matter would be nugatory; as Parliamentary
660
powers could not be limited by the words of particular statutes. The object of the Clauses in this Bill was not to enact any plan, but to pledge Parliament to the railways that such should be the utmost extent to which they would be dealt with. If he thought that this Bill implied one-half or one-tenth part of the assumptions made by Gentlemen who opposed it this evening, he should have been one of the foremost to obstruct its progress; but because he believed there had been a total misconstruction of the purport of the Bill, and because he thought the proposal was one which he could vote for without any injustice to these parties, he gave his assent to the second reading. Amongst other assumptions, gentlemen took it for granted that, supposing this plan to be sanctioned by Parliament at a future time, it must not only be used to protect the public in individual cases, but must necessarily be part of a great and extensive system by which the whole management of railways would be undertaken by the Government. He admitted no such consequence; and if he did, he must say, as far as the management of railways was concerned, that, as at present advised, if he should have the honour of a seat in the House fifteen years hence, when this subject should come to be discussed, he should heartily join in opposing any proposal to place the management of railways in the hands of the Government. But it was not necessary to go that length; it was by no means necessary that the powers given by this Bill should be brought into general operation, and, indeed, they could not be brought into general operation. Under extreme circumstances of mismanagement it might perhaps be possible to make such an arrangement as was made in France—viz., Government to have the power of purchasing the line, and allowing private enterprize to manage it; but he pronounced no opinion as to the merits of such a proceeding. He did not think it unjust that Parliament should reserve the right of considering such questions without being fettered by the imputation of having entered into pledges with the railways. It was far from his wish to do anything which might seem like ill-will to railways. He entertained a strong sense of the benefits conferred by railways, and said it was the bounden duty of the House to consider the advantages which had been derived from them for a long series

661
of years. He said, moreover, that considering the extensive responsibility under which railways were carried on, it seemed wonderful how little cause there had been for complaints. We had, however, arrived at a time at which a great portion of the necessary communication by railway had already been constructed; the House was so situated as to railways, which had been a length of time in operation, that it was compelled to admit the injustice of proceeding to interfere with them; they were left out of consideration, and that being the case, when so much activity was exhibited in the multiplication of these enterprizes, some steps ought to be taken to prevent the House being fettered in like manner at future periods. Notwithstanding his intention to support the Bill, he could not say that he had looked at it altogether without apprehension. There were one or two Clauses of doubtful import, which would require some discussion, but he did not hold that to be a reason for refusing to assent to the second reading. He had the greatest doubts of the policy of that part relating to the guarantees. It was impossible to deny that you were bound to give the railways some security if you undertook to interfere with them for the public benefit. Suppose a case in which a guarantee was given by a railway, and the profits fell below the point at which the guarantee was given, what security would the public have for the due management of the railway? You entirely took away all motive for good management. The second Clause also appeared to be involved in some difficulty. With the best disposition to the measure, with no wish to commit anything approaching to injustice, without any desire definitively to sanction such a system of putting railways into the hands of Government, he thought himself fully justified in voting for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Gisborne: The right hon. Gentlemen opposite must feel themselves thankful to those hon. Members who persisted in moving the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as had the debate concluded on Tuesday night, the House would not have been favoured with the clear and satisfactory statement which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun) had favoured them with. He was only sorry that most of it had been delivered in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of
662
Trade. That speech clearly proved that the subject had not been exhausted. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he must say, was the most singular he had ever heard delivered by a Cabinet Minister in introducing to the House a purely commercial subject. The right hon. Gentleman had not made it a mere matter of detail, as one might have expected. He introduced the measure in a slashing speech, hitting right and left. He attacked every side from which he expected opposition. He said some of the opponents of the measure were incapable of understanding it, while, on the other hand, he imputed illegitimate and improper motives to others. The speech, although no doubt a brilliant and punishing one, was one altogether unexpected by him from such a quarter, and unless his senses had convinced him to the contrary, he would have thought that the speech came from the Colonial Office, although the measure belonged to that of the Board of Trade. The Motion which he had made previous to entering upon that debate must have been a god-send to the right hon. Baronet, because it afforded him room for much declamation. He had to complain of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, as well as of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, inasmuch as that although he had taken an opportunity of denying that he made that Motion on the suggestion of anyone but that of his own mind, still in their declamatory speeches they talked of it as an attempt to stifle all discussion on the part of persons connected with railways. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government were in the habit of throwing out imputations upon the motives of their opponents—even on the Bank Charter Bill the right hon. Baronet charged the hon. Member for Lambeth and himself; indeed he charged every one who differed from him in any degree with entertaining views favourable to nonconvertibility; whatever they said, however strongly they denied it, still the right hon. Baronet insisted that they had an eye to nonconvertibility. The fact seemed to be, that the Government had taken to the manufacture of quack medicines, in the shape of Bank Charter and Railway Bills, and it was a well-established fact, that a person could not give greater offence to a quack than by a refusal to swallow his medicine. So

663
it seemed to be with the right hon. Baronet. The House was as yet completely in the dark in respect of the proceedings before the Railway Committee, and as an humble Member of it, he should feel it his duty to lay before them a short account of its secret history. Before entering upon the subject, he begged it to be distinctly understood that he made no charge against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman conducted the proceedings before it; but the right hon. Gentleman went into the Committee, pregnant, as he thought, with a great scheme. The right hon. Gentleman there found that he laboured under a mistake; but being determined to do something, not at all to his surprise, the right hon. Gentleman came forward with the little abortion on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman entered the Committee full of what he called a "hypothetical outline," which he fully intended to cram down their throats. The whole of the evidence given during the first fourteen days of the sittings of the Committee related to nothing but the hypothetical arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman dressed his fly very skilfully, and first of all drew it before the eyes of Mr. Glyn, the Chairman of the London and Birmingham Railway Company, and he was indeed surprised to see Mr. Glyn snap at such clumsy bait. He next tried his gaudy fly upon Mr. Swift and Mr. Saunders; but they were very cautious, and refused to take it. It was then found to be no more than an Indian-rubber body with gauze wings. But when Mr. Hudson came the right hon. Gentleman found out that he was labouring under a sad mistake. That Gentleman rebelled strongly against the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not be caught at any price. The result of all was, that the hypothetical outline was quite blown, and the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to abandon it; still he was not willing to come out of so laborious a Committee without some result, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted that small measure which he wished to force the House to accept. Undoubtedly the opponents of the measure had much to contend against, inasmuch as it was supported by the late as well as the present President of the Board of Trade; but it was remarkable that one of those right hon. Gentlemen said the power of purchase was the main and most important provision of the Bill,
664
and he looked on the power of revision as secondary to the other. While on the other hand the other right hon. Gentleman said the revision was the most important matter, and he did not attach much importance to the power of purchase. He would apply a test, and he thought a very fair one. Suppose that some fifteen years ago there had happened to have existed a President of the Board of Trade who was gifted with the intelligence and ability of both of these right hon. Gentlemen. Suppose that he had then got such a Bill as they were discussing enacted, and that its provisions were then coming into operation, what use could they possibly make of them? The first Clause gave power to revise the fares upon railways. Now how would they proceed to apply it to existing railways. The power did not apply until the Company were dividing clear profits to the amount of 10 per cent. Now take the London and Birmingham line—they were too cautious ever to divide more than 9l. 19 s., and they would not keep the profits down by reducing the fares. No, they would refuse that traffic which was most inconvenient to them. In fact the Clause was in operation at that moment—all coal and minerals were refused on the Birmingham line. The midland consolidated lines carried coal at ¾d. per ton per mile. They carried large quantities even up to Rugby, where they joined the Birmingham, but there it stopped so far as railway was concerned—it had then to be put on canals because the Birmingham Company by a prohibitory tariff, prevented it going further. And acting as the Directors of a commercial company, they acted perfectly right. They would divide their 10 per cent. without the traffic, and it would be indiscreet to do more; why then should they dirty their hands with carrying coals. But suppose the Clause to be in force, how would they deal with them? [An hon. Member: Buy them up.] He would come up to that soon. He was then considering the revision Clause. They could not compel the Company to start in the coal trade. An hon. Member said purchase the railway. Was there one man in the kingdom who was fit to be allowed to walk about, who could believe that the Government could purchase even a single one of the numerous railways in existence? To use a homely phrase which fell from one of the witnesses, the power

665
of purchasing was all gammon. He said that no Member could give a satisfactory vote upon that Bill, unless he had read through the whole of the evidence which related to the extent to which the Government would interfere. Revision, to be good for anything, must mean the taking of the whole management of the railways into the bands of the Government. He did not doubt the propriety of the course on the point of patronage, nor did he doubt their power of management; his objection was that as under the present system we had in every part of the country parties making all kinds of improvements under the stimulus of private interest, he feared that under the Government those improvements would not only cease, but they might retrograde, which he should consider one of the worst calamities which could befal the country. He repudiated one saying of the right hon. Gentleman, that competition would afford no protection to the public. That was a dangerous doctrine to lay down. Look at the Manchester and Liverpool Railway. They had always refused to run any third-class carriages. A competing line there, would have made them much more accommodating to the public. Parliament ought to say they were willing to grant any line wherever a necessity was shown for it. He felt confident that no great good would result to the public from that part of the Bill which related to competition. The Bill was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, who was the decided enemy of all railways; and there were other hon. Gentlemen who said that Railway Companies were very overbearing bodies. But he asked hon. Members to look to the dimensions of that Bill. What did it do? Why, as regarded all existing railways, it did nothing whatever with respect to purchase or supervision. And what was it to do with respect to future railways? Why, for the next fifteen years, it would leave them in exactly the same condition in which they would be placed if no such measure were ever to be enacted. Our grand-children, or our grand-nephews, might derive benefit from that Bill; but for fifteen years after the 1st of January next it would be totally inoperative. It was said that the Bill would confer great benefits on the lower orders, inasmuch as it would enable them to travel at reduced charges. But it should be remembered that all the Bill would require under that
666
head would be, that one train each day should be started, carrying the lower orders or any other persons who might choose to travel by it at the rate of not more than 1d. a mile in a covered carriage, and at a speed of not less than twelve miles an hour. But what was the case now? Why he found that the average charge in all the third-class railway carriages throughout the kingdom was only 1d. and the fifteen hundredth of a penny per mile. There were, in fact, a great many railways in which less than 1d. a mile was at present charged. He found that the South-Eastern Railway carried third-class passengers at the rate of ¾d. per mile; the Newcastle and North Midland Railway carried them at the rate of ½d. per mile; the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway carried them at the rate of ½d. per mile; and the Midland Counties Railway had, for many years, carried third-class passengers twice a-day, between Derby and Nottingham, at the rate of ¾d. per mile. He also found that none of those railways carried passengers at a speed of thirty miles an hour. The poor would, however, undoubtedly receive this advantage from the passing of the measure, that they would be carried in covered carriages. But that was the only benefit which the measure would confer upon the poorer classes of travellers. And he would ask the House whether they would consent to pass all the objectionable Clauses of the Bill for the sake of that small benefit to the lower orders? He should also state in fairness that there were at present four or five railways which did not carry third-class passengers, and as all railways would be compelled to carry those passengers, that small additional benefit would be conferred by the Bill. He would, however, ask those who were in favour of some regulations with respect to railways whether they would accept so very inefficient a regulation as that? He certainly was not one of those who complained of the Bill on the ground that it would be very effective for mischief. His objection to it was, that it was too contractive in its dimensions. He did not stand there as the advocate of Railway Companies, but he stood there to prevent the right hon. Baronet from giving away what he believed to be a clear protection to the public for a sham protection. It might be right to do something with respect to railways, but let them proceed

667
upon a comprehensive principle in dealing with the subject. He believed that those Gentlemen who fully considered the question would agree with him in wishing that the Bill should be smothered at its birth.
Sir R. Peel: Sir, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have misunderstood the reflections which I made, not upon him, but upon the Motion of which he was the author the other night. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when he disclaimed any improper intention in bringing forward that Motion, I gave him credit for all that innocence and simplicity to which he lays claim, and to which, in my opinion, he is so much entitled. But when I saw parties connected with railways ready to support the Motion, I thought they were going to take advantage of the ingenuousness of the hon. Gentleman, and were about to make him the unconscious instrument for preventing all discussion upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt,
"Ingenui vultus puer ingenuique pudoris,"
But when I saw railway directors and proprietors giving their support to the Motion, it appeared to me that it might not be of so harmless a character as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. The hon. Gentleman, however, says that Her Majesty's Government are in the habit of attacking hon. Members. Now I must say that great sensitiveness has been betrayed by the hon. Gentleman. He said that on the Bank Charter Bill I absolutely stated that certain Members had an eye—to what? I thought that he was going to state some very criminal offence; but he said that they had, as I alleged, an eye to nonconvertibility. Now it must be very difficult to conduct a discussion in this House if that is to be considered as a gross personal reflection on an hon. Member. What I said upon the occasion in question was, that if the argument of the hon. Gentleman meant anything, it meant that he must be favourable to the principle of nonconvertibility. Now I do not think that that was going beyond the freedom and latitude of Parliamentary discussion; and I must say, that after having heard night after night in this House the reflections cast upon Her Majesty's Government, but of which I never complained, I was surprised to find myself charged with a gross violation of Parliamentary decorum because I had stated that the hon. Gentleman
668
and the hon. Member for Lambeth, in conducting the discussion on the Bank Charter Bill, had an eye to nonconvertibility. You, Sir, ought, perhaps, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, to have called me to order on that occasion. [Mr. Hawes had never made any charge against the right hon. Baronet.] I must confess that I never heard the hon. Member for Lambeth charge me with exceeding the bounds of Parliamentary decorum on the occasion in question. But this simple and ingenuous youth considers that a personal attack had been made upon him because he had been told that he denied the principle of convertibility. The hon. Gentleman also complains of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, for having made a "brilliant and comprehensive speech." He says that the Board of Trade presides over figures and arithmetical details, and that statistical statements would come from the President of the Board of Trade with a better grace than a "brilliant and comprehensive speech." Now, really, when the hon. Gentleman himself indulges so much in fancy, and introduces into his speech so many metaphors—pills, quack medicines, and the amusement of fly-fishing—I am surprised that he should claim for himself only the right to make witty and brilliant speeches, and that he should tie down my right hon. Friend to statistical details. The hon. Gentleman ought surely to allow other parties to compete with him. This Bill has been discussed at considerable length; and yet I think that the considerations by which hon. Members ought to be influenced in assenting to its second reading may be very shortly stated. I should not wish to have it supposed that in supporting the measure I mean to cast the slightest reflection upon those who have formed railway companies, or who have devoted their capital to the construction of railways. I think the country is under the greatest obligation to those gentlemen. I think it is a circumstance of which this country has reason to be proud, that our railways should, without any pecuniary aid or assistance from the Government, have been constructed by private enterprise, and by means of private capital. I must say, also, speaking generally, that so far as regards the practical superintendence of our railways, it has been conducted in a manner which reflects the highest credit on the managers. I think

669
they deserve the greatest credit for the uniform civility which they display, and for having shown the people of this country that all their subordinate agents, without any views of pecuniary gain, are attentive and kind, even beyond the limits of their duty, to rich and to poor, to a degree which scarcely exists in any other branch of the public service. I do hope that the practice which they have introduced, of showing every attention to individuals, at the same time that the receipt of all pecuniary fees is prohibited, will be maintained, and that the public will assist them in carrying out such a system. It is impossible to overrate the comfort and the convenience which arise from that system. And therefore in voting for this Bill, as I said before, I give, as I have always given, the utmost credit to our Railway Companies. I consider them to be among our most valuable bodies, and I shall always continue to entertain for them the greatest respect. But the question is, whether we are now arrived at a period in which it is advisable that Parliament should take some precaution for ensuring the public interest in respect to railways. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham objects to this Bill that it does not go far enough. But until the speech of the hon. Gentleman the opponents of the measure had said that at that late period of the Session the Government ought not to press a measure which was not limited to interference with future Companies, but which had spread fear and anxiety among existing Companies, and which would render it impossible for these Companies to conduct their affairs with satisfaction or security. The objection to the measure used to be that it was a measure too large and too comprehensive to be introduced at that late period of the Session; but the hon. Member for Nottingham wishes that it should extend to existing Companies. [Mr. Gisborne: No.] The hon. Gentleman wishes that we should introduce some comprehensive measure which would apply to all Companies; but I doubt whether if we had done so the hon. Gentleman would have voted for the measure. [Mr. Gisborne: He would not.] Then we should have been unsupported by the hon. Gentleman, and we should have been opposed by all those parties who are connected with existing railways; and in the end Her Majesty's Government would have been compelled
670
to abandon all legislstion upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman wishes to see another railroad established between Manchester and Liverpool; but is the hon. Gentleman sure that there would be no objection to that? Is he sure that he could guarantee to the public any advantage from that, competition? And does he not know that an application to Parliament for permission to construct such a railway would meet with the most formidable opposition? True it is proposed to make a new railway through the Trent Vale, with the perfect goodwill of the Grand Junction and of the London and Birmingham Railways. But I remember that I firmly advocated a Bill for such a railway in two successive Sessions, although I had done so ineffectually while the two companies in question opposed this measure; that Bill was sixty-six days in Committee; and I have been informed, that the expences of attempting to establish that competing line of forty miles only, had cost no less than about 146,000 l. That expense was the consequence of the opposition of the two Railway Companies, who have now agreed to sanction the railway. The hon. Gentleman says, that the great security for cheap fares and proper service is competition. But I am afraid that in these matters there is a power which may overrule the deliberate sense of the House of Commons, and that a formidable combination of interests may exist, which would render it impossible for competition always to be successful. The hon. Member for Durham complained that I applied the term "monopoly" to these Railway Companies. I did not use that term in any invidious sense; but speaking, for instance, of the London and Birmingham railway, than which none can be better conducted, yet speaking generally, it has a complete monopoly. It has, as it appears to me, a perfect monopoly against posting and against stage-coach conveyance, and a decided monopoly against steam conveyance. A person who sets up machinery for manufactures is subject to rivalry from any other person who can command capital; but so far is this from being the case with respect to the railway monopoly, that no one can enter into competition without coming to Parliament. It is necessary in every instance to obtain new powers against the grant of which existing monopolies will exercise their influence in Parliament, and

671
often exercise it with success. In what position then is the country with respect to placing restrictions upon railways? It appeared that there are applications in the present Session of Parliament, and there will probably be in the next, for 1,000 additional miles of railroad. Let them observe the advantages which the constructors of new railroads possess. In the first place, they have the benefit of the experience of all the railways which had been already made; and, in the second place, those unjust prejudices which formerly existed against railways have in a great measure abated, and so far from Gentlemen dreading the approach of a railway within eight or ten miles of their estates, that approach is now sought, and, except in those cases where there is an injurious interference with property, landowners are willing to give their land on more fair terms. The constructors of new railways can avail themselves of the experience of those who sunk their money on the first passing of these plans; they can avail themselves of that experience in the construction of tunnels and in the expense of engines; but there is no corresponding limit to the profits on the new railways—there is no interference, except as to the price of 3d. a mile. The existing circumstances of the railways, therefore, rendered it an advantageous time for Parliament to take the subject into its consideration, and it appears to me to be a decided advantage to the public, to give notice to the railways that they may be dealt with hereafter. I am not prepared to say that there ought to be an immediate purchase of railways. I do not wish to see the Government, or any department of the Government, becoming directors of railway concerns. That is not the object of the Bill; but the object of the Bill and of the Government is, that as a number of railway projects are now about to receive the sanction of Parliament, it should, after the lapse of a certain time, be competent for the Legislature to deal with those undertakings, and to determine whether or not it would be advisable in any way to alter the powers given to those companies. That is the principle upon which we deal with the Bank of England and with the East India Company, when we give certain powers for a limited period, leaving it to Parliament to take the subject again into its consideration after the lapse of that period. The question is, whether we
672
are to give the new companies a permanent and unqualified monopoly, or whether we shall reserve to ourselves the right to reconsider the powers which we may confer upon them. In what other way can you do it, except by such a Bill as this? To say that the Bill for railways should last only for fifteen years would be an effectual extinguisher on all improvement; to say that we give them the power for a limited time, would prevent Railway Companies from being established in the meantime; and to say that we reserve to Parliament the absolute right to reconsider the terms on which railways shall have been constructed, would prevent all enterprise. My right hon. Friend, therefore proposes no such course with respect to new companies, but he says this—
"I will reserve to Government, provided Parliament should then sanction it—I will reserve to Government and to Parliament the power of purchasing these establishments, taking as the amount of the purchase the divisible profits of twenty-five years, to be calculated in point of time on the average of the three years next preceding the purchase. But there is another alternative; if these terms should not be accepted, or should not be offered—if your profits shall exceed 10 per cent., we shall have a right to demand of you a reduction of your tolls."
Now if you admit the principle of eventual contingent interference, in what more equitable manner can you provide for it? What do you do? You take a double alternative, because, if you were to claim the single right to purchase, there might be a temptation on the part of the Railway Companies to swell the amount of the divisible profits. The alternative is, therefore, left to the Government, to take the power of revision, and thus to correct the tendency to swell the amount of the divisible profits. If you were to take the power of purchase, or the power of revision alone, your object would not be gained. But I do not want to enter now into a discussion on the details of the Bill; I want you merely to consider whether you ought to permit future railways to be established throughout the country, possessing not only the present amount of monopoly, but a still greater amount, without taking any power for securing the interests of the public; and giving notice to those who are embarking their capital, that you intend to reserve to Parliament the power of keeping some check on them. It has been said, that this measure has been brought

673
forward in the month of July, without notice. The hon. Member for Newcastle has said, that the reason why the Railway Companies slept on without alarm after the fifth Report, was because they did not think the Government would introduce such a measure as this. How could they have thought so, after the distinct notice given in the third report? The Committee there say—
"It appears, therefore, to your Committee, that the present moment, while Parliament still retains in its own hands an entire and unimpaired discretion with regard both to the incorporation of new companies and to the enlargement of the powers of old ones, affords an opportunity more favourable than any that can be expected hereafter to recur, for attaching beforehand to the legislative sanction, which is sought by these parties on their own behalf, the conditions which may be deemed necessary for the public good, and which may realise and apply such conclusions as our experience of the railway system up to the present time may be deemed to have sufficiently established."
This Report was ordered to be printed on the 1st of April, 1844. The whole Report assumed that the present was the favourable moment to give the notice now given in this Bill. This Bill does not go beyond the Report, and the substance of it is in exact conformity with the Report. That Report was lauded in extravagant terms by the majority of the newspapers in connection with the railway interest, and no opposition appeared till after the appearance of the filth Report, yet that Report (the third) indicated that you should not let that opportunity pass of making some provision on the subject. So much, therefore, as to that part of the Bill which relates to the power of the Government to purchase or revise. I must say that I should deprecate the frequent use of that power, but I conceive the insertion of it in this Bill as a check on abuse and a security for the public interest. The Bill takes several precautions for the public interest, which must be admitted to be only reasonable and just. I think we should take security for the conveyance of letters on certain prescribed terms. So again as to the conveyance of soldiers and stores. I think it right when you are giving those unlimited powers to take and use for their purposes any private property, that you should inquire that those Railway Companies should confer on the public some
674
benefit in return, the amount of which shall be determined before those companies are established. Without expressing any extreme interest as to the conveyance of the lower classes, I must say that it is a proper subject for the consideration of Parliament. I do not believe that the conveyance of the lower classes is a source of profit to railways; at least I believe that they do not consider it a source of profit at present. The fear is, that when we attempt to secure a better conveyance for the lower classes persons of a better condition of life may avail themselves of it. Still this cannot be a conclusive reason why we should not make some provision with respect to the conveyance of those classes. The attention of foreign countries has been for sometime directed to this subject. I hold in my hand a Report of the French Chambers, showing that they did not think it unbecoming their attention to make provision for the conveyance of the humbler classes. This is a translation of their report:—
"We have more than once protested against the use of open carriages, which expose the health of the passengers. It appears to us that the interests of salubrity, and, we may add, those of humanity, enjoin us not to condemn the less opulent classes of society to the inconvenience and danger of such a mode of transport. In fact, in open carriages the passengers are not only exposed to the assaults of the weather and rapid current of air, but also to the risk of fire, from the particles of burning coke thrown out by the engine."
Accordingly, the Committee insist, as an indispensable condition, on covered third-class carriages being attached to, by the ordinary trains, at fares not exceeding ¾d. per mile. The French Government has adopted this recommendation, and one article in this mooted project of concession to Railway Companies, published by the administration, is—
"The Companies shall in no case make use of open carriages for the conveyance of passengers."
Another—
"That every regular passenger train shall contain carriages of all the different classes. The second class carriages being covered and provided with glass window, and the third class covered and closed by curtains."
The Governments of Germany have equally prohibited open carriages, and the treaties between the different states for the extension of a common system of railway

675
communication always stipulate for the conveyance of third-class passengers, in covered carriages, at fares from ½d. to ¾d. per mile. This is the course which the French legislature have thought it right to pursue. They require that in every train there shall be third class carriages protected from the weather. Now, when you are establishing new railroads, and when you know how other means of conveyance are all superseded is it not right that you should take security for the comfort and convenience of the humblest classes? The hon. Gentleman opposite takes a high tone, and says that railways have an unlimited right to deal with the public as they shall think fit. It may possibly he right for the London and Birmingham Railway to say, "We will not soil our fingers with the conveyance of coals," but the question is here—"when we are giving powers for the establishment of new lines, may we not take some moderate and rational precautions against abuse? If I thought that this Bill would tend to destroy competition in the establishment of railways I would never consent to its passing, but I do not believe that the precautions taken by it will have the effect of impeding or preventing the application of private capital to the construction of railways. I have the satisfaction of knowing since the appearance of the third Report, which announced that these securities would be taken, that thirty railroads have been projected, entailing an expenditure of 24,220,000 l. I hope that the necessity will never arise for the Government to take the management of any railway into its hands; but whether a case may not arise in which it may be necessary to construct a short line of road for the purpose of ascertaining the expense, or for the purpose of establishing an example as to the mode of management, it is impossible at present to anticipate; but I should deprecate the transfer to the Government of the amount of patronage which would follow the exercise of the power of interference secured by this Bill. I trust that the Government, or any part of the Government, will never be employed as Directors of Railways; but I trust that they will have the right of controlling them, and preventing abuses. I trust that Parliament will give this dormant power of purchase and interference, which will operate as a check on extravagant demands. If you approve of interference
676
with respect to future companies, I cannot see a moment when you are less likely to interfere with the investment of private capital. Seeing the stimulus given to the application of capital by the many new projects now afloat, if you interfere at all you should interfere now. I believe that interference to be prudent and just towards the public interest. Upon these grounds, retaining my respect for those public Companies, knowing that the country is under the deepest obligations to them, and deprecating any measure which would prevent a similar application of capital, I still think it right to take security for the public interest against exaction and abuse, and therefore I give a cordial support to the measure of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet would go far to allay the alarm which had prevailed amongst, the parties interested in railways. If it was merely intended to ask for a dormant power of revision and purchase after the lapse of a certain number of years, and to give notice that such fresh conditions might be imposed as experience should show to be necessary for the public good, then those companies that were now applying for powers to Parliament could not but think this notice well-timed. He admitted that the Government had undoubtedly a right to demand from new Railway Companies such securities for the conveyance of troops and letters as were necessary for the public good. He thought the Clause with respect to third-class carriages unexceptionable. The only objection made to it was, that at first, it was feared that third-class carriages would be required with every train. The Bill was complained of because it was not what it professed to be. It asked for great and formidable powers; but, from the speech of the right hon. Baronet, it appeared that those powers were not to be enforced. Why, then, ask for them? The whole of the Clauses, from the 1st to the 17th, traced out a complete system of Government interference. It seemed however, that it was not the intention of the Government to take measures for buying the existing railways, but as the Bill comprised such a provision it had excited the greatest alarm. He found an universal feeling abroad against it, and though the Great Western shares had risen, it had been in consequence of the decision of the

677
other House of Parliament, which was looked upon as favourable to the proprietors. He confessed that he hardly knew what line to take after the olive branch had been held out, as it had been that night, by the right hon. Gentleman. He had confined his use of the term "monopoly" to what was not an invidious or objectionable sense, and had declared that he had no wish to see the power transferred to the hands of the Government. He objected, however, to many of the powers which had been taken, as unnecessarily calculated to create alarm; but if a mere notice to future railways was all that was required by the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to take that as the basis of his Bill, he would be inclined to ask the Gentlemen who, like him, had been opposed to the Bill, not to press the Amendment, to a division now.
Mr. Gladstonebegged to state his entire adhesion to the views contained in the speech of his right hon Friend, which, in point of fact, was an exposition of the principle and spirit of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether he were willing to make the Bill conform to that speech, and he could not hesitate answering the hon. Gentleman in the affirmative. He must, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was founded on the recommendations contained in the Report, and that the Report had excited no alarm whatever. In consequence of this the provisions of the Bill had been framed without the least idea that any such alarm was likely to arise; and now that apprehensions had been raised, it was perfectly possible that there were particular enactments in the Bill which might be dispensed with without injury to the objects proposed by the Bill. He had no objection to the introduction of such words as would show that the principles declared by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government with respect to the management of railways were to be adhered to, unless strong reasons could be shown to the contrary. In the Report of the Committee it was expressly declared, that there was no intention to prejudge any question, but to many the Bill when it came out, appeared to contradict the Report of the Committee, and to foreclose questions which the Committee had left open. But what had been the course pursued? There had been no
678
invitation to modify the Bill, but a demand was made on his right hon. Friend that the Bill should be dropped. Such was the unusual course pursued. For his own part, he referred to the speech of his right hon. Friend as an unexceptionable text-book of the views contained in the Report of the Committee, and expressing the spirit and intention of the Bill, and he hoped any Amendments made would be consistent with that Report and that speech.
Mr. Haweswished to offer only a few observations in reference to the aspersions which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had cast upon professional Gentlemen interested in this Bill, and also in reference to the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite. Though he was inclined to place the most unlimited confidence in the assurances of Government with respect to any Bill which they proposed, yet he was bound to look at the Bill itself, and not to trust merely to the professions of Government. If hon. Gentlemen were not inclined to allow him to proceed he would be under the necessity of moving the adjournment of the debate, but as it was only a few minutes past eleven he thought he had a right to be heard. If he looked to the Bill he found its provisions directly at variance with the speech of the right hon. Baronet. If the Bill was merely what the right hon. Gentleman said it was—namely, a Bill to give notice to Railway Companies that at certain periods their fares might be altered and their charters revised, modified, or revoked—then such an object was totally inconsistent with the provisions contained in it. The first Clause provided that any future branch of any railway would be placed within the operation of the Bill, so that if such a branch should be made to the terminus of a railway, the whole of it will come under the direction of the Board of Trade. He said this on authority. Take any case. There was a Bill in the House for constructing a railway from Chester to Holyhead. That was a most important line, as it would be the means of communication between Ireland and the metropolis; and yet that Bill must come under the operation of the Bill. The Manchester and Carlisle Railway Bill would also come under the operation of the Bill; so that, in fact, the Board of Trade would have the master key to all

679
the other railways. If, for instance, either the Great Western or South Western Companies should carry the terminus two or three miles further into London, they would come under this Bill, and the whole traffic on the line would be put under the control of the Government. This was not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a dormant, but it was an active power. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that the provisions of this Bill would not have that effect he would join his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, in supporting the Bill. They ought, however, fairly to consider whether they would place the management of railways in the hands of the Government. They were told that such was not the intention of the Bill. If so, why not purge the Bill of all those Clauses? With respect to the aspersions cast by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the professional men who had opposed the Bill, he must say that he thought that these aspersions were most unfair and unjust. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had said, that when the third Report of the Railway Committee was published in April it excited no attention. [Mr. Gladstone: No opposition.] That the opposition only arose when the Report was published. That was not the fact; and the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed regarding it. The third Report excited great attention, but not opposition. When the fifth Report was published, the circular alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was issued by Mr. Hunt, calling the attention of railway proprietors to the subject, but no meeting took place in consequence of it. When the Bill was in the hands of the public, another circular was issued by Mr. Burke, and he had with him two letters which would bear him out in denying the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not accept the interpretation put upon the measure by the right hon. Baronet, and he felt himself compelled to give it his decided opposition.
Mr. Muntzcould not allow himself to vote without expressing his disapprobation of the Bill altogether. He had not the slightest interest, directly or indirectly, in railways, but he sometimes travelled by them, and he never did so without blessing the time when railroads were first constructed. He thought the Bill would have the effect of preventing the extension
680
of railroads, and on that account he was opposed to it. He had never taken part in any railway; and if the Bill should pass, he doubted whether he would ever take a part. It was in contemplation, he believed, to make an addition to the Liverpool and Birmingham line; but he certainly should not take part in it, and he did not think other people would, if this Bill were passed. The power given by the Bill was not a dormant power. He always felt jealous of the interference of Government; and he was afraid that they would some day find the whole of their business put under the management of the Board of Trade. As he felt desirous to see railroads carried out to their full extent, he must give his opposition to this Bill.
Mr. S. Crawfordrose amid cries of "oh," and "divide." He would not detain the House two moments. He so very seldom supported the Government, that he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion. As he considered the Bill would give protection to the working classes against what might be called the most dangerous monopoly of the moneyed classes, he would vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 186; Noes 98: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Buck, L. W.

A'Court, Capt.

Bunbury, T.

Adderley, C. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Aglionby, H. A.

Campbell, J. H.

Aldam, W.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Alford, Visct.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Allix, J. P.

Chelsea, Visct.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Childers, J. W.

Arkwright, G.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Baillie, Col.

Clay, Sir W.

Balfour, J. M.

Clayton, R. R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Barneby, J.

Clive, Visct.

Bateson, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Beckett, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Codrington, Sir W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Cole, hn. H. A.

Boldero, H. G.

Collett, J.

Botfield, B.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Craig, W. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Crawford, W. S.

Brisco, M.

Cripps, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Damer, hon. Col.

Brotherton, J.

Darby, G.

Browne, hon. W.

Denison, J. E.

681

Denison, E. B.

Martin, C. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir H.

Milnes, R. M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Morison, Geu.

Dowdeswell, W.

Morison, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Neville, R.

Duncombe, hn. A.

Newry, Visct.

Eastnor, Visct.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Paget, Col.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, R.

Escott, B.

Patten, J. W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Fellowes, E.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Peel, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Forbes, W.

Praed, W. T.

Fox, S. L.

Pringle, A.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Pusey, P.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Rawdon, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Reid, Sir. J. R.

Gladstone, Capt.

Repton, G. W. J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rice, E. R.

Goring, C.

Rolleston, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Round, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Greene, T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Grimston, Visct.

Russell, Lord E.

Grogan, E.

Sanderson, R.

Hale, R. B.

Seymour, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sheppard, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Shirley, E. P.

Henley, J. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Smith, A.

Herbert, hn. S.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hodgson, F.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hope, hon. C.

Smyth, Sir H.

Horsman, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Howard, Lord

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Stanley, Lord

Howick, Visct.

Stuart, W. V.

Hussey, A.

Stuart, H.

Hutt, W.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Ingestre, Visct.

Strutt, E.

James, Sir W. C.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Jermyn, Earl

Tennent, J. E.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Jones, Capt.

Thornely, T.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Trotter, J.

Knight, H. G.

Verner, Col.

Knight, F. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Waddington, H. S.

Law, hn. C. E.

Wall, C. B.

Lefroy, A.

Wallace, R.

Liddell, hn. H. T.

Warburton, H.

Lockhart, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Wemyss, Capt.

McGeachy, F. A.

Williams, W.

Maclean, D.

Wodehouse, E.

Macnamara, Major

Wortley, hon. J. S.

McNeill, D.

Wrightson, W. B.

Mahon, Visct.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Manners, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Young, J.

Marsham, Visct.

Lennox, Lord A.

682

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Ainsworth, P.

Hughes, W. B.

Bailey, J., jun.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Bannerman, A.

Langston, J. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Langton, W. G.

Barrington, Visct.

Lemon, Sir C.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Long, W.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Bernal, R.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Borthwick, P.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Bowes, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Bright, J.

Martin, J.

Broadley, H.

Mitcalfe, H.

Buller, C.

Mitchell, T. A.

Chapman, A.

Morris, D.

Chapman, B.

Mundy, E. M.

Charteris, hon. F.

Muntz, G. F.

Christie, W. D.

Napier, Sir C.

Christopher, R. A.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clive, E. B.

Ord, W.

Cobden, R.

Packe, C. W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Parker, J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Philips, G. R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Plumridge, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. C.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Power, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Protheroe, E.

Duncan, G.

Pulsford, R.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Rashleigh, W.

Easthope, Sir J.

Ricardo, J. L.

Elphinstone, H.

Richards, R.

Feilden, W.

Russell, C.

Forster, M.

Scott, R.

Forman, T. S.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Gardner, J. D.

Smith, J. A.

Gibson, T. M.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gill, T.

Stewart, P. M.

Gisborne, T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gore, W. O.

Tancred, H. W.

Greenall, P.

Thompson, Ald.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Tuffnell, H.

Hallyburton, Lord J. G.

Turner, E.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hayter, W. G.

Vivian, J. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Wakley, T.

Hinde, J. H.

Walker, R.

Hindley, C.

Yorke, H. R.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hollond, R.

Ward, H. G.

Hornby, J.

Entwisle, W.

[To the Division the following addition is found in the Votes of the House of Commons.
Objection taken (by Mr. Wallace) to the vole of Mr. Russell, the Member for Reading, who voted with the Noes, on account of his having a private pecuniary interest as a proprietor of Railroad Shares and Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company:—Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Mr. Russell be disallowed:"—Motion, by leave,

683
withdrawn:—Mr. Speaker declared, Ayes 186, Noes 98.]
Bill read a second time.
On the question that the Bill be committed,
Mr. Haweswished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intended to modify or alter the Bill, or whether, when it was considered in Committee, it was to be considered in the state in which it then was?
Mr. Gladstonehad not had the opportunity of consulting with the opponents of the Bill, and could not say what alterations he might propose. All he could say was, that he was perfectly ready to consider, and desirous to accede to any modification which should tend to bring it into strict conformity with the third Report of the Committee, and the speech of his right hon. Friend.
Mr. H. Hindeconsidered that the House were entitled to see the Bill modified, so far as the Government themselves proposed to modify it.
Sir R. Peelhad read with great attention the third Report of the Committee, and it was his intention to make alterations in strict accordance with it. In referring to what he had said, the hon. Gentleman had omitted the power of purchase. What he said upon that point was, that he thought the power on the part of the Government and the Parliament conjointly to purchase, should be reserved, not to be exercised indiscriminately, but as a check against abuse. If the measure was not found to be in accordance with the third Report of the Committee, it was the wish of the Government to make it so.
Mr. Hawesbelieved the third Report did not extend to existing Railways, but the very first Clause of the Bill would bring existing railways under the control of the Government, and within the operations of the Act, for by that Clause, every joint or branch line would be brought within the powers of the Bill, and to that extent, existing railways would be affected.
Mr. Gladstonesaid the Bill had been drawn with the bonâ fide intention of carrying out the views expressed in the Reports of the Railway Committee and nothing more. It was, however, alleged by some hon. Gentlemen that the Bill did more. He was anxious to discuss and consider any application of that nature in
684
detail, and in any case in which it could be shown that the Bill really went beyond the recommendations of the Committee to alter, so as to bring it in strict conformity with that Report.
Bill to be committed.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2.)
On the question, that the Actions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill (No. 2) he received,
Mr. Chrisliesaid, I am desirous to take this opportunity of giving an answer to an attack which was made in the course of the debate on the previous night on the character of an individual who cannot defend himself in this House. It will be remembered that the noble Lord (Lord George Bentinck) made an attack in the strongest terms—terms which I will not repeat—on two brothers of the name of Russell, one of whom is a solicitor, and the other the plaintiff in the actions which the pending Bill is intended to suspend. I have received to-day a letter from Mr. Russell, the solicitor, on the subject of this attack, and I will read extracts from it. There are parts not necessary to the vindication of his own character, and by no means complimentary to that of the noble Lord. (Lord George Bentinck). The noble Lord has the privilege of saying within these walls, with perfect immunity, whatever he may have heard against the character of any individual out of the House: and last night he had the generosity to use his privilege to a very great extent. I cannot say what I may have heard against the character of the noble Lord in the letter which I hold in my hand from the person he has libelled [cries of "Oh, yes," and Lord George Bentinck told the hon. Member he might read it all.] Mr. Christie proceeded:—Even with the noble Lord's permission, I should be offending against the rules of the House. Mr. Russell, the solicitor, writes to me,
"I could never have had the assurance to meet either Mr. Gibson or yourself, had there been a syllable of truth in Lord Bentinck's statement, so far as I am personally concerned. I do not for a moment attempt any defence of my brother's conduct in an affair which occurred some years since, and through which I might have been ruined, had I not fortunately had the means of entirely exculpating myself to the perfect satisfaction of every person. I should grieve much if you or Mr. Gibson consider that, in having honoured me by several times seeing me, you consider any degradation attaches to you in consequence.

685
You will soon have my evidence printed, and you can then judge how far I am deserving the character this Lord last night gave me."
I hope this evidence will all be printed; it has been made great use of in this House, and I trust there will be no "doctoring" of it before it is printed. As to degradation, I certainly feel none. I have seen this Mr. Russell when he brought me his Petition, and to receive information relative to it; and I can tell the noble Lord that even if he had been what he has represented him, or, to put another case, had been the keeper of a hell, if he had a grievance to be redressed in this House, I would have presented his Petition; but I would have gone no further—I would not have associated with him—I would not have betted with him — I would not have commissioned him to bet for me—I would not have belonged to any club of which he was a Member. I stated in one part of last night that I would offer every factious opposition to this Bill; I afterwards withdrew that threat, with an explanation which has not been given to the public. I will therefore repeat it, that to have carried that threat into execution would cause me much more inconvenience than it could possibly give me satisfaction. But I protested, and again protest altogether against this Bill, and against the mode in which it has been carried through this House, and against the refusal of the House to hear the plaintiff in the actions by counsel at the Bar. If ever man had a right to be heard by counsel against a Bill that man had a right. I can state that in another House a similar Petition will be presented, and supported by a noble Lord of great legal acquirements and reputation; and I do not believe that that House will commit the injustice of refusing to hear him. I will call particular attention to one circumstance in yesterday's debate: evidence taken in another place, and existing only in manuscript, was made use of to prejudice the petitioner's character, and his right to be heard. When that evidence is formally communicated to us, it may prove that an interference has taken place with the privileges of this House which may render a Motion on the subject proper. At present, the circumstances are these: on Thursday last I presented a petition from the plaintiff in these actions, praying to be heard by counsel; a Committee on Gaming in another place, which had for some time suspended its sittings—[No, no.]—well that is of no consequence—that Committee immediately
686
after calls the petitioner's solicitor before it as a witness; the witness is rigorously examined as to the petitioner's right to be heard here, and when I came to move yesterday, as I had given notice, that counsel be heard, the evidence taken in that other place is in the hands of Members of this House in a manuscript state, and is used in the debate by noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen Members of the Government. I say that there is presumptive proof of a conspiracy between the promoters of the Bill in this House, and the Chairman of the Committee in the other place, and whoever that Chairman may be, mid he may be the Duke of Richmond, I say that he has abused his position as Chairman of the Committee, and in communicating the evidence in a written state has been guilty of an irregular proceeding. The circumstances speak for themselves. I leave it to the public to judge of the circumstances under which the evidence has been used, and how far those circumstances tend to the credit of the promoters of the Bill, and of a majority which by the aid of that evidence refused the petitioner justice, or to be heard by counsel at the Bar of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood what had fallen from him on the former evening. The hon. Gentleman stated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had objected to hear this individual's petition on the ground of the objection which was raised. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. It was known to persons of the highest authority in that House that he had come down early to the House and had searched for precedents, and that, upon an examination into precedents to which he had referred yesterday evening, he had determined to resist the hearing of the petitioner by counsel at the Bar, on the ground that he was not entitled to be heard with reference to any such petition. But before entering into the question, and after he came into the House to take the course he had determined on, it was stated to him that there were other objections on the ground of the petitioner having no personal interest whatever in the matter. He, therefore, thought it right to the hon. Gentleman, before he pledged himself to the accuracy of the statements set forth in the petition, to state that he had heard the parties had no direct interest; and, before he entered

687
into the discussion, he wished to know whether that was true. Now, as far as regarded the character of the petitioner, his resistance to the Motion for hearing him by counsel at the Bar had nothing to do with it; but it was on the ground that Parliament never heard persons by counsel on a Bill which were merely to suspend actions; and he recommended the House to adhere to the precedents, lest they should open the door to hearing counsel indiscriminately, and to the arrest of public business. He had done what he thought to be his public duty on a question affecting the rights and privileges of the House.
Mr. M. Gibsonrepelled a charge that he had associated with improper persons, or persons who had been guilty of crimes. He asserted that that charge was false and scandalous; he defied the proof; the insinuation was unworthy of those who might make it; it had no foundation whatever in truth. The solicitor, to whose petition his hon. Friend had referred, called at his (Mr. Gibson's) house several times; he came to him on public business, and he felt it his duty to receive the party on public business. He felt that he was entitled to hear the communications which were made to him, and to use his discretion as to the use he would make of those communications. That he had done, and that he would do again—more than that he had not done. He protested in the face of the House against the charge that he had ever associated, in the popular sense of the word, with persons who had been guilty of crimes, or who were persons of improper character.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, with regard to the propriety of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman, he was bound to say, as Chairman of the Committee, that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend was justified in the course he had pursued with regard to holding communication with Mr. Russell. It appeared to him that a Member of Parliament who was appointed by the House to pursue an inquiry, and to investigate into any particular matter, performed his duty correctly when he received information tendered to him which, in his opinion, was likely to assist, him in pursuing the investigation, and in coming to a correct conclusion. The hon. Gentleman did not take any fact, or assume any statement of the parties in question, but, in receiving from them suggestions on
688
points into which the Committee ought to inquire, the hon. Gentleman did his duty, and he would not have performed his duty properly if he had refused to receive such suggestions. With regard, however, to the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend who spoke first (Mr. Christie), he must entirely bear out, as Chairman of the Committee, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He certainly understood that the decision of the House yesterday did not turn on any judgment hon. Members might have formed of the character of the petitioner, but on this ground mainly, that his case had nothing in it parallel to the case of Mr. Wright, aad also that the petitioner, whose character, whether good or bad, had nothing whatever to do with the question—was not the bonâ fide promoter of the actions. He apprehended if he, as a Member of that House, or if other hon. Members, obtained a knowledge, which there was reason to believe was well founded, of certain facts, important to the matter under inquiry, that such hon. Member was not at liberty to put this knowledge out of the question, but was bound to allow it to form an ingredient in the evidence on which he arrived at the judgment he might form.
Report received, and Amendment agreed to.
Viscount Howickrose to propose certain Amendments. The House would remember that to the original Bill he had taken this objection—that in the shape in which it stood it gave protection not only to those who had incurred penalties by making large bets in ignorance of the law, but it continued the practice of excessive bets on horse-racing. He then expressed an opinion that the House ought not to pass such a Bill before they had instituted a full inquiry into the subject, and were prepared to deal with the whole question of Gaming. He had stated that the House ought not to throw its shield over the practice of betting at horse-races; and he proposed that the Bill should be confined to the transactions which were the subject of the recent actions. A compromise was agreed to, and the Bill was confined to a protection against actions for bets alleged to have taken place before the 1st of June last. All bets subsequent to the 1st of June were to be left liable to any penalty under the law as it then stood. If his noble Friend had proposed a simple continuance of the Act he should have had

689
no objection to the proposal, but a Committee was appointed, and an extensive inquiry undertaken. The Committee recommended certain alterations, but the House was not called upon to make complete alterations just at present. The Bill which was introduced had this objection—that so long as it continued in force it threw its shield over that which formed the subject of complaint. Its effect was particularly to except parties from all the penal consequences of heavy betting at races. It was on this ground that he objected to the Bill. As the system went at present—and a recent trial had thrown some light on the system—it appeared to be decidedly injurious to the morals of the country; and this being so, he certainly was not prepared to give additional protection to persons engaged in such transactions. In the first place he proposed to strike out certain words in the preamble. He should also propose that only one of the Clauses be retained, so that the Bill would run thus—"Be it enacted that the said recited Act of Parliament should only remain in force until the next Session." He would thus reduce the operation of the Bill to one Session only. What would be the situation of the House if the Bill were passed? He called on the House not to carry their protection further, or to take away any legal penalty for enormous betting at horse races. It had been said there was no fraud in these cases; but was there no fraud in betting on the turf—did not the system lead to fraud? Was not the enormous stakes the cause of transactions which had created so much scandal recently in a court of justice? He was no enemy to horse-racing in the way of fair sport and amusement, but he did not approve of it as a medium of gambling and winning money. If his Amendments were adopted no difficulties would be thrown in the way of horse-racing, so far at least as horse-racing was conducive to fair amusement. He was not prepared to discontinue the public informer for public utility sake, and for the prevention of immorality. In matters of excise they were usefully and very properly employed by the Government. The noble Lord concluded by moving the former part of his Amendment, for omitting the words in the preamble, "to prevent for the future the bringing of such actions."
Viscount Palmerstonobjected to the
690
Amendment and to reduce the measure to the very small dimensions which such an omission would create. They were not in the same position then as they were at the time the earlier measure had been brought forward, and to the terms of which his noble Friend was anxious to limit this Bill; inasmuch as a Committee had since been appointed, which had unanimously reported that these penalties were inexpedient. That former Bill was limited to transactions prior to the 1st of June, and he (Lord Palmerston) had thought that they would, perhaps, before the end of this Session of Parliament, have been in a position to have introduced other measures upon this subject. The inquiry, however, had continued longer than was anticipated, and he was not at all surprised that the Government should not have undertaken to frame any Bill on the Report of the Committee during the present Session. He doubted not that they would legislate on the subject in the course of the next. He did not see how the House could establish a sort of sumptuary regulations to prevent what his noble Friend termed heavy betting, or one gentleman from betting with another; neither did he see the perfection of the moral arguments of his noble Friend, when he said that those who were disposed to bet might bet with honourable men, and not with dishonourable characters. If gambling and betting were to be prevented, he thought, in a moral point of view, it ought to be to the extent of preventing it in secret as well as in public, and among honourable men as well as dishonourable. It had been said that this Bill was founded on a principle of class legislation. He admitted that it was so; but it was for a class of honest men—and to protect them from dishonest men—and from exposure to qui lam actions, founded on the basest motives. He could not, therefore, consent to the proposition of his noble Friend.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the reasoning contained in the Report of the Committee appeared to him conclusive. He had not, as yet, consulted with his Colleagues, but speaking his individual opinion, as at present advised, he certainly concurred entirely in the Report, and would, therefore, support the Motion of the noble Lord. It was evident that legislation must take place next Session on the subject, and he trusted it would be in conformity with the Reports of the Committee.
Viscount Howickwould not divide on the Motion (which was accordingly negatived).
Bill to be read a third time.

DOG STEALING.
On the question that Mr. Liddell be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Dog Stealing,
Mr. Laboucherecondemned the appointment of such a Committee to give protection to the poodles and lap-dogs of the metropolis.
Mr. Liddellsaid, that information had reached him of an organised confederacy in the metropolis for stealing lap-dogs.
Mr. Wakleyexpressed a similar belief, but thought the appointment of a Committee on the subject objectionable.
The House divided on the question:—Ayes 35; Noes 8: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Marsham, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Martin, C. W.

Blackburne, J. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Peel, J.

Clayton, R. R.

Power, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pringle, A.

Cripps, W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Stanley, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Stuart, H.

Greene, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hale, R. B.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Waddington, H. S.

Knight, F. W.

Wakley, T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Young, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

TELLERS.

Lockhart, W.

Liddell, hn. H. T.

McNeill, D.

Douglas, Sir C.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Seymour, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Escott, B.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hussey, A.

Howick, Visct.

Palmerston, Visct.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Remainder of the Committee nominated.
House adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat first. — Earl of Lonsdale, after the death of his Father.
BILLS. Public. — 1a. Colonial Postage; Aliens; Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption; Vagrants Removal.
2a. Militia Ballots Suspension; Stock in Trade; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland).
Reported.—County Rates, etc.
Private.—1a. Middle Level Drainage and Navigation.
2a. Market Harborough and Coventry Road; Monkland Railways (Wishaw and Coltness Railway) Bill.
Reported.—Ladbroke's Estate; Wells Harbour and Quay; Swansea Improvement; Kingston-upon-Hull Docks; Devagne's Estate.
3a. and passed: — Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool Junction Railway; Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway (Ashton-under-Lyne and Staleybridge Branch) Bill.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Gateshead, for Repeal of the Law which sanctions the Opening of Private Letters at the Post Office. — By Lords Campbell, Ashburton, Beaumont, and Wharncliffe, from Plymouth, and several other places, in favour of the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Earls Radnor, Fitzhardinge, Powis, Brownlow, Galloway, and Mountcashell, and Lords Campbell, and Hatherton, from Enniskillen, and a great number of other places, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.

THE ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR DIOCESES BILL.
The Earl of Powisin moving that the Order of the Day for the resumption of the debate be now read, said, he would avail himself of this opportunity to state to their Lordships that it was his intention to withdraw the Bill for repealing the union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Although an unusual course to take under ordinary circumstances with respect to a Bill which had received the sanction of their Lordships by their assent to its second reading, he thought in the present instance he was justified in taking this course, seeing the extraordinary situation in which he found himself placed in consequence of the Report of the Committee which, on the day he last addressed their Lordships had been appointed to search for precedents; and of the statement made since by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), that it was not the intention of the Government to advise the Crown to give its assent to the progress of the measure. It had been his duty to consider what course of proceeding would be most beneficial to the cause entrusted to his care, and most likely hereafter to secure the object he had in view. There were three courses open to him—either to withdraw the Bill or, notwithstanding the Report of the Select Committee to press it forward to its third reading, and be victorious in their Lordships' House, or to be beaten there upon the third reading — with the knowledge that in either of the two last alternatives, he would be ultimately foiled by the interposition of the prerogative. It must
592
further be borne in mind that, whichever course he pursued, and whatever might be their Lordships' decision, there was no doubt, after what had passed in the other House of Parliament, what would be the fate of the Bill if it got there. On the other hand, he had to consider that he possessed the vantage-ground of a decision of their Lordships in favour of the Bill, which would have been tantamount to its being passed, if it had not been discovered that the technical approbation of the Crown was usual with similar Bills. He had come to the conclusion that it would be unwise, knowing as he did that differences of opinion existed amongst those of their Lordships, who had honoured this measure with their support, upon the manner in which the question respecting the prerogative should be dealt with, to press for a further decision on the part of their Lordships; he felt this the more, especially as he was satisfied the question could not remain in its present state. There must be a further discussion upon it in the next Session of Parliament in which he would have the advantage of their Lordships' decision in favour of the Bill, and of there having been only thirty seven peers opposed to the measure. He considered the course which he proposed to take as the most desirable, and he trusted that those who had confided to him the advocacy of their cause, would consider it the right one. He the more expected such would be the case, as his decision had been taken with the approbation of those noble and right rev. Lords who had favoured him with their advice in the progress of the measure. There was also another consideration which he deemed of great importance. He was informed that there was no precedent, since the accession of the House of Hanover, of a notification that the prerogative would be exercised to check a Parliamentary proceeding, sanctioned by their Lordships' approbation, upon a subject which had been originally recommended to Parliament for its consideration It would have been open to him (Lord Powis) to have asked the House to allow this question to be referred to a Select Committee, but looking to the advanced state of the Session, and the probability there was that if this difficulty were got over, and a measure introduced in consequence, it would be lost in the lower House, he had thought it better to

593
take that course which was at once the most respectful to their Lordships, and at the same time by leaving this unusual, as he must call it, exercise of the prerogative in such a prominent point of view—the most likely to secure the ultimate success of his object. He would only add that this course was strictly in unison with all the proceedings on the Bill; he (Lord Powis) had endeavoured to avoid all topics that could raise party spirit or excite feelings of temper; he had endeavoured to conciliate all those who were anxious to promote the religious institutions of the country, let the difference of opinions on other subjects be what they might. The noble Lord then said, that before he concluded he must beg leave to notice what had fallen from a noble Baron opposite, who had affirmed that the people of North Wales were indifferent about the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor and that bishops and deans and other dignitaries of the Church had been the promoters of the petitions for the Bill. This affirmation had produced considerable feeling in North Wales, and had been the cause of his having received a letter from Mr. Chapman the Mayor of Ruthin, desiring him to correct any impression which the noble Baron's statement had made, as respected that neighbourhood, or those amongst their Lordships who might be ignorant of the feeling of the Principality; he begged further to add, that this feeling of anxiety for the separation of the two bishoprics was not limited to North Wales, since he had received from the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions held for the County of Brecon, the following resolution, voted on the 1st day of the present month:
"Resolved, that the thanks of this Court be given to the right hon. the Earl of Powis and the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Saint David's for their able and manly support and advocacy in Parliament of the continuance as separate bishoprics of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph and of the existing Church Establishment of Wales, by which they have evinced their sincere regard for the national feelings and best interests of an ancient, religious, and loyal people."
This indicated that the feelings of South Wales were equally alive to the injury the Church Establishment would receive by perseverance in carrying into effect this universally obnoxious measure.
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, that the
594
unfair position in which the course of the debate had placed the supporters of the Bill, must be his excuse for addressing a few observations to their Lordships. He would beg to remind their Lordships, that after the noble Earl had moved the third reading of the Bill, the House was addressed in succession first by the noble Duke, and then by the two noble Lords opposite, each of whom advanced a variety of arguments against the Bill, in addition to that point touching the Prerogative of the Crown, in consequence of which the noble Earl had resolved, and in his opinion very wisely resolved, to press his Motion further on the present occasion. It was not till after the speeches of these noble Lords that the question respecting the Prerogative of the Crown was brought before the House by the noble Lord on the Woolsack in such a manner, as to induce their Lordships to appoint a Committee to search for precedents, and to adjourn the debate till the Report of that Committee could be received. After that Committee had reported that this Bill was of that kind, in which it had been the practice of the House not to entertain the measure without the consent of the Crown being signified in the first instance, and after the announcement of the noble Duke that Her Majesty's Ministers were not authorized to express that consent, he deemed it a wise discretion on the part of the noble Earl not to press his Motion to another division. But were the debate now to be dropped without further discussion, the supporters of the Bill would be placed in the unfair position, that all the arguments advanced by the noble Duke and the noble Lords opposite would go before the public, without any opportunity having been given to those who were in favour of the measure of meeting those arguments, and showing, what he believed they would be able to do, that they were not such as ought to prevent the success of the Bill. It was on this ground that he hoped he mlght be allowed to ask for their Lordships' attention, while he entered, though less fully, than under other circumstances he should have been disposed to do, upon a consideration of the objections which had been advanced by the noble Duke and the other noble Lords. The noble Duke, after urging strongly the point with respect to the prerogative, said there were four other reasons why this Bill ought not to be proceeded with, namely, that it would prevent the establishment of the Bishopric of Manchester, and the augmentation of

595
the Sees of St. David's and Llandaff—that it would interfere with the appointment of Archdeacons in the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, and prevent the augmentation of the poorer Benefices in those Dioceses. Now, he was prepared to show that three of these objections were without the slightest foundation, and that the fourth rested on very slender grounds; and he hoped, therefore, that he should be enabled to induce the noble Duke to reconsider his objections. With respect to the repeal of the late Act preventing the funds of the Bishopric being applied to the augmentation of parochial benefices in Wales, he begged to say, that by the existing law those revenues were strictly confined to the augmentation of poorer Bishoprics. Not one farthing could be applied to the augmentation of parochial Benefices, and therefore the repeal of this law could not iu any way interfere with the improvement of this class of preferment. The fund for the improvement of poor Benefices was distinct from that applicable to Bishoprics, and though the Dioceses in North Wales had been excluded from the operation of the 1st Act to 4th and 5th of William IV., he would remind their Lordships, that the Act of the 6th and 7th of Victoria made those Benefices capable of augmentation from the general funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that they were now in the course of receiving it. The point as to the Archdeacons of Dioceses in North Wales was also settled by the Act of last year. The Act of the 6th and 7th Victoria, sec. 8, provided for the separation of the Archdeaconries of Anglesea and Bangor, from the Diocese of Bangor, and that of St. Asaph from the See of St. Asaph. Those Archdeaconries had therefore been already constituted, and more than this, persons had been actually appointed to fill them, and were now in possession of the offices and in the receipt of an endowment from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. None of these steps would be in any manner affected by the measure before the House; and the passing of this Bill, therefore, could not possibly interfere with those Archdeaconries. The third objection of the noble Duke against the Bill was, that it would prevent the augmentation of the Bishoprics of St. David's and Llandaff. Upon this point there was a slight appearance of ground for the objection, which however would be found altogether to vanish upon examination. In the Act which it was proposed to repeal there was no special connexion
596
between the consolidation of the two sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, and the augmentation of those of St. David's and Llandaff. It was true, however, that the Order in Council issued for carrying that Act into effect, after providing for the future consolidation of the Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, and for the charge which was to be placed upon the consolidated Bishoprick, went on to say that an augmentation should be made to the Dioceses of St. David's and Llandaff out of the proceeds of that charge. And if it had stopt here, there would have been a good ground for the argument that the repeal of this Act would interfere with the augmentation of those Sees. But instead of doing this it went on to say, that the charge was to be so paid, "or out of other monies in the hands of the Commissioners," The proof that there was no necessary connexion between the union of the two Sees and the augmentation of the two Bishoprics was, that the augmentation of that of St. David's had already taken place, although the Union of the two Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had not yet taken effect. It was paid out of such "other monies;" and inasmuch as the Commissioners had and would have ample funds for this purpose in their hands from other sources, the augmentation of the Dioceses of St. David's and Llandaff would be no more interfered with by the repeal of this Act than the establishment of Archdeaconries, or the improvement of parochial Benefices. The objection with respect to the effect of the Bill on the establishment of the new Bishopric of Manchester was of more importance than the others. He had before expressed his own opinion on this subject that the establishment of a Bishopric at Manchester was by far the most important part of the whole measure under consideration; and he expressly advocated the repeal of the late Act because he considered that there would then not be any obstacle to the immediate creation of the Bishopric of Manchester, instead of that delay which was now likely to occur, inasmuch as a Bishop could not now be placed at Manchester till after the vacancy not only of one, but of two Sees. It was true that it was his wish that the whole subject should be considered, and a more enlarged view taken of the wants of the Church in this respect; but if the single case of Manchester were to be alone taken into account, he did not see that the repeal of this Act need necessarily in any way

597
interfere with it. There was not in that Act itself any necessary connexion between the creation of the Bishopric of Manchester and the consolidation of the Sees of North Wales. The Act provided in one part for such consolidation; and in another part empowered Her Majesty to erect the new See. If that part which related to the consolidation were repealed by the passing of the measure now before the House, the other part, which provided for the creation of the new See, would still remain in force. It was true, however, that though the Act did not expressly connect the two subjects, the Order in Council, by which it was carried into effect, directed that the scheme for the creation of the new Bishopric should not come into operation till after the consolidation of the two ancient Sees. But then that very Order in Council contained an express provision that it should be lawful to amend it by another Order on the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He therefore conceived that in the event of the passing of this Bill, all that would be necessary for the immediate establishment of the Bishopric of Manchcester would be the passing of a new Order in Council: or if it were thought right to give the express sanction of the Legislature, the introduction into the present Bill of a single short Clause declaring that the Order in Council should take effect immediately, intead of being delayed till the consolidation of the Dioceses of North Wales would be all that could by possibility be required. The noble Duke indeed had spoken as if other and complicated arrangements would be necessary; and as if an Act of the Legislature would be required in order to enable such new Bishop to take his seat in their Lordships' House. But he humbly conceived that this was not a question for the Legislature; but one appertaining to the prerogative of the Crown, and a part of that prerogative both more clear, and more important than that which had on the present occasion been guarded with such jealous care. He conceived that as soon as a Bishop was established at Manchester it would be competent to the Crown to summon such Bishop by Writ to take his seat in that Houee; and that this was a question which it would not be in any way necessary to bring before the Legislature. The noble Duke indeed spoke of organic change in the constitution of that House. But he did not see how an organic change would be effected more by the introduction of a spiritual than of a temporal peer. He
598
almost hoped the noble Duke would see there was less foundation for the objection he had raised against this Bill than he was led to suppose when he stated them to their Lordships. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) who spoke on a late occasion from the other side of the House very fully and earnestly against this Bill, had represented him as having admitted that impropriations were a great evil in North Wales. It was true that he had done so; but he had not confined his proposition to North Wales they were not less so in South Wales; indeed, they were not less so in every parish in England which unfortunately was subject to that calamity. But impropriations were not greater evils in the hands of Bishops than in the hands of other persons. If the whole subject of impropriate tithes were considered with the view of compelling the holders of them to make spiritual provision for the parishes whence they were drawn, he would gladly co-operate in any measure which would have that effect, but he would not be any party to a partial and unjust application of this principle, and that made with the express view of defeating a measure calculated to be greatly beneficial to the Church? On what possible principle could it be proposed to apply a different measure to the Diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor in this respect from that which was to obtain in all other Dioceses. In the event of the consolidation taking place, the Bishop of the created Diocese would be in legal possession of the temporalities of both Sees, subject to a fixed charge to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the augmentation of the poorer Bishoprics. On what ground then was this single Diocese to be dealt with differently from others, from one for instance, with which he had now the misfortune to be connected, the Diocese of Bath and Wells. But perhaps it would be said that they would apply the same principle of appropriation of tithes in the case of all the Bishoprics. Well then would they go a step further? would they admit the same principle in respect to the tithes belonging to Deans and Chapters? If so he would remind their Lordships that this was that very principle of the local appropriation of tithes, which had been strongly contended for by himself and others at the time of the discussion of the Cathedral Reform; but which had been strongly opposed, and pertinaciously resisted by the Ecclesistical Commissioners and the noble Lord opposite

599
who now in this particular instance, and for this particular purpose, was as eager to support it. It could hardly be said that Bishops were less fit holders of this species of property than other Ecclesiastical persons, not to speak of Laymen. On the contrary, if the diversion of tithes from the immediate parochial charge was in any case to be allowed, the evil was undoubtedly least in the case of Bishops, inasmuch as the support of the Bishop was part of the original purpose for which the tithes were given, and he might reasonably be supposed to be more likely than more indifferent parties to have a due care of the spiritual charge of the parish in which they arose. He would further remind their Lordships, if it were now to be maintained that Bishops were not to be allowed to hold this description of property, of the circumstances under which no small part of these tithes had come into their possession. These impropriate tithes before the Reformation, were chiefly in the hands of the Monastic Bodies, and passed to the Crown on the dissolution of those establishments in the reign of Henry VIII. They were restored by Queen Mary to the parochial clergy: but resumed by the Crown by Act of Parliament on the Accession of Elizabeth. But immediately afterwards in the first year of that reign, an Act was passed, perhaps the most iniquitous of any of a period which abounded certainly in no good precedents in respect of the mode of dealing with the property of the Church. By this Act on the ground that the Sovereign, as a lay person, was not a suitable holder of this property, but that it would properly be in the hands of Bishops, as spiritual persons, the Queen was empowered on the vacancy of any See, to seize whatever part of the manor or lands of the See she might think fit, and to make compensation to the Bishop out of these impropriate tithes. It was in this manner that no small portion of those tithes were forced upon the respective Bishops, and if they were now to be taken from them, it would seem reasonable that the State should restore the lands for which they were given, which were now in its possession as part of the property of the Crown. There was only one other subject to which he wished to refer; and that in consequence of some observations made by the noble Lord opposite who had both in a former stage of the Bill before the House, and again on that, the third reading spoken of this measure, as evincing a dissatisfaction with the general
600
existing state of the Constitution of the Church, and as designed to subvert it. The noble Lord had said that this Bill originated with those or at least, if it did not emanate from, that it expressed the wishes, and gave effect to the intentions of, parties who desired to dissolve the union between the Church and the State, with the view of establishing the supremacy of the Church over the State. But no authority whatever had been given for that assertion beyond the fact that the noble Earl in introducing the Bill had incidentally, in proof of one of the positions he advanced, quoted a pamphlet which advocated the revival of the Convocation. This would appear a somewhat slight foundation on which to rest such an assertion. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that the sitting of Convocation for dispatch of business, was incompatible with the union of Church and State. Were the Church and State not united in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or in those of the Stuarts? Were they not united till the Ministers of the Crown, at the beginning of the last century, put a stop to the deliberations of the Convocation, in order to protect Erastianism and Socinianism in the person of Bishop Hoadley? It could not be necessary on his own part, or that of his right rev. Brethren who supported this Bill, and of the majority of their Lordships House to disclaim any intention of in any degree impairing the union between the Church and the State. But he did not less confidently deny that there was any foundation for such a charge against the general body of the clergy and other members of the Church who were in favour of this measure, They who discriminated the most clearly between the essential character of the Church, as a spiritual communion emanating from a Divine Founder, and its position in this country as a religious establishment in connection with the State, were not therefore insensible to the advantages of such an union. They knew, indeed, that there was a danger to the members of an Established religion—they knew that they were exposed to the temptation of valuing too highly external support—State endowment and civil privileges, and of too little realizing the higher and spiritual privileges belonging to them as members of a true branch of the Catholic Church of Christ. They knew that the true strength of the Church, its best support, its most abiding security, was that which was inherent in itself—that which man did not give, and

601
which man could not take away, that which was found in the purity of the doctrines taught—the apostolical order of the constitution inherited, and the piety and zeal with which the clergy discharged the sacred functions intrusted to them. The advantages conferred by the State gave increased means and abilities for carrying into effect those most important ends for which alone the Church was established and endowed; and if circumstances should bring about a dissolution of the connection between them, it would tend alike to degrade and unchristianize the State, and to cripple the energies of the Church, and impede it from carrying into effect those high objects which in the Providence of God it was destined to fulfil. But great as were the benefits which were thus recognized as flowing from the union of the Church with the State, if any one thing was calculated more than another to excite dissatisfaction with the relation which now existed between the Church and State, it would be to see the authority of the State and the prerogative of the Crown brought in over-bearing influence upon the Church—not for the extension and encouragement of its spiritual efficiency but to control and cripple it. It could not fail to create regret and dissatisfaction among the most attached members of the Church, to see that their Lordships were not permitted to proceed in the ordinary course of legislation with a measure like this—a measure not only called for by the unanimous voice of that part of the country to which it more especially related, but which with a rare unanimity, had obtained the suffrages of the whole body of the clergy, and so considerable a portion of the laity of the land—which had been introduced into that House in no hostile manner, but under auspices and in a spirit calculated to win for it a favourable reception—which was supported with but few exceptions, though these undoubtedly were of the greatest weight, by the whole body of the right rev. Prelates, and which their Lordships had affirmed by no inconsiderable majorities to be conducive to the public good. It could not but excite much regret that such a measure had been brought to such a conclusion as now appeared to be its fate. He had heard with great satisfaction the course indicated by the noble Earl, which was marked by that caution and moderation which had distinguished his whole conduct on this question; and he had no doubt he would find on another occasion the same concurrence and support which
602
had been already accorded to him by their Lordships. He earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers did not see occasion in a future Session to undertake the conduct of such a measure themselves, at least they would allow it to proceed in the ordinary course of deliberation through both branches of the Legislature.
The Earl of Mount-Edgecumbesaid, he had on the second reading of the Bill voted in accordance to the recommendations of the noble Duke. He had done so with a very doubting mind, but with a hope that as the arrangement with which the Bill was to interfere would not come into operation until the occurrence of a future event, there would be time for consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, and that the result of that consideration would be to render the Bill unnecessary. He had, however, another reason. He always thought it the duty of an individual, who could only aspire to the humble position which he occupied, to give to those who filled high offices in the State a steady and a consistent support. The only exception to that rule was, when the principle at stake was higher than the mere question, who might constitute, for the time being, the Government of the country, or where the question did not involve any system of Government. He considered it a great evil when the opinion of a majority of that House was, in the face of the country, overborne by the Government. He admitted that there were cases in which a Government would be fully justified in exercising such a power, where they conceived that the public interests would be prejudiced by the measure which was proposed; but he humbly conceived that such a necessity did not exist in this case, and he was confirmed in this opinion by the statement of a noble Lord opposite the other night, that there were in existence sums for the endowment of a bishopric of Manchester of which the Commissioners had not been aware; and therefore the objection that it would be a bad compliment to the Commissioners not to adopt their decision fell to the ground, because it was only proposed to fulfil the intentions of the Commissioners, and in a manner which it was but reasonable to suppose they would themselves have recommended if they had been aware of the existence of those funds. He thought it would be not more for the interests of the public, than of Her Majesty's Ministers

603
themselves, that they should reconsider this subject, and adopt such a decision as would render it unnecessary for the noble Earl again to introduce his Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he should not have said a single word on this subject, if it had not been for what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, who had thought proper, in a manner which was not at all in conformity with Parliamentary practice, to refer to and go into what had been said in former debates on this subject, and to introduce not only the subject of impropriate tithes, which had been only casually referred to by a noble Friend of his opposite, but also other topics which had been mentioned equally by accident, and which had nothing at all to say to this question, the right rev. Prelate had also brought under review the arguments adduced by so humble an individual as himself, who, as the right rev. Prelate had truly said, could be but little conversant with the subject. He was not a Member of the Commission—he never had been a Member of it, and he knew nothing but what he had seen published in the Reports, all of which he had read very carefully. It was his duty to read those Reports and the Act of Parliament which he had referred to on a former occasion, and he had read them, and was acquainted with their contents, and he was able to state to the House that the Bill of the noble Earl, if passed into a law, would have the effect of repealing part of an Act of Parliament which was the very foundation of the powers that were given to Her Majesty by her Order in Council, and he on a former occasion entreated their Lordships not to agree to the Bill on that account, without the consent of the Crown to the discussion. With reference to the power of appointing a Bishop of Manchester, which subject had been again alluded to by the right rev. Prelate to-night, it was said that it could be provided for in another manner, by the use of the prerogative of the Crown, and by another Act of Parliament. He (the Duke of Wellingson) was not discussing another Act of Parliament, but he was discussing that Bill which was before the House, and the effect which it was likely to have, if agreed to, upon those arrangements which were to be carried into effect by Her Majesty's Orders in Council under the existing law. He referred to the power given to Her Majesty to carry into execution the recommendations
604
of the Commissioners by Orders in Council, and he then reminded the House that the Bill of his noble Friend would have the effect of destroying the very foundation of that power of Her Majesty. That was the course which he took on a former occasion when the Bill of his noble Friend was under discussion by their Lordships—it would, he repeated, affect the whole superstructure of that power to carry out the necessary arrangements under the existing law, and would tend to destroy all the machinery which had been provided for carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners. That was the ground which he took when the subject was last before their Lordships—these were the reasons which he urged for not agreeing to the Bill. He represented on that occasion what the arrangements were which might be carried into effect without this Bill. Amongst other things, he mentioned providing for the parochial clergy in Wales; he mentioned Wales in particular, as more applicable to the case, but the power under the existing law applied to all the parochial clergy, and he stated that the law under which that could be done would be affected by the Bill of the noble Earl, if it were passed into a law. He had now a paper showing what distribution had been proposed of the revenues at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by Her Majesty's Order in Council. If their Lordships referred to the Reports they would find that very large demands were made upon the parochial funds — they would find that very large demands were made on account of those dioceses. In the dioceses of Llandaff and St. David's, for instance, the demands which were made on the parochial fund were greater in amount than the saving that would be affected by the union of the dioceses, and the demands for parishes in the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor were 3,181 l. for St. Asaph, and 4,747 l. for Bangor, on the parochial fund. It was true that the episcopal funds could not be applied to that purpose without the authority of an Act of Parliament, and it was true, as had been said, that it was at the disposal of the Government. That might be, if they could prevail on the other House of Parliament to agree to such an appropriation of the episcopal fund. With respect to the Bill of the noble Earl, he would beg to remind their Lordships again that its effect would be to

605
repeal a portion of the Act of Parliament, which was the very corner stone on which the whole system at present in force depended with respect to the power of Her Majesty in Council, and the appointment of a Bishop in Manchester, as well as with reference to the sees of Llandaff and St. David's. The right rev. Prelate who had spoken last had charged him (the Duke of Wellington) with ignorance of the Act of Parliament which was passed in order to carry into effect some of those arrangements to which he had alluded; but what he had before stated he would now state again, and if their Lordships referred to the Act of Parliament to which he had before directed their attention, and referred to the Bill of the noble Earl, they would find that he had stated correctly what would be the effect of the Bill of the noble Earl. Their Lordships were well aware that there were serious objections made at the time the Reports originated to the introduction of two Bishops, the Bishops of Ripon and Manchester, into that House, and he believed it was deemed necessary at that time to unite not only two dioceses, but four dioceses. It was true, as the right rev. Prelate said, that the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, and a Bill in the other House of Parliament, could effect some of those purposes; but he (the Duke of Wellington) pointed out that very ground as an objection to the Bill of the noble Earl, namely, that his Bill would make it necessary to resort to the prerogative of the Crown, and a Bill in the other House, to effect an object which could, as the law now stood, be attained by an Order of Her Majesty in Council: if such a measure were really required, he begged to be permitted to claim for Her Majesty's Government the opportunity of considering the matter and of originating such a measure themselves, and not to be forced to bring it forward by a Bill brought into that House. The right rev. Prelate objected to the use of the prerogative of the Crown on this occasion. No one could have said less on that subject than he (the Duke of Wellington) had, and he had only mentioned it when he looked upon it to be absolutely necessary to do so. He stated last Session, when the Bill was before the House, that it would be necessary to have the consent of the Crown to the discussion of the Bill in Parliament, but he did not mention it until the Bill had proceeded through some of its stages.
606
On the occasion of the introduction of the Bill this Session, he allowed it to pass a second reading without saying a word on the subject of the necessity of the consent of the Crown to the discussion, and he did not bring it forward until he was asked by a noble Lord on the other side of the House if he had the authority of Her Majesty to consent to the discussion of the Bill. He had not spoken one would on the subject up to that time, for he thought it proper to allow their Lordships to decide on the second reading of the Bill. When, however, he was asked that question, he stated that he had no such authority — he did not wish to state it sooner, for he knew that it would be time enough to state it at any stage of the measure. When the Bill was about to be read a third time, he stated that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to sanction the discussion of the measure, and he urged their Lordships not to proceed with it without the sanction of the Crown, and he urged upon the right rev. Prelates to consider whether they ought not to refuse to pass a Bill, to the discussion of which Her Majesty had not given her consent. He urged them to consider whether, even supposing it was the greatest possible object to the Church to have the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor separate, it would be not advisable, even for such an object, to establish the precedent of agreeing to a Bill affecting the interests of the Church without having the consent of the Crown to its discussion. That was all he said on the subject—he said it was a matter of form, and he entreated their Lordships to consider whether they ought to adhere to it or not. Several noble Lords, however, considered not only that the form was important, but they considered that the substance as well as the form of it was important, and that it was most essential that the consent of the Crown should be obtained for the discussion of the Bill — indeed, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack expressed a doubt as to whether or not he could put the question on the Bill, after it had been stated that the consent of the Crown was not given to the discussion on the Bill; and the subject was accordingly referred to a Committee, which Committee were required to search for precedents, in order to ascertain if the Bill belonged to that class of Bills with respect to which it was the usage of the House to obtain the consent

607
of the Crown for the discussion, and the Committee reported that it was of that class. The only use which was made of the prerogative of the Crown in this case was, in effect, that Her Majesty was not advised to give the consent of the Crown to the consideration of this Bill by the House; that was all that had been done in the use of the prerogative of the Crown; and it was, in fact, the House itself which took the course that had been complained of with regard to the Bill, and not those of whom the right rev. Prelate said that they were willing to take advantage of the prerogative of the Crown. It was the duty of the servants of the Crown to consider this case as they would consider any other case—it was their duty to consider whether the measure was necessary, or, if not necessary, what course they ought to take. When they considered the subject, and when they came to the conclusion that it would be likely to inflict injury instead of being useful, it was their duty not to advise the Crown to give its consent. He felt himself under the necessity of making these observations, and he should have allowed the Motion of his noble Friend to pass without any remark if it had not been necessary for him to do so in his own defence.
The Bishop of Salisbury,in explanation, said he did not refer to a former debate on this Bill, but to a part of the present debate, which had taken place on a former occasion. He should exceedingly regret it, if he had used a single expression which could by any possibility convey anything but real respect for the noble Duke. He (the Bishop of Salisbury) felt that in so doing he should be doing that which would be offensive to every one of their Lordships. He did not accuse the noble Duke of ignorance of Acts of Parliament, but the noble Duke having been inaccurate in some portions of his statement, he (the Bishop of Salisbury), remarked that he might not be so conversant with the details of those matters as the right rev. Prelate was. He (the Bishop of Salisbury) could assure the noble Duke that nothing disrespectful was intended.
Earl Mount Edgcumbehoped Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the matter before the expiration of the present Session of Parliament.
Lord Lyttellonsaid, it was evident that the means which Her Majesty's Government had adopted to defeat the Bill
608
was to inform the House that the consent of the Crown was necessary to its discussion. It was well known that that consent was necessary to the passing of the Bill into a law, but if the consent of the Crown were necessary to the discussion of the measure, then any debate on the merits of the Bill was utterly futile. No one could doubt that if the Government thought proper to advise the Crown to give its consent, that consent would be obtained. It was now admitted that not a single precedent could be got for making the consent of the Crown necessary for the discussion of the Bill. The noble Duke now said he did not press the prerogative of the Crown—that he did not mention it till the second reading. Certainly not, for Her Majesty's Government would not have adopted so unusual a course had they thought the Bill would have been thrown out on the second reading.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill last Session he had stated that he had not the authority of the Crown to sanction the consideration of the Bill, and before the Bill was brought in during this Session he had communicated to the noble Earl that the consent of the Crown could not be given to the discussion of the measure.
Lord Lytteltonsaid, it was a very unusual course to refuse the assent of the Crown merely to the discussion on a Bill; but Her Majesty's Government wished to prevent it reaching the House of Commons, and they adopted a mere technical form in order to effect that object. It ought, in his opinion, to be considered a matter of course to allow the discussion. A noble Duke said the other night of this course, that it was a state trick and an unworthy manœuvre. He (Lord Lyttelton) would not go the length of repeating that, but he could not think it a very fair way of stopping a Bill if it could not be resisted on its merits, and he thought it was a proceeding not very worthy of this or any other Government.
Lord Broughamsaid, the noble Lord appeared to be under a mistake with respect to the Bill. He, as a constitutional lawyer, denied that any Bill in that or the other House of Parliament could not be considered without the consent of the Crown. As a constitutional lawyer, he maintained that there was not any subject to the discussion of which the previous

609
consent, permission, or leave, of the Crown was required before either House of Parliament fully and fairly considered it. The Committee reported on quite a different matter from that; namely, they reported that this Bill was one of a class of Bills with respect to which it was the usage to give the consent of the Crown to the consideration before the Bill passed into a law; and in the second Resolution it was staled that the consent of the Crown was given at different stages of such Bills, and was not necessary at any one particular stage. It was of the highest importance to the privileges of the Parliament, and their constitutional power and freedom, that this matter should be rightly understood. He would maintain that there was no necessity, on the part of either House of Parliament, to obtain the previous leave and permission of the Sovereign in order that they might discuss any Bill. If that were not the law then there was an end to all their Parliamentary and constitutional freedom of discussion. Good God! did they not know that one of the greatest grievances which had been complained of in the ancient institution of Scotland was, that a Committee, called "the Lords of the Articles," had power previously to inquire and give their acquiescence before a measure was introduced and discussed, and yet those Lords of the Articles, who were Members of the Estates themselves, were looked upon to possess power which was an intolerable grievance, and repugnant to the freedom of debate—a power which was put an end to by the Revolution of 1688, and which never existed after, from 1688 to the period when the Union, in 1706, happily put an end to that very exceptionable body, the Scottish, in the same way that another Union at a subsequent period put an end to that much more exceptionable body, the Irish Parliament. The granting of the consent of the Crown to the discussion of such Bills had invariably been acted upon—it was one which was advantageous in operation, and its origin showed that it was founded upon a wise reason, and was calculated to be advantageous in effect. It was proposed originally with a view to prevent unseemly collision between the two Houses of Parliament and the Crown, as regarded giving a veto by the Crown to a Bill which had passed both Houses of Parliament. The refusal of the consent of the Crown to the discussion
610
of a Bill was a warning, as it were—a polite and courteous communication—yes, he said a courteous communication between the Sovereign, the guardian of the privileges of the Crown, and the two Houses of Parliament—one House the representative and guardian of the Aristocracy and the Church, and the other representing the Commonalty of the realm in order that there might be a previous notice that if they passed a certain Bill it would not receive the Royal Assent; and it would be evident to their Lordships that there must be many excellent reasons for a custom which had so great an effect in preventing any unpleasant collision, by withdrawing the Royal Consent to the discussion of the measure. It did not, however, he should remark, follow from what he said that because this had been the custom of Parliament, either House of Parliament had been therefore bound by it, for both Houses of Parliament had the undoubted right to discuss any measure that was brought before them; and there was no case in which any Member of the House of Commons or any Peer of Parliament could not introduce any question, and take the discussion on it without the consent of the Crown for such a discussion. He held it to be demonstrative to the clearest proof that there was no one case in which any Peer of Parliament, or representative of the people in the House of Commons, had not the undoubted and imprescriptible right of rising in his place, and making any Motion on any one subject which he pleased, and there was no one Motion on which he could not take a discussion, and in which the Speaker was not bound to put the question, except where the Statute interfered, as he should presently show it did in one case. By the 10th of George III.—the Grenville Act—it was provided that if a petition were presented complaining of the election of any Member, it should be laid on the Table without the question being put, and that was the only exemption in either House of Parliament as to the power to bring forward a Motion and of the Speaker to put the question upon it. No man could, after the passing of the Grenville Act, moot the question whether A. B. was or was not duly returned to Parliament in case of such a petition as that which he had described; and it must be laid on the Table as required by the Statute; that, in fact, went to prove, that in other cases,

611
where there was no statutory prohibition, the Speaker was bound to put the question, or else one single individual in the House of Commons could put an end to a subject by refusing to put the question; and if that were the right in the House of Commons, who select their own Speaker, how much stronger was it in their Lordships' House who did not choose a Speaker. Their Lordships did not choose a Speaker, and that was the reason that the Lord Chancellor had no power to preserve order given to him, each Peer kept order. Perhaps, however, he should better satisfy some noble Lords if he prefixed the syllable "dis," and said, that each Peer had a power to preserve order or maintain admired disorder as the case might be. His noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack might, perhaps, wish he had the larger power of the Speaker in the other House; but boni judicis and he might, perhaps say boni oratoris est servare non ampliare jurisdictionem. [The Lord Chancellor intimated his dissent.] He was sure his noble and learned Friend had better be without the power. But as this House did not choose its own Speaker it was more necessary here than in the other House, that the Speaker should have neither eye nor ear (as an old Speaker in the other House once said) but as the House itself should direct. It was quite true, that in the other House no Bill on the subject of money could be entertained without the previous leave of the Crown—not that they had not a right to hear it, for it was their undeniable right to discuss the subject of granting money, but it was a wisely imposed self-restriction — a restriction which they laid upon themselves—that they should not receive applications for money, without the consent of the Crown. It was a wise and prudent, and salutary restriction, that they should not proceed further without the consent of the Crown, where its interests were concerned, but it was only a rule of self-restraint. He was of opinion, therefore, that they ought to follow usage in this case, though there was no rule of law to prevent them from proceeding with the discussion; and if he moved the third reading, his noble and learned Friend would be bound to put the question. If however, any extraordinary necessity arose for the exercise of their right, they were not debarred from using it; but he did not believe that any necessity existed in the present case for departing from that usage.
The Marquess of Clanricardeentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend upon the importance of this subject, and thanked him for his speech, because, agreeing with him, that there were rules of Parliament as well as laws of the country which were not to be found in written enactments, he thought it of the highest importance that some protest should be entered against this case being considered a precedent. It was an entirely new precedent, because, though undoubtedly the Committee had reported that upon such Bills as the present it had been usual to have the consent of the Crown before they could be passed, he defied any noble Lord to produce a Bill that had been stopped, and which the House had been precluded from passing before this one, for, virtually and practically, their Lordships were now stopped for want of the consent of the Crown. He would remind his noble and learned Friend how it was, that the word "usages" got into the Instruction to the Committee, and then into the Report of the Committee. The Government took a stronger view of the case than his noble and learned Friend had taken on the present occasion, because the Motion, as moved by the noble Duke, had the word "required" in it, [The Duke of Wellington: No, no.] Yes, at first; but at his suggestion the noble Duke happily inserted the word "usage," for if the word "required," had been used, it would have been necessary to take some step to have it expunged. The doctrine laid down on the other side of the House was, that their Lordships were precluded from proceeding, not only with this Bill, but all such Bills. But he asserted that while there was an absence of any such precedent, there were several precedents of Bills touching the rights of the Crown as nearly as this having passed. He would not, however, take that ground, because the laches or neglect of the Government or the House could not be pleaded as forming a good precedent. The noble Duke stated that last year he had alluded to the consent of the Crown being necessary; but not a word was said this Session, either upon the first or second reading of the Bill, and what was the consequence of that reserve? They were now called upon to slight the rights and privileges which that House had hitherto used, and they were precluded from giving effect to the opinion to which, after deliberation they had come.

613
And what was that for? He should not blame the Government if he saw that any injury was done to the Crown. That had never been argued. Who knew that if the Bill were passed, the Crown would be injured in its rights or patronage? But that was not the ground on which consent was withheld. What then? No other reason had been given than this—that it was the opinion of Ministers that the Bill ought not to pass. If the doctrine was laid down that whenever a Government were of opinion that a Bill ought not to pass, they were to withhold the consent of the Crown there was an end to the freedom of debate in that House. He was told that they might debate this Bill to the latest period; but was their Lordships' House a mere debating society, where they were to discuss questions and measures which they knew would never pass? With regard to the measure itself, he did not take an extraordinary interest in it, not having studied it much; but he should be disposed to vote for it upon the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He wished now only to enter his protest against the conduct pursued in most unnecessarily raising a question between the rights of that House and the attention which ought to be paid to the Crown, which being a matter of much delicacy ought not to have been raised upon such grounds. The impression upon every man's mind in the country, must be, that Ministers wished to sneak behind the Throne, and under cover of the royal prerogative to prevent this Bill from going down to the other House of Parliament, because some of their right hon. Colleagues would be obliged to support it. Why not say that out in their Lordships' House as well as elsewhere? It was perfectly well known that the President of the Board of Trade was well inclined towards the measure; and it was as perfectly notorious, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dare not disoblige his constituents at Cambridge. ["Hear, hear."] Let noble Lords who cheered him go to Cambridge and inquire, and they would soon be satisfied that such was the reason; and he defied them to produce any precedent of any Government having withheld the consent of the Crown in this way. He felt, therefore, quite justified in finding fault with Ministers. So little did the noble Duke know the ground upon which he might meet the right of usage, that it was
614
at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that a Committee was appointed to find a precedent. The noble Duke did not know whether the Bill came within that class of Bills which rendered it necessary first to ascertain whether the consent of the Crown would be given. [Cries of "No, no,"] If that was not the case, why then did a Cabinet Minister propose the appointment of a Committee to inquire into what they already knew and were satisfied about? [A noble Peer: It was Lord Canterbury.] It was immaterial whether the Government itself or a noble Baron who was a friend to the Government suggested the Motion; it was entirely done by the Government. It was, therefore, too late for the Government to say now that this course had been taken only on the ground of injury to the Crown. He repeated his thanks to his noble and learned Friend for his speech, which would be referred to in future times. If the consent of the Crown was to be withheld whenever Ministers chose that a Bill should not pass, there was an end to the privileges of that House with regard to legislation.
The Duke of Wellingtonexplained that he was not the person who had suggested the word "required," and that all he did was to substitute the word "usage."
Lord Wharncliffesaid, his noble Friends never refused the consent of the Crown, nor ever said anything about it until his noble Friend was asked from the other side if he was empowered to communicate her Majesty's consent to the measure. When the question was raised, it was his duty to say that he was not authorized to give the consent of the Crown. The noble and learned Lord on the edge of the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) had given a most able exposition of the rights, both of the Crown and of their Lordships' House, well worthy their attention; but he could not speak so of the Address of the noble Marquess, who had stated that it was because some Minister could not vote against the Bill in the other House, that therefore the Government had taken this course to stop the Bill. How did the noble Marquess know that? Had the Bill passed, what was there to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer acting upon principle, perceiving the evils of the Bill, and voting against it? But the noble Marquess seemed to know more of the intention of his Colleagues than he did; for he said one right hon. Gentleman would vote for the Bill. He (Lord Wharncliffe)

615
knew nothing of that fact. The Act which his noble Friend now sought to repeal was the settlement of a great question, and it should remain undisturbed. It was a pity that this subject could not be discussed without stirring up other questions as to how many Bishops, or whether any, should sit in their Lordships' House. Such discussions were not calculated to advance the interests of the Church.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he was the person who first called attention this Session to the question whether this Bill required the assent of the Crown or not, and that entirely without the knowledge or privity of any noble Lord opposite. He had acted only in accordance with what had happened in the antecedent year, when the noble Duke, not after the second reading had been agreed to, not after the question had been put to him, but after the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill had agreed to withdraw it—and then it was in reference to the future—took upon himself to suggest the question whether the assent of the Crown would not be necessary before such a Bill could pass? That was last year; and therefore he utterly denied that this prerogative of the Crown had been called into action to control an adverse majority. When the subject was first mentioned, it was not after an adverse decision; therefore the noble Lord had no ground to complain of underhand proceedings. He had hoped, indeed, that this suggestion made last year would have induced the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord to withdraw the Bill altogether. No one would wish to deny the force of the exposition of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), but it must not be carried too far; after all, much must depend upon the wisdom and discretion of the House in the exercise of its rights—what was there, in fact, to prevent them from moving an Address to the Crown praying for the royal assent? That would be no surrender of their rights and privileges, which, he contended, had not been interfered with. At the same time, he thought that it would be convenient in cases where the consent of the Crown was necessary, for the House to be put in possession of that knowledge as early as possible. With respect to official convenience, or any possible difference of opinion among noble Lords and their Colleagues, he had no concern, but undoubtedly the statement made by the noble
616
Duke last year before any such occurrences could have taken place, as was supposed, was a sufficient answer to them. He had understood that the Bill would have a good effect among the working clergy in Wales, and a right rev. Prelate had informed him that the principle of the Bill was very good and ought to be applied to all England; but without the means he did not see how it could be carried out. He trusted noble Lords would consider that portion of the measure during the interval between this and the next Session. The cry in Wales both from the clergy and the laity would be very different from what it was if they saw the ecclesiastical revenues applied to the promotion of Christian instruction. Noble Lords should feel that the real object was to extend the number of bishoprics through the country. He thought that if such was the case, a Bill should be brought in expressly announcing that intention.
The Bishop of Bangorsaid, that approving as he did of the course pursued by the noble Earl in not pressing the House to any further decision upon his Bill after the report from the Committee who had been required to report upon the question of the royal assent; he, at the same time, must express the great regret which he felt upon this subject. He was sure, too, that that regret would be felt by every person in the Principality of Wales, as he knew it to be by all with whom he had either conversed or corresponded on the subject. He felt certain that the intelligence of the manner in which the Bill had been disposed of would be received with universal regret. He had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government had acted under a strict sense of their duty to their Sovereign on the subject. If the Bill had been thrown out by a majority of their Lordships' House or the House of Commons, then his countrymen and neighbours would have submitted with regret, but without any strong feeling of disappointment; but when they heard that the Bill had been disposed of upon a formal and technical objection, they would feel the deepest sorrow at the matter. It could not be contended that the Bill affected the property or the prerogative of the Crown. He could not concur in what had been said by the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) as to the statement made by the noble Duke during the previous Session, as he did not understand that any

617
such intimation as that mentioned took place. He was bound to say, that he was fully convinced that the measure adopted was one which would have no operation upon any other question connected with any bills that had already passed through the Legislature, and that it would not even affect the Cathedrals Bill, or the Act the two Clauses of which it proposed to repeal, with the exception of those clauses. It was a measure which tended to produce no organic change in the constitution of the country. It did not aim at revoking any Order in Council beyond this one. He could assure their Lordships that the question was one which was deeply felt by the clergy of his diocese from the first. The working clergy—as one noble Lord chose to call them, by an invidious distinction which he did not pretend to understand—the working clergy thought it much better to claim their bishopric than that there should be a division among the poorer clergy of the revenues of the diocese. As for himself, he had no personal interest in the Bill, since he would remain where he was during his lifetime. He certainly, however, felt deeply for his diocese, and he knew that all his clergy felt deeply upon the subject also. It was therefore that he felt it his duty to support as strenuously as he could the Bill which the noble Earl had presented with so much ability and zeal to their Lordships. In conclusion, he hoped that the Government would take the whole subject into their consideration for another Session, and that they would adopt a different view of it from that which they had at present unfortunately taken. He hoped that when again brought before the House Ministers would present no merely formal and technical obstacle to the Bill, and with that hope he would return to his diocese.
The Duke of Wellingtontrusted he would not be deemed guilty of disorder by speaking again, if he rose to offer some explanation. He did give notice to his noble Friend (the Earl of Powis), when his Bill was under discussion last year, that it was a measure upon which it would be necessary to have the consent of the Crown. His noble Friend considered that intimation so conclusive that he had communicated with him (the Duke of Wellington) on the subject before bringing in the Bill in the present Session of Parliament. Upon the third reading of the measure he had intimated that Her
618
Majesty's consent could not be given to the Bill, but he then stated that it was not his intention to take the sense of the House upon the third reading; proving thereby that he only wished to put it to the House whether it was expedient for the House to proceed with a measure to which Her Majesty's dissent had been signified. No one felt a higher respect for the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken than he did, and nothing was more creditable to him than the attachment of his clergy to their Bishop. But that was not the question which the Government were called on to consider. They had to view the measure upon large and constitutional grounds; and in doing so they had determined that they could not advise Her Majesty to give it her consent.
Lord Campbellsaid, that while concurring with the constitutional law upon the subject, as laid down by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), yet as the law now stood it was clear, that the consent of the Crown having been withheld, the Speaker of their Lordships' House could not put regularly the question that the Bill do now pass. He would suppose that it was in the power of Parliament to make such a regulation as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had contended for, and that it might take the initiative in matters affecting the prerogative and revenues of the Crown; yet it was still clear, from the usage on the subject, that both Houses had laid down as a rule, that unless the assent of the Crown was given, such a Bill should not pass. The usage of the House was the law of the House, as much as it was the "lex scripta Parliamenti," and the usage said, that there was a certain class of Bills which could not be passed without the consent of the Crown. Well, then, the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the matter held that the present Bill was one of that class, and till the consent of the Crown was given, therefore, he maintained that it could not pass. He thought that the time at which in the progress of such a Bill, the Royal Dissent ought to be intimated, was a point which ought at once to be settled, and he should submit, that as the question resolved itself into a Standing Order, their Lordships ought to make a Standing Order that this class of Bills should not be entertained unless the Royal Assent was signified to them upon their second reading.
Lord Wharncliffestated that Ministers were quite willing to take upon themselves the responsibility of advising Her Majesty to withhold her assent from the present Bill.
The Bill was then withdrawn.

PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND).
Lord Monteaglesaid, that the question which he had then to bring under their Lordships' consideration was evidently not a party question. It was one which he felt willing to bring forward, though at the moment when he addressed them there was not one of his noble Friends present. The question was one which demanded their most serious attention, involving as it did the highest considerations of humanity, expediency, and justice. It must be in their Lordships' recollection, that the subject which he proposed to bring before them was one which had already been deliberately inquired into by a Committee of that House—that witnesses of the highest respectability had been examined, that men of the greatest skill and eminently conversant with the subject had been before the Committee; and the Report which had been presented to their Lordships was one to which the Committee gave their unanimous assent; and that Report was communicated to the other House of Parliament. Before he proceeded further, he begged to say that one of the objects with which he then rose was to inquire what the intentions of the Government were respecting the important duty of making provision for Pauper Lunatics in Ireland, as well as to call the attention of the noble Duke opposite to a conversation which he had held with him during the present Session of Parliament, on the subject which he was now endeavouring to bring under the view of the House. Remembering then, the importance of the subject, and remembering likewise that conversation to which he had referred, he could not help feeling some surprise that nothing had yet been done in a case where the necessity was so urgent, and the evil so great. At present nothing more was done, and according to the present system, nothing could be done for the Pauper Lunatics beyond that of keeping them in safe custody; and here let it not be forgotten that those Lunatics were persons not only not criminal, but not even accused of crime; yet those poor people were detained in confinement, without any of the medical aid or moral discipline which their condition required; they were, on the contrary,
620
subjected to the mere prison discipline, and they were sent to prison on the mere certificate of any medical man—they were sent to common gaols, and treated like ordinary offenders. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant could, if he thought proper, send them to one of the district asylums; but so insufficient were those buildings to answer the purposes for which they had been designed, that the answer to any application for admission always was, "The asylum is quite full." In illustration of the extent to which the demand for admission was carried, he should just state that in the year 1837 the number in those district asylums was 37, in 1841, it was 110; and in 1843, it was 214. One just cause of regret was, that so many and such helpless persons should be in local prisons away from the cognizance of the Government. The Committee in their Report recommended that there should be in Dublin a central establishment for Criminal Lunatics. Now, for the accomplishment of this object no Bill whatever was required; all that the Government had to do was to take a vote for the purpose, and really he thought it was incumbent on them to do this when they looked at the whole of the ill-considered arrangements under which those persons were kept: those arrangements were so ill-considered that the parties who made them would not now justify them. Nothing could be worse than the condition of Pauper Lunatics. In the union workhouses there was nothing like accommodation for them: there was nothing more contrary to humanity than the manner in which they were kept; no proper means provided for their restraint; no moral discipline—no medical assistance, nothing but straitwaistcoats, chains, and personal violence;—and again, nothing could be more unequal or irregular than the allocation of these asylums. There was only one for the whole province of Connaught, with a population of 1,500,000 souls, and one for the county of Waterford, with a population of 400,000. That which he particularly deprecated was, that the Session should be allowed to pass over without anything being done for the mitigation of so great an evil. To leave the people in such a state would be a political crime in any Government. It was, no answer to say that the change which he suggested would lead to increased expense. He believed he spoke the sentiments of the Irish proprietors generally when he said that they would not object to local

621
burthens, when those burthens were really imposed for purposes of humanity. He suggested that as a beginning the Government should take a vote in order to make provision for Criminal Lunatics, and he concluded by moving an Address to the Crown representing that a Committee had investigated the state in which Pauper Lunatics were kept in Ireland; that their unanimous Report and other documents had been laid before their Lordships' House, setting forth that the accommodation for the Lunatic Poor in the district asylums was insufficient; that in consequence of that they were obliged in the local establishments and common gaols to be associated with criminals; that there was not a sufficient provision for moral restraint and medical treatment: that there was no general asylum such as existed in Great Britain; that on the authority of the Commissioners it appeared that the cells and dormitories in the union workhouses were gloomy and uncomfortable; that Pauper Lunatics had frequently been imprisoned upon false pretences and without a medical certificate. The Address concluded by praying that these evils be remedied by such means as Her Majesty might be advised to adopt.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the Government would rejoice to have better means of providing for the accommodation of the unfortunate persons to whom the noble Lord's Motion referred. The Government had turned their attention to the subject of providing a central asylum for pauper lunatics, and a plan was now before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the probability was, that the right hon. Gentleman would take a vote for the purpose of carrying it into effect. That was the probability, but he could not pledge the Government that such would be the case. From the noble Lord's own showing, it would require an Act of Parliament to provide for the regulation of these asylums, and his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had proposed a Bill, and would, if possible, bring it on this Session, but he (Lord Wharncliffe) would suggest that it would be desirable that the Bill should be submitted to the grand juries of Ireland for their suggestions. He would communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the impression which the speech of the noble Lord had made on their Lordships' House, and he trusted that in the course of this Session some further advance would be made in the matter, and means taken
622
to provide the necessary sum. Under the circumstances he conceived that the Address was unnecessary.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that in the Hebrew language there was no future tense, and he wished he could say so of the present Government; but unfortunately their language upon such subjects as that before the House—upon all matters relating to Ireland—was all in the future tense. The defects of the existing institutions were manifest, but if the object of the Government was to apply to the grand juries for sites, they would be applying to the very worst authorities. The course which the Government were now taking was the very reverse of that which had led to any improvement of lunatic asylums. Sir Robert Peel, when Secretary for Ireland, went to Parliament and got a vote, and established the Richmond Lunatic asylum in consequence of that vole, which was the first effectual step taken towards the improvement of the asylums in that country. If the noble Lords opposite were disposed to bring their future tense into the present tense, there was nothing in the Address which he had named that they could object to, and he should not, therefore, withdraw it.
Question put, and negatived.
House adjourned.