Sitting of 8 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Copper and Lead Duties.Reported.—Removal of Aliens; Petty Bag Once. 3° and passed;—Evicted Destitute Poor (Ireland); Poor Houses (Ireland); Great Yarmouth Freemen Disfranchisement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Macgregor, from Members of the Free Kingston Church, Glasgow, respecting quoad sacra Churches.—By Sir John Hope, from the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Drummond, from Lympsfield, Surrey, and other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Captain Dalrymple, from Members of the Free Church Congregation, Glenluce, Wigtonshire, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Alteration of the Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland).—By Mr. Hodgson, from Carlisle, and by Mr. Octavius Morgan, from Newport, for Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Deedes, from the Board of Guardians of the Isle of Thanet Union, for Rating Owners in lieu of Occupiers of Tenements.—By Mr. Walter, from the Congregation of Primitive Methodists, Canaan Street, Nottingham, for Reduction of Duties on Tea, Coffee, Sugar, and Cocoa.—By Mr. Cobden, and Captain Vyse, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for Extension of Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. G. S. Duff, from the Provisional Synod of Moray, of the Free Church of Scotland, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. Urquhart, from Charles Ellerman, of Brompton, for Inquiry into his Case.—By Mr. Heywood, from Inhabitants of Bishops Stortford (Hertford), for Repeal of the Game Laws.—By Mr. Benjamin Smith, from the Town Council of Queensferry, and by Mr. Ewart, from Dumfries, for Alteration of the Law of Entail (Scotland).—By Sir W. Somerville, from the Board of Guardians of the Union of Kells (Meath), for Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, against;
760
by Sir T. Acland, from Inhabitants of St. Giles, Camberwell, and other Hon. Members, in favour of; and by Mr. Drummond, from Governors and Directors of Greenwich, for Alteration of, the Public Health Bill.—By Sir. Cobden, from Athlone, for Inquiry into the Public Works (Ireland).—By Mr. J. B. Smith, from Dunfermline, suggesting Loans on Railways (Scotland).—By Sir T. Birch, from Pawnbrokers of Liverpool, for Alteration of the Law of Remedies against the Hundred.—By Mr. Joseph Bailey, from Hay District, to take the Case of Turnpike Trusts into Consideration.

MALTA—REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
DR. BOWRING rose to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies respecting the island of Malta. It would of course be in the recollection of hon. Members, that the inhabitants of Malta had frequently forwarded petitions to that House praying that there might be conceded to them all the benefits of a representative and constitutional Government. What he now wished to ask was, whether the Ministers of the Crown had taken any steps upon that subject, or whether there were any measures for that purpose now in progress?
MR. HAWES said, that if his hon. Friend meant by that question to inquire whether or not it was proposed to give to Malta a representative assembly, he had only to say, in reply, that no such measure was in contemplation. He should not do justice to the present Governor of Malta if he did not take that opportunity of stating to the House that that right hon. Gentleman had many important measures of improvement under his consideration, such, for example, as the establishment of municipal institutions, the improvement of the commercial law, an amelioration of the modes of civil procedure, a diminution of legal expenses, and a revision of other important Maltese institutions. The Governor of Malta also intended to introduce into that island the warehousing system, which would greatly improve trade. From these practical measures the best results might be expected.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE (SPAIN).
MR. URQUHART wished to know whether the interpretation given elsewhere of the judgment formed by Her Majesty's Government as to the conduct of the representative of Great Britain at Madrid was correct? He put this question, because he understood that in another place that conduct had been censured, while he understood from what fell the other day from the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) it

761
was approved of by Her Majesty's Government. He further wished to know whether the despatches of the 10th and 11th of April, of which extracts were given, might not be produced in full, and whether the Duke de Sotomayor had condescended to give any answer to the last despatch of the representative of the British Government at Madrid?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that with respect to the note of Mr. Bulwer, the papers presented to Parliament showed that his conduct had been approved of in two despatches from himself (Lord Palmerston) in respect to the course which, under all the circumstances of the case, he had deemed it expedient to take. With respect to the despatches of which extracts only were given, he did not think it essential to give the whole of them, because there were, as in many despatches, observations and remarks introduced into them, which, however proper for the information of the Government, were not of such a nature as needed to be published generally. He had laid on the table everything important as showing the course pursued. In respect to the third question put by the hon. Member, he had to say that he had not yet received from Mr. Bulwer an acknowledgment of his last despatch; and therefore could not state what answer the Duke de Sotomayor might have given to Mr. Bulwer's last note.
MR. BANKES understood the noble Lord to say the other evening that it was his intention to furnish the House, togegether with the recent correspondence between the British and Spanish Ministers, with an extract from a Spanish paper called the Clamor Publico. Now, he could not find this extract among the papers presented to the House. He wished to know, also, since it had been stated in that House, or at all events in the public papers, that the publication of that correspondence had appeared in the French papers as if from authority, whether there was any ground for assuming that publication proceeded from the Spanish Minister, or from any one under his authority? He likewise desired to know how it happened that the correspondence presented to Parliament appeared in the English newspapers twenty-four hours before it reached the hands of Members of that House?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON observed, that the previous evening he had promised, if he could lay his hand on the paragraph in the Spanish newspaper, he would in-
762
clude a copy of it in the papers presented to the House. At the time those papers were prepared he was not able to find the paragraph in question, but he had since discovered it, and should not have the least objection to lay a copy of it on the table of the House. With respect to the second question of the hon. Member, as to the source whence the French newspapers obtained copies of the correspondence, of course he (Lord Palmerston) had no distinct authority for his opinion, but he was warranted in saying that the communication did not come either from Her Majesty's Government or from Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid; and, from certain phrases and internal evidence, his opinion was that that communication might come from some party either in connexion with the Spanish or French Government. With respect to the last question of the hon. Member, he could only say that it was the usual and established courtesy, in respect to public departments, when papers were laid on the table of the House, to send copies to the principal newspapers. He did not know whether in the present instance copies were sent to the newspapers before a sufficient number had been struck off for the use of the Members of that House; but it was the usual courtesy, he repeated, to furnish the newspapers, under the circumstances he had mentioned, with copies of documents, and this was found to be for the public convenience.

THE WEST INDIES.
LORD G. BENTINCK wished to put some questions to the Under Secretary for the Colonial Department, relative to British Guiana and Jamaica. He had received a letter from one of the members of the Combined Court of Demerara, communicating a number of resolutions which had been placed before the Court of Policy, of which the following was one:—
"That, in the present state of the colony, this Court cannot proceed to vote the estimate, or to take any part in raising the supplies, as the sources of income from which the colonial expenditure has hitherto been defrayed have ceased to be productive, and this Court is consequently deprived of the means of providing the necessary funds to support the civil government and institutions of the colony. The Acts of the British Government have placed the colony in its present perilous position, and on the British Government must the responsibility rest."
The whole of the resolutions, though laid before the Court of Policy, had not been passed, but had been unanimously agreed

763
to by the elective section of the Combined Court, and by the financial representatives, who had expressed their concurrence in the course pursued by the elective section of the members of the Combined Court. The resolutions had also received the approval of a large meeting of planters, merchants, and others interested in the agriculture, commerce, and general welfare of British Guiana, which agreed to a declaration, from which the following were extracts:—
"We desire to express our conscientious and firm belief that the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers as remedial are a mockery and delusion, and are totally inadequate to meet the ends proposed.
"That the time has arrived when the public expenditure must, of necessity, be effectually reduced, inasmuch as the colony is not in a condition to bear even one-half the amount levied by direct and indirect taxation for the service of the year 1847. And that, with such an onerous burden as the present civil list, so entirely inconsistent with the present circumstances of the colony, it is impossible to raise by taxation an adequate amount to support, even on a greatly reduced scale, those institutions which have become necessary from the altered state of society, and for the maintenance of internal peace and good order.
"We desire to express our entire and unqualified approval of the course pursued by the elective section of the hon. Court of Policy at this trying and eventful juncture, and we heartily concur with them in opinion."
He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had received information confirmatory of the statement he had made, and also whether Sir C. Grey, the Governor of Jamaica, had been correctly reported in the Jamaica Times as having made the following address to a deputation from a meeting at Jamaica; and if so, whether the Governor had announced to Her Majesty's Government the circumstance of his having made such address?—
"His Excellency thought matters were in a very unsettled position at home; that there was a Committee sitting to consider West India affairs, and that, although Her Majesty's Ministers had stated that they would not alter their present policy, yet that this was not to be considered final, and that something might yet be done for the colonies, arising out of the inquiry before the Committee."
MR. HAWES said, in reply to the first question of the noble Lord, that the resolutions he had referred to had been agreed to at a private meeting as contradistinguished from the Court of Policy, and that he had no official cognisance of them whatever. With respect to the question relative to the statement reported to have been made by the Governor of Jamaica to a deputation from a meeting, he could only state that he knew nothing of the
deputa-
764
tion or o the answer given to it, and therefore was not able to inform the House whether the reported statement were correct or not.

RIO PLATA.
MR. ROBINSON inquired whether any communication had taken place between the Provisional Government of France and the British Government with respect to the agreement or understanding existing before the overthrow of the monarchical Government of France in reference to the joint operations of the British and French squadrons in the Rio Plata?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON observed, there had been no communication between the British Government and the Provisional Government of France on the subject. Some time ago the late Government of France, in concert with the British Government, sent out instructions which were jointly addressed to the British and French officers, and which had for their object, and would, he trusted, have for their result, the amicable settlement of the differences then existing. Intelligence from the parties charged with these communications might be excepted almost daily. There was nothing which had required fresh communication on the subject between the Governments of France and England; and he had no reason to suppose that the present Provisional Government had withdrawn those instructions.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Public Health Bill read,
MR. SPOONER said, although the Government had made various alterations in the Bill, the principle of it remained the same. He objected most decidedly to the power which was proposed to be given to a central board in London to control the affairs of the different localities affected by the Bill. There was, also, an unlimited power given to the Lords of the Treasury to appoint officers and officials under the Bill, which power he considered unwarranted and unconstitutional. He admitted that some superintending body was necessary to see that proper sanitary measures were adopted in the different localities; but he protested against the interference of Government in the local administration of the different towns such as was proposed by the Bill. The noble Lord at the head

765
of the Government would find so many complicated interests affected by the Bill, that he would be unable to carry it through the House; and he would suggest the propriety of the Government withdrawing the Bill, and bringing in one which was more in accordance with the opinions of the House and the country. In at least every town with which he was connected, there existed a strong feeling of hostility to the Bill, in almost all its details. He assured the House that in the present state of trade, they would find a very large proportion of the retail dealers and small tradesmen in such a situation, that their profits could not afford them the means of paying the general and local taxation to which they were subjected; and they certainly could not support the increased burdens which a Bill like this before the House would necessarily lay upon them. In the town of Birmingham there existed two or three bodies having for their object the promotion of drainage, sewerage, and other sanitary measures. Now, he agreed that it would be a better state of things were these separate bodies fused into one. But the way in which the Government proposed to deal with them would be found quite impracticable. By the Bill before the House, the powers of one of the bodies in question were only partially transferred to another—thus rendering both of them expensive, and both of them inefficient. In such a state of things, then, it was not to be wondered at that so vigorous would be the opposition throughout the country that the noble Lord would find great difficulty in carrying a Bill at all resembling the present one. The suggestion thrown out that the House should discuss and settle the details of the measure before they proceeded to consider the clause appointing Commissioners, was, in his mind, an excellent one, and one which he would cordially support. He felt most strongly the necessity for some sanitary measure, and protested against being supposed to object to all sanitary reform. To sanitary reform, on the contrary, he would give his most cordial support; and it was precisely because he felt the necessity for some improvement in this respect, and because he was really desirous rather of effecting that object than of appointing boards to carry it ultimately out, that he called upon the noble Lord not to press this Bill in its present state, but to take the advice of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and bring in a Bill creating the
766
moving and superintending power, but leaving to local bodies the management of matters of local concern. If they wished a Bill upon the subject to be carried, they must weed it of all the obnoxious centralising powers to which he had referred. In its present form they would find the measure give rise to endless difficulties. It would mix up town with agricultural districts. Indeed, when they came to analyse the Bill, they would find it throwing anything it touched into a mass of confusion which it would be almost impossible for any tribunal to unravel. But if they were in earnest about the work—if they really wanted to carry a good practical sanitary measure, then he would advise them to send this Bill to a Committee upstairs—to give that Committee power to call and examine witnesses, whose statements, while they proved the difficulties likely to arise from such a measure as the present, would also point out the necessary remedies, If the hon. Member for Stafford pressed his Motion to a division, he should feel it to be his duty to support him, as he believed that whoever drew up this Bill must have been totally ignorant of the interests it was intended to serve, and the effects which it would be likely to produce.
MR. SLANEY thought that his hon. Friend opposite had not stated one objection to the Bill which might not be discussed, and probably got rid of in Committee. He thought that he could show to the House, first, the absolute necessity for an extensive measure, and that rather for the sake of the poor than the rich; and secondly, that it was necessary to have a measure somewhat of the nature of that before the House, the details of which might be safely left for consideration and adoption in Committee. It was upwards of ten years since he had turned his attention to this subject. From that time to the present day, discussion after discussion had taken place with respect to it. In 1840 he himself had moved for a Committee, which was appointed, sat, and examined witnesses. That Committee reported that the sanitary regulations in many principal towns of the kingdom were exceedingly defective, were often almost entirely neglected, and that abuses of a most extensive nature existed in connexion with them. And a strong reason why a measure like this should be adopted was, the changed social position of the great masses of the people. Some years ago the

767
agricultural population of this country were as two to one in respect to those who were resident in towns. That state of things had since been reversed; and it had been shown since that the population of those living in towns was now as two to one, compared with the agricultural labourers resident in rural districts. In several large towns the number of the working classes, in respect to the whole population of those towns, was as high as sixty per cent, eighty per cent, and even ninety-five per cent; and these facts showed the necessity of a change. The report of the Committee on the Health of Towns, in 1840, stated that the Committee had inquired into the matters submitted to them, and that they found that the sanitary arrangements in the principal towns of the realm were most imperfectly carried out, and that abuses existed in all large towns of a most extensive nature. And here he begged to bear testimony to the benevolent feeling and ability of Mr. Chadwick, as evinced in the reports drawn up by him on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners. The subsequent reports of the Poor Law Commissioners confirmed the representations of the House of Commons' Committee on the sanitary state of towns. The second report of the Health of Towns Committee was made in 1845, and it included the opinions of the most eminent engineers of the country, and of medical gentlemen of the highest eminence. That Commission reported unanimously in favour of a measure of extensive improvement as absolutely necessary for the health of the working classes in large towns. Now, then, they came to the point. The Commission in question drew up a series of resolutions, basing each upon a full exposition of the reasons which had induced them to adopt it. These resolutions were the foundation of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, as well as of that now before the House. The first of these resolutions recommended that in all cases a local body should have the particular charge of sanitary works, but that the Crown should possess a general power of superintendence and revision. Now that was the principle which it was now sought to affirm—a principle supported by the unanimous recommendations of a Committee of this House—by the reports of the Secretary of the Poor Law Commission—by the first recommendations of the Sanitary Commission—and by the second report of that body, in which they indicated re-
768
medial measures for the evils which they described as existing. Besides this mass of authority, too, they had the reports of the Commissioners, who examined into the santary condition of fifty of the largest towns in England. Was it not time, then, for the enactment of some general measure, by means of which local bodies might have the means of carrying out those sanitary reforms which they believed to be needful, and the execution of which they were most desirous of having placed within their power? He had himself investigated the cases of the towns, one of which was celebrated for the ingenuity of its manufactures, and was known as the "toy shop of Europe." He alluded to the town of Birmingham. He should be ready to answer any question which might be put to him in reference to the state of that town. Birmingham certainly was one of the most healthy of our large towns; it stood on a high hill, and, generally speaking, the resident working classes had each his own dwelling. The effect of the Bill would be to place in the hands of the local authorities powers which they did not now possess. The only power vested in the hands of the noble Lord would be the appointment of an inspector and an auditor—offices absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the measure. It was argued that the Bill would diminish the authority of the local bodies, and that it was another step toward a system of complete centralisation; but, so far from that being true, the fact was that this Bill would confer on the local board powers which they never possessed before. They would have the full management of their own affairs; and the whole appointment of the acting officers, with the exception of the inspectors and auditors, would necessarily be under the control of the central authorities, in order to correct the evils which would arise from exclusive local management. The principle of the Bill was to enforce local arrangements for the improvement of health, and to carry out those arrangements by the action of the local bodies elected by the ratepayers of the district; and nothing could be devised which more effectually would answer that object, and carry out that principle. The hon. Member read a number of extracts from a pamphlet on the sanitary question, to show the present unhealthy condition of the principal manufacturing towns of England, and related the result of certain inquiries he had instituted into the number of pigs and pig-

769
geries in Birmingham, from which it appeared that the parish contained, pigs, 1,681, styes, 3,256; and the whole district, pigs, 2,300; styes, 3,300. They might form some idea of the condition of the people residing in the close courts and lanes where these animals were kept. Bilston was nearly, if not altogether, as bad. When the cholera visited England, the inhabitants had suffered more than those of other towns. The consequence was, that attempts had been made to remedy its sanitary condition; but at this moment the town had lapsed into all its former misery and filth. It was now almost destitute of drainage, and with a very inadequate supply of water. The report stated that in some of the towns the contents of the common sewers are collected into stagnant reservoirs in the immediate vicinity of the population. In the same way—whether they turned to the district of Lancashire with Dr. Lyon Playfair, visited the West Riding with Mr. Smith of Deanston, inspected the midland manufacturing towns, such as Coventry and Leicester, with Mr. Martin, or traversed the mining districts around Merthyr Tydvil, they would find a similar repetition of the causes of disease and sickness, in crowded courts and lanes, without ventilation or sewerage, or any of the requisites for comfortable or even decent existence. No one could read these accounts without coming to the irresistible conclusion that some large measure such as this was absolutely necessary to improve the condition of the people, and effect those alterations which were indispensable to their improvement. It would appear from the reports that there was an increase of five years in the life of those who lived in sewered districts, as compared with those who were not so advantageously circumstanced. Thus it seemed in the power of the House to prolong the life of a great mass of people to that extent by making those improvements which scientific inquiry proved to be so necessary. He hoped the House would agree with him in thinking that these evils should be met by some such measure as that before them. The hon. Member for Warwickshire asserted it would be a most costly measure, but the calculations of the most experienced men tended to an opposite conclusion; and even if it were expensive, the country would gain more than ten times the outlay in the decrease in poor-rates, in the health and comfort, and, above all, in the contentment of the great
770
mass of the people, who were the mind and tone of the State. The Bill would affect the happiness and health of hundreds of thousands; and he hoped when it came before the Committee that the House would model it in such a way as to make it successful and permanent. But nothing could exceed the general ignorance which prevailed on this subject, particularly with respect to drainage. The old system of drains, six feet five inches by four feet five inches, cost three times as much as earthenware pipes, which were a great deal more effectual and far more economical, particularly for courts and alleys. Then the supply of water was miserably deficient, the poor having to purchase it at an exorbitant rate, and to fetch it from a considerable distance. The objections to the measure, now under consideration, were chiefly made by interested individuals, and those who considered themselves the possessors of vested rights. He thought any measure of a sanitary nature relating to London would best be discussed by itself. When they considered the numerous boards in London, and that the commission of drain age was entirely different from that in other parts of England, it would be admitted that it would be a matter of great difficulty, if not an impossibility, to comprise in this Bill regulations applicable to this great metropolis. Having paid much attention to the condition of the humbler classes in great towns he had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary for the safety of all that great alterations and improvements should be made. By making such improvements they would rally these classes round the institutions of the country; but if they neglected these improvements the people would be discontented that nothing had been done for them. By a measure of this nature they would do much to increase the security of property, especially if it were followed by measures for improving the moral condition of the people. By such measures they would be able to change in a great measure the condition of large bodies of the population of great towns, and to make them contented and cheerful. When hon. Gentlemen expressed their desire of upholding property, he would remind them that the poor man's property was his health, strength, and power to labour, and that upon these depended the support of his wife and children. They would paralyse, they would destroy his capacity to win his bread if they did not give him that protection to his health by

771
which alone he would be enabled to maintain himself and family. According to one of the best authorities, it appeared that in one county alone—Lancashire, there were annually 336,000 cases of preventible disease, and that the cost resulting therefrom amounted to no less 4,000,000 l. He hoped, therefore, they would lay aside all party feelings, and consent to go into Committee, with the view of passing some large sanitary measure for the improvement of the condition of the suffering masses in the great towns of the kingdom.
MR. CHARLES PEARSON said, it was with great reluctance he should oppose the Bill going into a Committee, but he felt it to be his duty to resist upon principle its second reading. It was frequently very difficult to determine, in respect of Bills in that House, what might be properly called their principle, to warrant their rejection in limine, and in what were their details capable of modification if referred to a Committee. In the present Bill he considered its principles were two—first, that the Ministers of the day might, by Order in Council, upon application of a small fragment of the inhabitants of the great mass of the cities, boroughs, and districts of the country, order the local authorities of the place to be deprived of the independent conduct and action which was the glory of our Saxon institutions, and, like ricketty children, be placed in the go-cart of central government. The other principle of the Bill was, that Scotland, Ireland, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the metropolis of London, should be excluded from the Bill, and be left for future legislation. [Viscount MORPETH: Not Oxford and Cambridge.] Well, Oxford and Cambridge were not excluded from the amended, but they were not in the original one. Against these principles it was his intention to enter his protest, both by his voice and by his vote. If the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) had persevered in his original Amendment, that no alteration of the law was necessary to secure sanitary improvements, he would not have obtained his (Mr. Pearson's) support; but in resisting the Bill upon the broad principle of its un-English and unconstitutional character, the hon. Member for Stafford should have his hearty concurrence. He felt it right to make this declaration at the outset of his speech, to guard himself against the misrepresentation to which he might be otherwise exposed, as the advocates of this measure,
772
both in and out of the House, were disingenuous enough to represent that the opponents of the Bill were the enemies of the comforts of the poor. It was true, that as a metropolitan Member he might be said to be uninterested, as far as his constituents were concerned, in the fate of the Bill. It had been said, that the Members for Lambeth, Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, the City, Greenwich, and Southwark, might maintain their popularity with their constituents, at the same time that they supported the Bill, because the Ministers had yielded to their representations, and had excluded the metropolis from the operation of this objectionable measure; but it would be a shortsighted policy if the metropolitan Members adopted this course, for as surely as the Bill before the House was carried, so surely would the metropolitan boroughs be subjected to the same fate. In fact, the noble Premier, with his usual frankness, had declared that that was his intention. The noble Lord had described, in somewhat graphic characters, his interview with the Lord Mayor, when this subject was first promulgated. The Lord Mayor had not considered himself at liberty to narrate the circumstances of the interview to which the noble Premier had referred. He was left, therefore, to draw upon his imagination to figure out the details. The noble Lord said, the Lord Mayor had asked, "Do you mean to include the city of London in your Sanitary Bill?" "I do," responded his Lordship. "Then I shall give it my utmost opposition," rejoined the Lord Mayor. I cannot (said the hon. Member) imagine that such a curt and unceremonious conversation upon such an important occasion sufficed these two great functionaries, the First Minister of the Crown and the first magistrate of the City; but as there was no Homer to sing, like the deeds of Ulysses at the cave of Polyphemus, I will let my imagination strike the strings, to record this scene, as I may presume it actually occurred. I must do the noble Lord the justice to say that he is not in the slightest degree amenable to the suspicion entertained by some of the opponents of the Bill, that the noble Lord has excluded the metropolis out of any affection for the City; on the contrary, the failing of noble minds exhibits itself conspicuously in his Lordship's actions; fearing lest his affection for the citizens should prompt him to give their interests undue support, he is in danger of guarding against undue favour, by bestow-

773
ing upon them an undue measure of his powerful opposition. But to return to facts (the hon. Member continued) the noble Lord no doubt communicated to the Lord Mayor, at the interview, his intention to breakfast upon the cotton lords of Liverpool and Manchester, to dine upon the less digestible hardware representatives of Birmingham and Sheffield, and to sup upon his favoured constituents of the metropolis. He trusted that the hon. Members for the northern boroughs would be too far north, and the Members for the metropolitan burghs would be too wide awake, to fall into this trap. "Divide and conquer" was an old adage. If the representatives of the metropolis joined the Ministers to fasten this un-English Bill on the country, they must expect the country party would hereafter unite with the Ministers to visit the same measure upon themselves. The hon. Member who had preceded him in the debate had read long extracts from the report of the Health of Towns Association and other documents, to prove that the labouring classes of this country were sunk into the lowest state of poverty, misery, wretchedness, and crime, principally on account of the low state of their physical position, in consequence of the neglect of the local authorities to make arrangements for the proper sewage and cleansing of their dwellings, and that, therefore, it was the duty of the Legislature to pass the Bill, in order to give the Government officers the power of enforcing better sanitary arrangements than could be obtained by local authorities. He denied both the fact stated, and the inference deduced. It was an unfounded calumny upon the meritorious class to which those statements referred. A large meeting was held in London the other day on this important question. It was true, no Member of Her Majesty's Government was present, nor was either of those important Gentlemen who in that House exerted themselves to collect Members together. It was a meeting convened by the Health of Towns Association, the Metropolitan Association, and the Philanthropic Association. They had challenged men as zealous in the cause of sanitary improvements as themselves to appear before their self-constituted tribunal to be tried for having neglected those sanitary measures of which these said parties, forsooth, called themselves the advocates. He himself had been summoned to appear, and did appear, before their tribunal, and he would read one of the
774
resolutions passed, in order to protect himself from the unfounded assertion that he and those who opposed this Bill were opposed to the objects it professed to carry out. The resolution expressed a concurrence in the opinion that good drainage and an ample supply of water were highly conducive to the cleanliness, the comfort, the health, and the morals of the population, and that those objects might be obtained under the old system of local government. This was a resolution passed at a large meeting in the metropolis, convened by the supporters of the noble Lord, and by an association of which he was a distinguished member. In this country all our sanitary arrangements were made under the authority of the law, and by means of local institutions. In foreign countries, sanitary arrangements were made by the Government, or, if by local institutions, they were still under the control of the State authorities. This Bill proceeded upon the latter principle, for, though it left an appearance of authority in the possession of the local boards, it placed a barren sceptre in their hands, for the local authorities were controlled by the Government. What had been the result in those countries in which a precisely similar system prevailed? In France, before the late revulsion, out of an income of 54,000,000 l.a year, 18,000,000 l. had been expended in purposes connected with the civil administration of the country, and 500,000 persons were in the employment, and their offices in the patronage, of the Government, and upon them devolved the expenditure of this enormous sum; so that 18,000,000 l. a year was used to keep the Administration of the day in power, by corrupting the votes of those who kept them there. If the tree was known by its fruit, it might be seen from other nations what would be the effect of centralisation over the institutions of this country. In all parts of France the corporations and sanitary regulators were under the control of Government influence; and what did we find? In France, the proportion of annual deaths to the whole population was 1 in 42; in Prussia, 1 in 38; in Austria, 1 in 33; in Russia, 1 in 28; in London, 1 in 37; and in England, 1 in 45. Thus in England, under our system of self-government, the proportion of deaths to the population was less than in any other country; and even in the metropolis, so much calumniated, the duration of life was greater than in any Continental capital, and the moral

775
condition of the population was much higher. The Gentlemen who had prepared the New Poor Law had said, that early marriages were evidence of a low state of the social condition of a country, and that an excess of illegitimate children in proportion to the births afforded the strongest evidence of the low state of the social and moral condition of a country. It appeared, from statistical returns, that the annual marriages in France were 1 in 62; in Prussia, 1 in 56; in Austria, 1 in 62; in Russia, 1 in 49; in England, 1 in 66; and in London, 1 in 102: so that in England, where the humbler classes were calumniated, as being in a low and degraded moral condition, as compared with those of other countries, instead of being sunk in the dirt and mire of misery and misconduct, they stood out in noble relief. Then as to illegitimate births; what was the moral state of other countries? In France, in every 1,000 births 928 were legitimate, and 72 illegitimate; in Austria, 886 legitimate, and 114 illegitimate; in England, 933 legitimate, and 67 illegitimate; and, in London, 968 legitimate, and 32 only illegitimate. Compare this with Paris, where, in every 1,000 births, 711 only were legitimate and 289 illegitimate; with Berlin, where the proportion was 850 to 150; and with St. Petersburgh, where it was 812 to 228. The registry of the returns showed that, until the passing of the New Poor Law, which was designed to repress illegitimacy by casting the burden of the child upon the weaker vessel, in London and England the proportion of illegitimate to legitimate children was 25 per cent less than now. Representing, as he did, a metropolitan borough, it might be said that he had nothing to do with the sanitary question; London, Marylebone, the Tower Hamlets, and Finsbury, not being included in the Bill. He did not think he now saw in the House a single representative of a metropolitan district. The noble Lord who had a large portion of what was known as the harmlessness of the dove, with, however, a small modicum of the antagonistic quality, had thought it best to fight his opponents separately and singly, by first bringing in a Bill that should take in all the towns except the metropolitan districts; and he (Mr. Pearson) dared say that many of the Members for the metropolitan districts would vote for the measure. They could say to their
776
constituents, "You are left—out why should we oppose the Bill? Let us support the Government in putting down the Tory Members who oppose it." He (Mr. Pearson) did not, however, think he should risk his popularity by dividing on this occasion, in company with the Gentlemen who sat on those (the Opposition) benches. The metropolitan boroughs should sympathise with Manchester, Birmingham, and other large towns; and he had heard it said that those towns were to be left out in the Committee. The noble Lord the Member for London had heard many hard expressions used towards him, on the supposition that he had excluded the metropolis on account of his political connexion with the place. It was doing that noble Lord only justice to say that there was not the slightest foundation for this imputation. The public mind had been drugged with the grossest misrepresentations in respect to the sanitary condition of the kingdom. He found it stated in a pamphlet from the Health of Towns Association, that 58,000 children had been destroyed in London—that 58,000 children had died in the city more than would have died if the rate of mortality there had been the same as at Lewisham. Why should Lewisham be selected—a place of 500 or 600 inhabitants, to be compared with the City, containing 120,000—in which, instead of the deaths of children being annually 58,000 in excess of the ordinary rate of mortality, the whole number of deaths under ten years of age did not amount to one-tenth of the number stated in this pamphlet. Looking at the efforts which had been made to influence votes upon this question, he could not refrain from repeating his conviction that those efforts were based upon the grossest untruths. But though he thus frankly avowed his disbelief of those statements, it did not therefore necessarily follow that he was opposed to all good sanitary measures. On the contrary, no one more earnestly desired than he did to see a useful Health of Towns Bill carried through that House, applying not to the country only, but to the city of London and the whole of the metropolitan districts. Many facts came under his observation, and many were communicated to him, which left no doubt in his mind upon that subject. He could state one case, which was founded upon a report of the Statistical Society—a case the details of which were calculated to make every man feel it

777
to be a deep humiliation to live in a country where such scenes could take place. The report had been made by men of the very highest reputation; and what did it show? No less than this—that, in eighteen houses which had been examined consecutively, the population was so pressed together, that the maximum quantity of air which any individual enjoyed for respiratory purposes was only 270 cubic feet, and the minimum but 52 cubic feet; the average being 176 cubic feet. Now, it was well known that in felons' prisons the State allowed 1,000 cubic feet for each criminal. This was the state of things in a locality which he should presently name. There was
nothing so bad in Birmingham, in the City, or in any other town in the kingdom. In that wretched state human beings were huddled together—all ages, both sexes, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, strangers and acquaintances, the sick and the healthy, the dying and the dead, with a proximity and under a pressure which the veriest brutes would resist. Looking, then, at such enormities as these, he professed his perfect readiness to join any man who was willing to aid in putting an end to such monstrous evils. Where were those atrocities to be found, and to whom were they owing? They were to be found in the metropolis of England, and they were to be imputed to the management of the Woods and Forests; yet at this moment the House were told that the Bill was so altered that there would be no paid Commissioners, and that the practical carrying out of the measure would be left to the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests. Was it really a fact that that department had so little to do that they could find time enough and to spare for such undertakings as this? Was it to be expected that the public would place unbounded confidence in the management of the Woods and Forests when they were told that the present condition of Church-street, St Giles's, was to be traced to the proceedings of that board? That was the locality to which he alluded when he spoke of human beings huddled together with an average of only 176 cubic feet of air for respiratory purposes. Some time ago the Commissioners of Woods and Forrests conceived the design of forming a new street, for the purpose of enabling persons who rode in carriages to proceed easily from the west-end to the city, and return at their pleasure. For that purpose they
778
pulled down a large number of the houses in St. Giles, and increased the packing together of the people to an extent 67 per cent greater than their previous condition had rendered necessary. Before the formation of the new street there was a full current of air through Church-street, and its ventilation was further helped by a cross current. Both these were put an end to—a lofty wall was built across the street, and it was converted into acul de sac, in order that the eyes of the wealthy as they passed should not be offended by looking on the condition of the poor.
VISCOUNT MORPETH was sure that the hon. Member for Lambeth would gladly be set right on any point where his information happened to be imperfect. He begged to inform the hon. Member that the formation of the new street had been carried on, not under the direction of the department of Woods and Forests, but under that of a Commission, in which the Lord Mayor of London was included.
MR. PEARSON resumed: Assuming it to be as the noble Lord suggested, that these operations had been conducted by a Commission, of which the Commissioner of Woods and Forests and the Lord Mayor were members, the House must very well know that in Commissions of the kind to which he alluded there always was introduced a certain number of persons who were technically called dummies, in order to give such schemes the appearance of popularity. Surely every person in that House must be perfectly aware, that in the presence of such a Minister of the Crown as the noble Lord opposite, even the Lord Mayor of London would sink into measureless insignificance—that in the deliberations of such a Commission the opinions of the Lord Mayor would not have the slightest weight; and this was another proof of the impropriety of intrusting the practical execution of such a measure to men so respectable as the Lord Mayor, or so great as the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests; but who, it was manifest, could not be cognisant of the working of a measure carried on in their name. He would state another fact or two: the law placed at the disposal of the Woods and Forests a very large revenue for the improvement of the metropolis by opening and draining confined courts and alleys; and though the district of Church-street, St. Giles's, stood in the utmost need of good sewerage, and though 100 l. would have been sufficient for accomplishing that object, yet the

779
Woods and Forests, with the utmost indifference to the wants of the locality, were unable to find 100 l. for their relief. Looking, then, at the whole of the question, and considering dispassionately the provisions of the Bill, he could not do otherwise than say, that the House would act wisely if they placed more confidence in the discretion and integrity of local authorities, and left their operations unshackled by Government officials. Centralisation was not always and necessarily the best mode of dealing with questions of this nature. Past events had shown that the care used by the public functionaries of this metropolis in great emergencies was most effectual. When the cholera last afflicted Europe, the deaths from that disease in Paris were one in forty, while in London they were only one in 400. Paris lost upwards of 18,000, and the city of London less than 600 by the disease. Although he was most anxious for a good sanitary measure, yet he by no means wished for any such Bill as that then before the House; and he hoped that the metropolis of England would never submit to the passing of any such Act.
LORD ASHLEY was anxious to impress on the House the absolute and indispensable necessity of instituting some measure which might remove some portion at least of the grievances that pressed so severely on the working population. His hon. Friend near him said the other night that this was essentially a working man's question, and he had never in his life said a truer thing, for it affected the whole of the working man's life: it began at home; it affected his capacity to eat and sleep in comfort, to go abroad, and to gain a livelihood by which he might be enabled to rear his family in comfort and respectability. He knew that this question was well comprehended by the working classes, and was one of the questions they had really at heart. He had not attended a single meeting of working people in which this had not been a prominent feature; he had constant correspondence with them from all parts of the country, and in every part he found them alive to this question. He need only mention that the other day, when there was a meeting of trade delegates in the metropolis, amongst the grievances urged, and the first on which they came to a resolution, which they did him the honour to communicate to him, was the sanitary condition in which they and their families were left by the neglect of legislative enactments. He, therefore, assured the House
780
that this was a most important question, not only with respect to the moral condition of the working classes, but also in reference to the amount of political content or discontent which they would find existing amongst the masses. Nor was this a question which touched persons of a higher class at second-hand only. They knew the result of sanitary abuses by the large addition to the rates, by the increased demands on private charity, by accessions to the bills of mortality; and, more, they knew it in some cases by the results on themselves. Fever might break out in some noxious and remote district; but when at length it came to desolate some contiguous and wealthier region, then they began to see the consequences of this intolerable evil. He did not mean to conceal or deny that there were great difficulties in legislating on this subject, and no doubt the proposition of remedies was beset by every species of obstacle. A great number of local interests were to be encountered, a great number of local feelings to be provoked, and no doubt it required some fortitude and perseverance to devise a legislative measure which should apply a remedy to all these prodigious evils. But that could be no argument whatever for stopping this measure on the very threshold, for refusing to go into Committee, and there seeing whether they could draw the teeth and pare the talons of this lion, which had created so much terror. He gave the Government the highest praise for the manner in which they had addressed themselves to this question, and the boldness with which they had encountered the opposition and braved the difficulties surrounding the question. But he would fairly tell them, that he thought the measure was susceptible of very great improvement in Committee; but whether it was so or not, he implored the House to let the Government have an opportunity of dealing with the measure in Committee; for it was one, as he said before, which had taken such strong hold of the minds of the people, that it was essentially necessary to prove to them, not only by general argumentation, but in detail, what was feasible in regard to the removal of the various abominations existing. He confessed he was very much astonished when he heard it stated by certain Members in that House, and out of it, that the law as it now stood was adequate to the removal of those evils. If they looked at the list of Acts on the Statute-book,

781
they would find, no doubt, a great number levelled at abuses of this nature, which might perhaps be remedied if all those Acts were enforced; but to say that the Statute-book was open to all, was like the well-known saying, that the London Tavern was open to all: it was open, no doubt, provided you could pay for it. But this was a most perplexing and tedious process, which you could not call upon the working men, or any number of them, to put in operation. The old laws might be equal to the removal of abuses, but they were by no means equal to the institution of improvements: there was a law for removing masses of filth or noxious stenches, but there was none by which you could furnish to the working classes a pure, ample, and constant supply of water. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) had remarked that some persons had got up an agitation for the purpose of forcing this measure on the country. He (Lord Ashley) had been most deeply implicated in the movement, and was earnestly anxious to carry a legislative measure in furtherance of the object; he, therefore, took to himself all the blame of the hon. Member's reflection, and left him to prove what selfish interests he (Lord Ashley) had in the matter. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the case that in the opposition to this measure there was not full as much of selfish and pecuniary interest as in the advocacy of the great reform to which he looked? When the hon. Member treated this subject with such great jocosity, he (Lord Ashley) really thought the hon. Member must have forgotten, or perhaps never known, the very deep feeling entertained upon this question throughout the country, and could not have known that in almost every large town and populous locality boards had been formed for the purpose of making periodical reports, and exciting public interest on the subject, all beginning and ending with one and the same complaint, the utter inadequacy of the law for the removal of the great and pressing evils now endured. The city which he (Lord Ashley) represented, might almost be said to be in clover as regarded this question. Two petitions, very amply and respectfully signed by the inhabitants of Bath, had been presented to the House; one to the effect that, approving of many parts of the Bill, they thought that, on the whole, they could make out such a case for Bath that it ought to be exempted from the operation of the law;
782
the other that, though many people took exceptions to parts of this Bill, yet upon the whole they thought it exceedingly good, and called for by the necessities of the country, and therefore requested their representatives not to give way to any local interests, but to suffer the general necessity to overrule them. He should, therefore, vote for going into Committee, with a view to the introduction of such amendments as might be found necessary. The hon. Member for West Surrey had asked, what possible connection there could be between typhus and crime? Could there be a doubt that the same condition of things and habits of life which gave rise to fever, also powerfully stimulated to the perpetration of crime. If the hon. Member would consider the modes of life too prevalent amongst some unfortunate classes, and the noxious influences by which they were surrounded, he would perceive with the slightest consideration that their operation on the physical state was such as made it impossible for them to practise many of the lessons of decency and virtue which they might have practised in their early life. The noble Lord then quoted, in illustration, the statements of Dr. Neil Arnot respecting the condition of Glasgow, and Mr. F. Cooper respecting that of Southampton:—
"In Glasgow, which I first visited, it was found that the great mass of the fever cases occurred in the low wynds and dirty narrow streets and courts, in which, because lodging was there cheapest, the poorest and most destitute naturally had their abodes. From one such locality, between Argyle-street and the river, 754 of about 5,000 cases of fever which occurred in the previous year were carried to the hospitals. In a perambulation on the morning of September 24 with Mr. Chadwick, Dr. Alison, Dr. Cowan (since deceased, who had laboured so meritoriously to alleviate the misery of the poor in Glasgow), the police magistrate, and others, we examined these wynds, and to give an idea of the whole vicinity I may state as follows:—We entered a dirty low passage like a house door, which led from the street through the first house to a square court immediately behind, which court, with the exception of a narrow path round it, leading to another long passage through a second house, was occupied entirely as a dung receptacle of the most disgusting kind. Beyond this court the second passage led to a second square court, occupied in the same way by its dunghill; and from this court there was yet a third passage leading to a third court and third dungheap. There were no privies or drains there, and the dungheaps received all filth which the swarm of wretched inhabitants could give; and we learned that a considerable part of the rent of the houses was paid by the produce of the dungheaps. Thus, worse off than wild animals, many of which withdraw to a distance and conceal their ordure, the dwellers in these courts converted

783
their shame into a kind of money by which their lodging was to be paid! The interiors of these houses and their inmates correspond with the exteriors. We saw half-dressed wretches crowding together to be warm; and in one bed, although in the middle of the day, several women were imprisoned under a blanket, because many others who had on their backs all the articles of dress that belonged to the party were then out of doors in the streets. This picture is so shocking that, without ocular proof, one would be disposed to doubt the possibility of the facts; and yet there is, perhaps, no old town in Europe that does not furnish parallel examples. London, before the great fire of 1666, had few drains, and had many such scenes, and the consequence was a pestilence occurring at intervals of about 12 years, each destroying at an average about a fourth of the inhabitants. Who can wonder that pestilential disease should originate and spread in such situations? And, as a contrast, it may be observed here, that when the kelp manufacture lately ceased on the western shores of Scotland, a vast population of the lowest class of people, who had been supported chiefly by the wages of kelp labour, remained in extreme want, with cold, hunger, and almost despair pressing them down—yet, as their habitations were scattered and in pure air, cases of fever did not arise among them."
With respect to Southampton, Mr. Francis Cooper, surgeon, stated—
"During the period of my parochial attendance on the poor, I have more than once been compelled, in the depth of winter, and at midnight, to stand in the street, and walk to and fro till my assistance has been required, not being able to breathe the air of the apartment in which the wretched sufferer lay. And very recently, on being sent for to a poor woman, I was obliged to absent myself till the very moment of parturition, the air being so bad, so offensive, that a sort of stupor and lassitude rendered me unable to remain. On visiting the patient the following morning, I was curious to ascertain the actual dimensions of the outlet at the back of the tenement, and found it six feet long by three feet wide, and at the end of the yard, so called, a privy was erected, only about three feet deep, and from which the urine and other liquid deposits were carried away by ground leakage, thus keeping up continual smells of a most noxious character, and acting as one of the most active agents of destruction to health. The rooms, too—only one above and below—were so low and small, so ill-contrived, as to be unfit for human residence; the structural arrangements so utterly bad as to be a reproach, not only to our civilisation, but to our very humanity. There was no water laid on, no convenience for stowage, the coals being under the stairs, and the pantry (I suppose I must call it so) being placed between the back door, opening on the yard and the sitting-room, into which every breeze from the west carried the effluvium from the spot at the back of the dwelling, and which, in warm weather, was continually breathed by the occupiers, whose powers of resistance to the deadly influence of such malaria could not possibly continue for any length of time. The tenements, several in number, were erected at the back of others of large dimensions, and on the side of undrained privies, without drainage, without water, with no positive useful structural arrangement of
784
any kind—mere brick and mortar run up, as the technical expression is, no party-wall (the Act of Lord Normanby is constantly evaded), no basement elevation, no internal appliance for securing comfort or preserving health, and yet 3s. 6d. per week was paid for rent, 9l. 2s. a year, or 18 per cent, for what could not have amounted to more than 50 l. or 60 l., at the outside, as the original cost of erection. Who can wonder at the poverty and wretchedness of the poor? Who can be surprised that disease makes such havoc amongst the labouring population? Need we comment on the disastrous tendencies which such a state of things suggests?"
The unhappy beings who were compelled to live in scenes of such putridity and filth grew gradually debilitated and powerless. They became unable to do a day's work, and, sinking into the most abject condition of pauperism, were tempted to perpetrate deeds of violence, and to commit crimes of the foulest and most disgraceful description. There was no man whose evidence on matters affecting the poor was of higher authority than Dr. Southwood Smith; and in his examination before the Commissioners for Inquiring into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts, he gives the following evidence:—
"Do you think that neglect of decency and comfort is likely to render those persons reckless of consequences, and inclined to a mode of getting their living dishonestly?—The neglect of the decencies of life must have a debasing effect on the human mind; and hopeless want naturally produces recklessness. There is a point of wretchedness which is incompatible with the existence of any respect for the peace or property of others; and to look in such a case for obedience to the laws when there is the slightest prospect of violating them with impunity, is to expect to reap where you have not sown.
"I have myself seen a young man, 20 years of age, sleeping in the same bed with his sister, a young woman 16 or 17 years old. That incestuous intercourse takes place under these circumstances there is too much reason to believe; and that when unmarried young men and women sleep together in the same room, the women become common to the men, is stated in evidence as a positive fact; but I regard another inevitable effect of this state of things as no less pernicious; it is one of the influences which, for want of a better term, may be called unhumanising, because it tends to weaken and destroy the feelings and affections which are distinctive of the human being, and which raise him above the level of the brute. I have sometimes checked myself in the wish that men of high station and authority would visit these abodes of their less fortunate fellow-creatures, and witness with their own eyes the scenes presented there; for I have thought that the same end might be answered in a way less disagreeable to them. They have only to visit the Zoological Gardens, and to observe the state of society in that large room which is appropriated to a particular class of animals, where every want is relieved and every appetite and passion gratified in full view of the whole community. In the

785
filthy and crowded streets in our large towns and cities you see human faces retrograding, sinking down to the level of these brute tribes, and you find manners appropriate to the degradation. Can any one wonder that there is among these classes of the people so little intelligence—so slight an approach to humanity—so total an absence of domestic affection, and of moral and religious feeling? The experiment has been long tried on a large scale with a dreadful success, affording the demonstration that if, from early infancy, you allow human beings to live like brutes, you can degrade them down to their level, leaving to them scarcely more intellect, and no feelings and affections proper to human minds and hearts. Have you examined frequently the houses of individuals among the poor in these neglected districts?—Yes. Have you noticed particularly the state of the air in their apartments?—I have; and it sometimes happens to me in my visits to them, as physician to the Eastern Dispensary, that I am unable to stay in the room even to write the prescription. I am obliged, after staying the necessary time at the bedroom of the patient, to go into the air, or to stand at the door, and write the prescription; for, such is the offensive and unwholesome state of the air, that I cannot breathe it even for that short time. What must it be to live in such an atmosphere, and to go through the process of disease in it?"
There was another witness also, whose testimony on such questions as those was of the very highest importance, the Rev. J. Clay, chaplain of Preston gaol; and he too was roost decidedly of opinion that the physical condition of human beings exercised a most potent influence over their moral condition:—
"It should be impressed upon every one desirous of the melioration of his kind, that filthiness of person and sordidness of mind are usually united; and if you would banish squalor and sickness from the labourers' cottage, you must remove ignorance and corruption from his head and heart. Amidst the dirt and disease of filthy back courts and alleys, and yards, vices and crimes are lurking altogether unimagined by those who have never visited such abodes."
Nothing could be more distinct than the rev. gentleman's statement of the connexion between disease and crime, and between filth and immorality. His own personal observation entirely corroborated the testimony of Dr. Southwood Smith and Mr. Clay. From the examinations he had himself made, as well as from the evidence he had been able to collect, he had arrived at the conclusion that more than one half of the habits of intoxication which disgraced large towns and populous districts arose from the sanitary condition in which the population were permitted to live. It was impossible to visit the squalid localities in which the poor were huddled together in many of the towns of England, and to view their pallid, sinking, worn-out forms,
786
and their livid, hueless faces, without experiencing a feeling of compassion which almost prompted one to justify the act of human beings, who, to escape from the contemplation of their unutterable anguish, and to prop a sinking constitution, had recourse to ardent spirits, or other modes of fictitious excitement. He had gone over the records of the fever hospitals of London, and was enabled to trace in them the connexion between the sanitary and moral condition of the people. He had also discovered this terrible and startling truth, that fever, which was the offspring of bad air and defective drainage, fell, in the large proportion of cases, not on children, not on old people, but on adults in the very prime of life. It did not cut off those who, being very young, could not contribute to the general prosperity of the realm; nor those who, being very old, were a burden to it; but it hurried to the grave the heads of families, who left behind them a flock of children and a widow or widower, as the case might be, to be sustained out of the parish funds, or by the charity of private individuals. If the hon. Member for West Surrey, or any one else, doubted this statement, he would implore of him to perambulate the pauper districts of the metropolis, and judge for himself. He would then be able to know, by means of personal inquiries, whether the fact was so, and also whether the poor people thus miserably circumstanced were or were not sensible of their condition, and did or did not desire to be relieved from it. He (Lord Ashley) had repeatedly heard, from the lips of the poor themselves, this sickening and awful complaint—the full force of which might be felt with peculiar emphasis, just at this moment when we were enjoying such delightful weather—that they looked with terror at the approach of fine weather. What was a blessing to others was to them a positive curse; for they assured him that when the sun shone forth in its full splendour, the "summer stinks"—that was their phrase—became altogether intolerable. Anything more pitiable, more touching, or more deplorable than that complaint, it was impossible to imagine. But the most cogent aspect in which this question could be viewed, was that which had reference to the influence of the physical condition of those poor people on their moral nature. Let them collect the evidence of all the clergymen of all religious denominations—let them collect the evidence of all the Scrip-

787
ture readers, district visitors, and city missionaries throughout the kingdom—and if, out of the entire body, there could be found twenty to deny that there was an intimate connexion of misery with filth, and of crime with both—if there could be found twenty to deny that the connexion between the moral and physical condition of the poor was most intimate and inevitable, he (Lord Ashley) would not only oppose the present Bill, but would undertake to join any man or any number of men in an effort to resist any proposition that might at any future period be made to make this question the subject for a legislative enactment. His noble Friend the Member for Plymouth had been taunted for saying that all attempts to diffuse education amongst the poor were little better than vain and profitless, so long as they were permitted to continue in their present sanitary condition; but the noble Lord had said nothing more than had been already expressed on many occasions by others. He (Lord Ashley) concurred unreservedly in the statement, and was most distinctly of opinion that it was next to impossible that any genuine or lasting good should result from education so long as Parliament left the people in their present condition. His experience of the ragged schools confirmed him in the conviction, for he there saw the extreme difficulty, if not the absolute impossibility, of training children in the way they should go, who, after school hours, were permitted to return to the filthy purlieus from which they had issued in the morning, there to unlearn in one hour what their preceptors had spent a week in endeavouring to teach them. In a few isolated cases the power of education might prevail over all evil influences; but on the great mass of cases its beneficial effect would be wholly counteracted. He had to thank the House for the kindness with which they have heard him, and should apologise for having trespassed at such length on their attention. In conclusion, he would express an earnest hope that the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, there to undergo such alterations and amendments as might be considered necessary. He trusted that they would concede thus much; and by so doing make one onward step to the recovery of those unhappy people, and to the recognition of their right to be placed on a level with sentient and immortal beings.
MR. MUNTZ hoped that such improvements would be made in the Bill in Com-
788
mittee as would render it useful to society, and acceptable to the country at large. If it should come out of Committee no better than it went in, it would of course be competent for the House to reject it on the third reading. He did not wish to contradict any statement of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, whose intentions were uniformly so pure and philanthropic that one was disposed to hear with sympathy whatever he said or did; but he could not refrain from expressing an apprehension that the noble Lord's zeal might induce him to expect from the Bill results which could never be realised by any sanitary measure. All the sanitary measures that were ever concocted could not confer longevity on a needle pointer, a gun-barrel maker, or a type maker. The principle of centralisation was inculcated in the present Bill to far too great an extent. There was no sufficient reason that he had ever heard why the old practice of the English constitution, which left local affairs to the management of local boards, should be departed from. He was willing to admit, however, that it might, perhaps, be a very wise and judicious proceeding to have persons travelling through the different cities, towns, and boroughs of the kingdom, to ascertain from personal inspection whether the duties devolving on the local authorities with respect to the sanitary condition of the people were properly attended to or not. The persons so inspecting should send reports to the Secretary of State; and in cases where the local authorities persisted in a neglect of duty, the propriety of compelling them to act properly should, of course, be at once decided on. The Bill might be materially improved in all matters which involved the principle of centralisation, and by the introduction of provisions which would ensure to those who were to supply the money necessary for its operation the privilege of having the management of it in their own hands. He would not oppose their going into Committee, but was decidedly of opinion that great improvements ought to be introduced into it before it was imposed on the country.
MR. JOHN STUART complained that there had been much misrepresentation of the views of those who sat on the same side with him, and opposed going into Committee on the Bill. Their true motives and views had been properly propounded by his Friend the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. G. Bankes), who had

789
seconded the Amendment now under consideration. What the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had proposed was, that before going into Committee they should thoroughly understand certain principles which ought to guide their proceedings in Committee. Surely nothing could be more rational or more judicious. The hon. Member for Manchester had, with great truth, observed that the principle of centralisation, which was found so often in the Bill that it might justly be termed its pervading principle, was highly objectionable. So far from thinking that that principle of centralisation was essential for such a measure as the present, he was decidedly of opinion that it would be fatal to this and any other measure that might hereafter
be introduced on the subject. He was not alone in that opinion. It was shared by every one who had given the matter his unprejudiced attention; and he was not without hope that the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill would on consideration adopt that opinion himself. The Bill ought not to confer upon any one man in London, or any one class of men, be their number three or five, or what it might, the power of domineering over and dictating to every borough, city, and town in the kingdom. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had declared his readiness to go at once into Committee, if the Government would give any assurance that in Committee they would consent to consider that question as well as the most objectionable power proposed to be given to the Privy Council (but which would in fact be given to the central board in London under the order of the Privy Council), of repealing all private Acts of Parliament now in existence, relating to drainage and sewers, without Parliament knowing or hearing anything whatever on the subject. He would also consent to go into Committee, if Government would give an assurance of their readiness to reconsider those two most exceptionable principles—principles which he ventured to predict would be fatal to the success of that and of any other measure that was tainted with them. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, instead of lecturing the Gentlemen opposed to him for delay, which it was in the power of the noble Lord himself to avert, would, if he found that they had made out a case in support of their views, adopt it, and act manfully upon it. He was sure that the Government had in-
790
tended to bring in a good Bill, and in order to that end they had bestowed great pains in collecting a mass of evidence to guide them. But he feared that they had been wofully misled by views impressed on them by certain parties, of whom he would not say that they were interested, but that they had been themselves led astray by most erroneous notions. Mr. Chadwick, whom he believed to be an intelligent, industrious, and well-informed gentleman (he only knew him from his works), had collected all the evidence in favour of centralisation that could be anywhere procured, and it was published in the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Association for Sanitary Improvement. To the result of that accumulation of testimony he begged to call attention. That Sub-Committee had prepared eleven questions which were levelled at the inefficiency of all local authorities. One of those questions related to how far it was possible to find in any town in Great Britain persons fit to be entrusted with the imposing or collecting of a rate—[Viscount MORPETH: Perhaps it is right I should state that, to the best of my belief, Mr. Chadwick had no concern whatever with the publication to which the hon. and learned Member alludes.] That announcement of the noble Lord was rather strange, as the copy of the report from which he (Mr. Stuart) was reading had been sent to him from Mr. Chadwick himself. He had been led to understand that Mr. Chadwick was the author; but whether that gentleman wrote the pamphlet or not, it was at least certain that his opinions were embodied in it. The tenth question was, "Is there in the town any person who would be considered an authority with reference to sanitary work?" An answer was returned to that question from various towns, great and small, and the result of the answer was given thus:—Out of fifty-nine cases the answer in forty-nine cases was "No." The eleventh question was, "Whether there was any person who would be considered an authority with respect to collecting or imposing a rate?" The reply was "No;" and amongst the towns comprised in that reply was the city of London. The fact of the matter was, the Bill, as framed on the principle now embodied in it, was a libel on every town in the kingdom. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had given them a short account of the provisions of this Bill, which prominently brought into view the objectionable parts of it. It appeared that by the principle of centralisation embodied

791
in this Bill, the central board might issue orders to enter the house of any man in any town in England, make such improvements as they thought fit, at such time as they thought fit, and then compel him to pay for their improvements, however much he might dislike them. He would say that was a monstrous clause, and that the people of England would never stand the imposition of such a power. He hoped the noble Lord would define what the powers of the central board were to be. The principle of centralisation, in his opinion, if worth anything, was to give an absolute power to the board in London in the administration of all the provisions of the Bill. They might depend upon it that the existence of a central power, with absolute authority to issue its orders from London, would prevent the due working of this Bill. Instead of now being at work in the Committee examining the clauses of this Bill, in order to pass it as speedily as possible into a law, the House was now in the second night of a debate, in which the question to be considered was whether the centralising principle was one which ought to be carried to the extent to which this Bill proposed to carry it. He thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire should not be rejected. That hon. Member had said that, instead of a central board permanently existing for the purpose of meddling and interfering, and, if they pleased, domineering over every town in England on sanitary matters, they should take the Inclosure Act, introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk in the year 1845, as a model for the present Bill; and he (Mr. Stuart) did not hear any one say a word in answer to that suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He did not say that the present Bill could not be made a good Bill. If the noble Lord would only consider the nature of the provisions of the Bill of 1845 with reference to the constitution of the central board, he entertained the most confident expectations it would end in the model being adopted in reference to the present Bill. He submitted that the Government should consider the matter before they plunged into Committee. If they went into Committee with the Bill in its present shape, it would be impossible to get it through in six months. The noble Lord the Member for Falkirk so entirely agreed with them in thinking that a proper sanitary measure was necessary, that he did not oppose the Motion to go into Committee; but he had
792
given notice of a Motion which would knock the Bill on the head—he meant so far as the principle of centralisation was concerned. He understood the noble Lord to give notice to move the omission in the Committee of the 4th and 5th Clauses. They were the clauses to authorise the appointment of the General Board of Health and its supervision over all the towns in the country. They were the clauses by which three gentlemen in Somerset House, or in whatever locality this board was to exist, were to have absolute power over all the local authorities in the kingdom. That, in fact, was the principle they were contending about, and the principle which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire wished to have considered and discussed before going into Committee. Now, if they went into Committee, and if the 4th and 5th Clauses were expunged, what would become of the Bill? He defied the Government to carry this Bill with its centralising powers, and with the powers to the Privy Council to repeal all or any of the local Acts of Parliament that had been passed. He implored of the Government to give way on this point, and allow them to go into Committee, and proceed on a scheme different from that now proposed by the noble Lord so as to carry through an Efficient measure. He would remind the House that the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, in 1845, was opposed by those who now supported the Government, but who at that time sat on the Opposition benches. The noble Lord sought to appoint commissioners for the purposes of inclosure, to whom, for a time, the power should be committed; and when that proposition was made, it was urged to give the power to the Tithe Commissioners. The nature and scope of the objection urged in argument was, that the Enclosure Act was a private and local matter, and that it was wrong to appoint a board in London, having power to extend over the whole kingdom and interfere in private and local matters. The noble Lord the Member for Falkirk was opposed by the present Government: they thought it too much that the then Government should have the appointment of a commission; they told them to renounce the patronage and give the office to the Tithe Commissioners, whom the previous Whig Government had appointed themselves. Now this Bill would give an immense amount of patronage to the Government, which ought to be entrusted to the local boards. Although he would not go

793
so far as to say that the Government had framed the Bill in its present objectionable shape in order merely to create patronage, yet he was confident that motive would be attributed out of doors. Unfortunately Whig Governments had exhibited at all times wonderful powers of creating places, with proper salaries for their supporters. The noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to know what was said out of doors on this subject. He (Mr. Stuart) had heard it stated, and truly stated, that such was the wonderful power of the Whigs to create places and salaries, that they had actually so contrived it that out of the famine in Ireland ten thousand pieces of patronage had been created; and his noble Friend the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck), always remarkable for his accuracy and research, informed him that the number was understated at 10,000, and that, in fact, the number of persons employed in the distribution of relief to the famishing poor of Ireland was about sixteen thousand. The other principle of the measure was also objectionable, and on stronger grounds, if there could be stronger grounds of objection than those he had mentioned. That principle was to entrust the Privy Council, at the suggestion of any person, with the power of repealing all or any of the local Acts throughout the country. They objected to that scheme; they would say to the Government, let them have a body of men on the principle of the officers under the Enclosure Act of 1845; but let them not have power to set aside what had been done by the Legislature, at the suggestion of any general board. Let them recollect that no local Acts were now passed without inquiry; and were they to give a power to the Privy Council, at the suggestion of the General Board of Health, to repeal those Acts? He protested against going into Committee on this Bill until he was satisfied as to the principle on which it was to be carried out.
CAPTAIN PECHELL was willing to believe that the noble Lord who had been charged with this Bill was desirous of carrying out useful objects so far as the same was in his power. He was aware that there existed a great feeling throughout the country that something ought to be done with regard to the sanitary question. He had been a Member of that House for fourteen years, and during the whole of that time he had uniformly opposed every attempt to carry out the principle of centralisation. He believed that Mr. Chad-
794
wick was a very able gentleman, and he thought that the country was under great obligations to Mr. Chadwick, inasmuch as it was owing to the evidence which that gentleman had given before the Andover Committee, that the reform had taken place in the composition of the Poor Law Commission. No one could have heard that evidence without being grateful to him for what he had done to destroy root and branch the centralisation system. He would aid the hon. Member for Newark in all the attempts which he might make to prevent local bodies being brought under the government of any central body.
MR. W. MILES said, the most important question for the consideration of the House was, whether the powers sought to be given by the Government to the central board were not more than sufficient. Without pledging himself to the details of the measure, he admitted that it was a great improvement on the Bill of last year, and that if the inspectors were paid on the same principle as those appointed under the Commons Inclosure Bill, the greatest objections to the measure would be removed. He was perfectly satisfied that some Government authority must be exercised, and believed the noble Lord had placed the local authority in the proper hands, as the town-council of each borough were to elect the inspectors. He lamented that the noble Lord had not introduced some measure of the kind for the metropolis, in which there were 2,000,000 of people, and where thousands were carried off annually by pestilence. From a book which came out a few years ago, it appeared that the least mortality was in the agricultural districts. [The hon. Member then read a statement of the average mortality in Wiltshire of three classes, namely, professions, tradesmen and mechanics, servants and labourers, and, comparing it with the average mortality of similar classes residing in the Whitechapel union, the Strand union, Liverpool, and other towns, showed that the mortality of the latter places was greatly in excess.] These facts showed the actual necessity for a Bill of this kind. There were, however, certain clauses in the Bill which he should oppose in Committee.
MR. NEWDEGATE, amid calls for a division, remarked that the measure would subvert the local administration wherever it came into operation. It had been stated that the appointment of officers under the

795
Bill was vested, not in the Central Commission, but in the town-council. But the Central Commission retained in their own hands the power of deciding as to the number of officers to be appointed. That was a most objectionable part of the Bill, and would cause the nominees of the Government to be appointed in every district.
MR. WYLD was understood to say, that his constituents entirely approved of the appointment of a central board as the only means of preventing local jobbing; and in that view he entirely concurred. The working classes, the large masses of the people, were favourable to the measure as a whole; but there were certainly serious objections to some of the clauses, which would require consideration in the Committee.
MR. URQUHART said, that as the Government had already given, in one or two instances, a pledge of their willingness to make concessions, he would take it as an earnest of their future intentions. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1—
"Act may from time to time be applied to any part of England and Wales except city of London," &c.
MR. BANKES moved, as an Amendment, the omission of all the words after the word "Wales." The result of this Amendment would be, to make the Bill a general one, instead of being an exceptional one. As the Bill was at present constituted, London and other metropolitan districts were excluded from its operation. He begged leave to disclaim any personal imputation upon the noble Lord in the observations winch he made the other night, when he alluded to the wretched and unwholesome state of the districts in which the House of Commons was situated. But it was a fact that tall chimneys o'ertopped even the palace which they were then building, from which most noxious gases were emitted, the effects of which were visible in the withered trees and stunted vegetation in the neighbouring squares; and so much did this evil prevail, that a school of ancient celebrity (Westminster) had been broken up and abandoned since Saturday last. He had no scruple in proposing the omission of the words, as he believed the inclusion of London and the metropolitan districts would have the effect of removing a great deal of the heart-
796
burnings and ill-feeling which the measure had excited throughout the country.
VISCOUNT MORPETH said: I am quite willing to concede to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that I do consider it a defect in the present Bill that it does not include London and other metropolitan districts; and whether it be a defect or not, I must say, that it was my original intention to have included them—an intention which was only abandoned when I found the insuperable difficulties which lay in the way of all general legislation upon this point. But I do not think it is surprising that in a community so vast as tins is—in a state of society so complicated—I am not exaggerating when I say that there are more than a hundred local Acts affecting these localities—I say it is not surprising that we cannot embody legislation for the metropolis in one general Act. For the same reason I regret that Scotland and Ireland are not included; and that they are not so is not because they do not want a code of sanitary legislation, but because the different circumstances of those countries make us think it would be wise to bring in separate measures to effect our object. At all events I do not see that the exclusion of London makes against the general principle of tile Bill. If the Bill is serviceable, the hon. Gentleman ought not to vote against it because London is excluded: he ought to permit its application to the rest of the country. It would not be possible in the same limits, and the same period of time, to make the Bill applicable to the metropolitan districts. With respect to the words which the hon. Gentleman proposes to omit, I must inform him that there is a commission of sewerage occupying a range of five miles from St. Paul's. If I had a map, I could show him the extent; but I thought that the existence of this commission and this range of sewerage made a very reasonable limitation to the provisions of the Bill. Without pledging myself to as much as I would wish to do, I hope that no reason can be urged which would alter my views, and that I soon may be at liberty to direct my attention to the case of London.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: The Scripture says that there is joy over one sinner that repenteth. I am very glad that the noble Lord has followed the advice of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and that the city of London is to be included, or that there is to be a separate Bill for that purpose.

797
He found in the 1st Clause that the cities of London and Westminster were to be exempted. He had all along expected that it was convenient to exclude London—Westminster scratched London, and London scratched Westminster. Was he now to understand that the Bill was to apply to the country at large? He fully agreed with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, in wishing London and Westminster to be included in the Bill; for if you were going to purify, cleanse, and scour, why exclude London and Westminster, which were, perhaps, more impure than other towns? He should oppose the 1st Clause of the Bill, but that should not prevent him also opposing every subsequent clause; for the whole Bill was a job—it was a Government job. He meant to say that it was a desire on the part of the Government to saddle the country with heavy expenses to feed and fatten men who were poor and lean. Therefore he objected to the Bill in toto. From Clause 1 to Clause 152, there was not a single clause that he could approve of. He lamented that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here; perhaps his blushes detained him; for although there was a deficiency in the revenue of between two and three millions, yet the House was called upon to create new Commissioners without any intimation from the noble Lord what their salaries were to be, or any intimation what was to be the number of officers, clerks, &c.
The MARQUESS of GRANBY expressed his desire to have some explanation of the reason why London was excluded from this Bill. At one time he thought it was rather slighting of the noble Lord to exclude the first city of the country from the benefits to be derived from the Bill; but now we were told that London was not to be altogether deprived of the benefits of the Bill, but that there was to be another and a special Bill brought in for the city of London. He could not help regretting that his noble Friend had not listened to the advice which had been tendered to him by the hon. and learned Member for Oxfordshire. Had he done so, he might have succeeded in his object of ameliorating the condition of the poor, and have laid a foundation for raising them in the moral and intellectual scale. He despaired of the Bill, as long as it contained the un-English, unconstitutional principle of centralisation. There was no chance of being able to eradicate this odious principle in
798
time to enable them to pass the Bill as it ought to be.
MR. NEWDEGATE observed, that the noble Lord had stated that there were 100 local Acts in London; but had he any idea of the number of local Acts in the country which were to be placed at the discretion of the Privy Council by the Executive?
VISCOUNT MORPETH: It is not the number of scattered Local Acts which makes the difficulty; it is the 100 in the lump.
MR. HUDSON said, the noble Lord had had ample time to introduce a Bill for the city of London. On a former occasion when London was excluded from the operation of the Municipal Act, the Minister of the day promised to introduce a separate Bill; but no such Bill had been brought forward, and a strong impression prevailed in the country that a similar course would be pursued with respect to the present measure. He had just come from York, where the town-council had passed a resolution against the Bill. Under the municipal system, where the suffrage was almost universal, the people had shown themselves quite capable of managing their own affairs, and he did not see why they should be unable to attend to sanitary measures. The great ground of complaint at present was, that if a man built a street of houses, there was no power to compel him to make a sufficient drainage. That was a reason for a measure to enforce drainage; but it was no reason for a measure of centralisation. It seemed to be supposed that all judgment rested in the city of London. He knew the very reverse. Some years ago he had had a requisition from the holders of 3,800,000 l. out of 4,000,000 l. of stock, requesting him to take the management of a company out of the hands of the London directors. The principle of government in this country was, that we should not be taxed but by our representatives. The town-council of York were elected by the people of York. He was perfectly satisfied that the system of centralisation was repugnant to the feelings of the people; and there would be an opposition from all quarters to that system, but not to a Bill that would really improve the health of towns. In order to remove one blot from the Bill, he should vote with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire to include London. It was said that there were a number of Acts in London;

799
but why not deal with them as with the Acts regulating provincial towns? Every new constituted body in a town was attended with certain expense to that town; but give the power to the corporation, and they would have their own officers who would conduct matters better than the new constituted body. The new set of officers would double the expenses of the town. For these reasons he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take into consideration the strong feeling which existed in the country against centralisation, and remodel the Bill.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman, following the example of a great many others, has spoken of this Bill as a Bill entirely of centralisation, whereas I should say that 9-10ths of the Bill give a power to these local bodies. The main effect of the Bill is to give to these local bodies that power which the hon. Member says they have not. There is, no doubt, a part of the Bill which does give a central control; and when we come to that clause, the question for the Committee to consider will be, first, whether there should be any such central authority; and next, whether the plan proposed by the Government, or that proposed by the noble Member for Falkirk should be adopted. I confess I think it far better that the Committee should consider the essential question, and the practical question, and not, misled by the word "centralisation," shut their eyes to that which is the essential object of the Bill, namely, giving local bodies the power of making sanitary laws. If we confine the Bill to the limits of corporations, it would be necessary they should have powers in the manner we propose.
MR. BROTHERTON had no hesitation in saying that this measure was absolutely necessary. No class was more interested in passing it than the working classes. A great deal had been said about this bugbear "centralisation." The fact was, the noble Lord had made those concessions with regard to this Bill which gave the power entirely to the local bodies; and if the citizens of York were so unanimous as the hon. Member stated, they had no occasion to apply to the Government. The hon. Member must recollect that this Bill was a great boon to the country.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—Ayes 240; Noes 71: Majority 169.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Dundas, Sir D.

Acland, Sir T. D.

East, Sir J. B.

Adair, H. E.

Ebrington, Visct.

Anson, hon. Col.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Euston, Earl of

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Evans, J.

Ashley, Lord

Evans, W.

Bagshaw, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bailey, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Baines, M. T.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Foley, J. H. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Fordyce, A. D.

Barrington, Visct.

Forster, M.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Beckett, W.

Fox, R. M.

Bell, J.

Fox, M. J.

Bellew, R. M.

Glyn, G. C.

Benbow, J.

Goddard, A. L.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Godson, R.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Granger, T. C.

Blackall, S. W.

Greenall, G.

Blake, M. J.

Greene, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Greene, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bowring, Dr.

Grey, R. W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Brand, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Bright, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Brotherton, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Brown, W.

Hanner, Sir J.

Browne, R. D.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Buller, C.

Hawes, B.

Bunbury, E. H.

Hay, Lord J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hayes, Sir E.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Hayter, W. G.

Cardwell, E.

Headlam, T. E.

Carew, W. H. P.

Heathcoat, J.

Carter, J. B.

Heathcote, G. J.

Caulfield, J. S.

Heneage, E.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Henry, A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Heywood, J.

Cavendish, W. G.

Hindley, C.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Clay, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Clay, Sir W.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Hollond, R.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Clifford, H. M.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Cobden, R.

Hume, J.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Hutt, W.

Cocks, T. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Courtenay, Lord

Jackson, M.

Cowper, hon W. S.

Jervis, Sir J.

Craig, W. G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Crawford, W. S.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Currie, H.

Kershaw, J.

Curteis, H. M.

Kildare, Marq. of

Dalrymple, Capt.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Davie, Sir. H. R. F.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Denison, W. J.

Langston, J. H.

Devereux, J. T.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Dodd, G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lewis, G. C.

Drummond, H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duff, G. S.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Duncan, G.

Loch, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lockhart, A. E.

Dundas, Adm.

M'Naghten, Sir E.

Macnamara, Major

801

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Russell, F. C. H.

Maitland, T.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Mangles, R, D.

Rutherfurd, A.

Marshall, J. G.

Salwey, Col.

Marshall, W.

Sandars, G.

Martin, S.

Scrope, G. P.

Masterman, J.

Seymer, H. K.

Matheson, Col.

Shafto, R. D.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Melgund, Visct.

Simeon, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Slaney, R. A.

Morpeth, Visct.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Morris, D.

Smith, J. A.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Smith, M. T.

Mowatt, F.

Smith, J. B.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W

Newry & Morne, Visct.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Norreys, Lord

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Stanton, W. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Owen, Sir J.

Stuart, H.

Paget, Lord A.

Sturt, H. G.

Paget, Lord C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Paget, Lord G.

Talfourd, Serj.

Palmer, R.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Palmer, R.

Thompson, Col.

Parker, J.

Thompson, Ald.

Patten, J. W.

Thornely, T.

Pattison, J.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Towneley, C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Towneley, J.

Perfect, R.

Traill, G.

Peto, S. M.

Turner, E.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Tynte, Col.

Pigott, F.

Vane, Lord H.

Pilkington, J.

Verney, Sir. H.

Pinney, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Power, N.

Ward, H. G.

Powlett, Lord W.

Watkins, Col.

Pugh, D.

West, F. R.

Rawdon, Col.

Wilson, J.

Reid, Col.

Wilson, M.

Rendlesham, Lord

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Ricardo, O.

Wood, W. P.

Rice, E. R.

Wyld, J.

Rich, H.

Wyvill, M.

Robartes, T. J. A.

TELLERS.

Romilly, J.

Tufnell, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Farrer, J.

Arkwright, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Baldock, E. H.

Floyer, J.

Barkly, H.

Forbes, W.

Bennet, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Galway, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Goring, C.

Beresford, W.

Granby, Marq. of

Boldero, H. G.

Gwyn, H.

Brisco, M.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Brooke, Lord

Henley, J. W.

Buck, L. W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Coles, H. B.

Hill, Lord E.

Colvile, C. R.

Hodgson, W. N.

Deedes, W.

Hood, Sir A.

Dick, Q.

Hotham, Lord

Divett, E.

Hudson, G.

Duncan, Visct.

Ingestre, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

Jocelyn, Visct.

802

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Sidney, Ald.

Knox, Col.

Smyth, J. G.

Locke, J.

Somerset, Capt.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Spooner, R.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Stafford, A.

Manners, Lord G.

Stuart, J.

Meux, Sir H.

Tollemache, J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Townshend, Capt.

Miles, W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Morgan, O.

Urquhart, D.

Muntz, G. F.

Waddington, H. S.

Napier, J.

Walpole, S. H.

Packe, C. W.

Walter, J.

Renton, J. C.

Welby, G. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Rushout, Capt.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, W.

Bankes, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Newdegate, C. N.

MR. URQUHART then moved the insertion of words in the clause with the view of excluding from the operation of the Bill the borough of Stafford. The whole of the medical men of that town had signed a petition against the measure; and he had now to claim for the borough which he represented, the same immunities which the Government were prepared to extend to the metropolitan districts, and to Scotland and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a verbal alteration for the purpose specified.
COLONEL SIBTHORP seconded the Amendment, and declared his conviction that Lincoln ought also to be excluded from the operation of the Bill. If the Government wanted to purify, they ought to scour the Treasury Bench; there was more mud there, more dirt, more trickery, more manœuvre, more things requiring to be cleansed, than there were in the pure city which he had the honour to represent. At a future stage of the Bill, he would move the exemption of Lincoln from its operation; and he would do so, being at the same time the last man who would stand up for that or for any city, if he thought that it required the purifying and cleansing which this Bill proposed to honour it with.
VISCOUNT MORPETH trusted the hon. Member for Stafford would not think that he treated him with disrespect if he said that he did not think there were any particular circumstances attached to the borough of Stafford which should cause that borough to be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He hoped that the hon. Member having done his duty to his constituents by proposing the Amendment, would not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon the question.
VISCOUNT INGESTRE said, he had been acquainted for some years with the

803
borough of Stafford, and he believed there was no town which so much required the cleansing process as the town of Stafford.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question that the Evicted Destitute Poor (Ireland) Bill be read a Third Time,
MR. P. SCROPE took occasion to lament that the Government had not extended the operations of this Bill much further. It prevented ejectments on Christmas day, on Sundays, and in the night time; but it did nothing whatever to prevent the spread of that terrible system of depopulation which was now going on in Ireland. He regretted this exceedingly, and hoped the Government would not shut their eyes to the monstrous cruelties which were daily practised in that unhappy country. Evictions were going on in the most wholesale manner. He had abundant evidence in his pocket to prove the truth of what he stated, but did not like to weary the House with the reading of them at that late hour. In Kerry, upwards of 1,000 people had been evicted upon one occasion. They all knew the conduct which had been pursued by some landlords in the west of Ireland, to which the attention of the Government had been forced, but these were far from being isolated cases. The treatment those unfortunate people received from their landlords in Ireland would not be endured in England for a single week. Let any one imagine such an event occurring as 300 or 400 houses pulled down upon one estate in this country, and the inmates driven houseless on the world. What an outcry would be raised—Parliament would at once be obliged to legislate for, and put a stop to, so heartless a system. He would tell the Government plainly that it was such a system as this which was goading the Irish people into rebellion. It was all very well to talk about the rights of property and the power of the landlord; but he could tell them that lawyers were by no means unanimous in opinion that such wholesale evictions were sanctioned by the common law; and even one so early as Lord Coke, in his day, was of quite a different opinion. This terrible evil was increasing every year—every month—in Ire-
804
land; those frightful evictions, with all the calamitous consequences attending them, were of daily occurrence; and was it to be wondered at when they saw such a man as Lord Fitzwilliam, one of the best landlords in Ireland, recommending evictions on a large scale as the only remedy for the present condition of Ireland?
MAJOR BLACKALL denied that the system of eviction was extensively practised in Ireland. If the hon. Member, who was so perpetually reviling the Irish landlords, would buy an estate in Ireland and reside upon it for a time, he would not speak so harshly of the Irish landlords.
Bill read a third time and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Derby; The Lord Fingall took the Oath prescribed by the Act of 10th
744
George IV. to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic Religion; The Lord Moore.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Insolvent Debtors (India); Poor Removal.
Reported.—Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Campbell, from the Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Privileges of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—By Lord Dacre, Lord Monteagle, the Bishop of St. David's, and the Earl of Stafford, from Ayr, and various other Places, in Favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By the Duke of Buccleuch, and the Earl of Eglingtoun, from Exeter, and various other Places, for the Removal of the Jews' Disabilities.—From the Parish of Clarendon, and Kingston, Jamaica, complaining of the Measures recently adopted in regard to Colonial Produce, West Indies.—From Mohill, and various other Places, against the Present System of National Education, Ireland.—From the Members of various Presbyterian Congregations, for facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Churches (Scotland).—From the Members of the Bath Church of England Lay Association, for Increasing the Number of Bishops and Clergy.—From the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in Favour of Registering Births, &c. (Scotland).—From the Pershore Temperance Society, for the Enactment of Sanitary Measures.—By the Earl of Eglintoun, from the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures, Glasgow, against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws.—From Warborough, Market Drayton, and Galashiels, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays.—From the Members of several Lodges of the Nottingham Order of Odd Fellows, for the Insertion of a Clause by which their Surplus Capital may be Invested in Savings Banks.—From the Vicar of Bowden, and Others, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE (SPAIN).
LORD STANLEY said, he was compelled to interpose for a few moments between their Lordships and the business before them, for the purpose of calling their attention again to the subject of discussion on Friday last. Since then the Government had laid upon the table the correspondence with the Spanish Government, which was referred to upon that occasion, and their Lordships had had an opportunity of perusing it. He had no intention of making any specific Motion on the subject, unless it were necessary that he should do so as a matter of form, in which case he would conclude with a Motion for a return of Papers; but he hoped he should not be considered as unduly trespassing on their Lordships' time, if, after perusing that correspondence, he ventured to offer some observations as to the impression which that correspondence had produced on his own mind. In regard to that which had at first appeared to be the leading feature of the case, namely, the publication through the columns of an Opposition journal, either by the authority, or with the connivance, or by the negligence of the British Minister, of the despatch of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, before it had been presented to the

745
Spanish Government, he could not believe, after reading the letter of Mr. Bulwer to the Duke de Sotomayor, that that despatch, or anything approaching to it, had found its way into a Spanish Opposition paper; and he believed that the Duke de Sotomayor himself must now be satisfied that he was mistaken in this respect. He believed, moreover, that there had been no mutilation of that document whatever, and that it was a verbatim copy of that which was transmitted to the Spanish Government. The letter of Lord Palmerston began—
"Sir—I have to instruct you to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government and to the Queen-Mother, if you have an opportunity of doing so, the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain."
Now, the words "opportunity of doing so" clearly were not intended to apply to anything more than making a communication to the Queen-Mother; and Lord Palmerston's instructions to Mr. Bulwer were to recommend a certain course to the Spanish Government, and to the Queen-Mother also, if he had an opportunity of doing so. At the same time the noble Marquess appeared to have been under a singular error the other day. He admitted the original publication of this letter in some improper manner; he did not know how the French newspaper got hold of it, and suppressed material words. If they were to believe the statement of the newspaper itself, the first time this correspondence appeared in the columns of the Presse was on the 24th April; but the date of its appearance in the Clamor Publico, as stated in the Duke of Sotomayor's letter, is not the 24th, but the 10th April. It is therefore impossible that the Duke of Sotomayor's letter, remonstrating against the publication of the letter in the Clamor Publico, can have any reference to the publication in the Presse. Now, Mr. Bulwer had, in transmitting that instruction to the Spanish Minister, omitted that part of the instruction which applied to the application to be made to the Queen-Mother, and transmitted so much of the remark of Lord Palmerston as desired him to press earnestly on the Spanish Government the views of the British Government. At the same time that this was a point of very inconsiderable importance, he could see the material bearing which it had upon that part of the case; but what he wanted to call their Lordships' attention to, as it appeared upon this correspondence, was the very material discrepancy which ap-
746
peared to have existed—first, between the views of the British Minister in Spain, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, next, the wide and inexplicable difference of opinion which appeared to exist between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Colleagues in the Government. Lord Palmerston directed the British Minister in Spain to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain; and then he went on to state the reasons why it was desirable to adopt a legal and constitutional course of government. What was the reply of the Duke of Sotomayor? That at that time Lord Palmerston had no right to make the recommendation, for the Government was constitutional; that at that time the Cortes were sitting; that the press was free; that the course of government was of a conciliatory character; they were strictly following a legal and constitutional course of government. Pressed by that argument, what was the answer of Mr. Bulwer, which they had now for the first time received. He admitted the justice of the answer; he said—
"It is perfectly true that the remarks I enclosed from Lord Palmerston were written at a time when the Cortes were yet sitting, and when the Government had not as yet committed any of those acts which had recently characterised its conduct, They were, therefore, merely in contemplation of the possibility of such a state of things as his Lordship thought might arrive."
But where was the foundation for that assumption in Lord Palmerston's despatch? Lord Palmerston said nothing of the state of things which might arise; he said, "I desire you to impress upon the Spanish Government as soon as you shall have an opportunity;" and of course with reference to the state of things that existed at the time when the instructions were given, and not with reference to a state of things which did not exist, was not existing, and there was no reason to suppose would exist. He gave instructions with reference to the actual and not the future state of things; and Mr. Bulwer was compelled to say, "I admit, then, that it was legal and constitutional; now it is not, and now I take the opportunity of doing that for which, in my judgment, the time has arrived." There was thus a discrepancy between the Minister and the Secretary of State; but the most important fact was this—and it was one upon which their Lordships and the country would expect to have a full and

747
explicit explanation—he meant the difference which had subsisted, and which, so far as they knew, did subsist, in the view taken by the different Members of Government of this same transaction. When he took the liberty the other night of adverting to the correspondence and its tone, he much mistook the noble Marquess; his ears very much deceived him if he did not understand him to rest the whole of the case on this fact, that the letter of the Secretary of State, as a communication to a foreign Government, was an indefensible letter, and one which ought not to have been sent; that, in point of fact, it was a private letter, addressed to the British Minister for his private guidance, and not intended to be shown; and, with every respect to the discretion and experience of Mr. Bulwer, the noble Marquess the President of the Council, speaking on behalf of the Government, said explicitly and frankly to their Lordships, that he lamented the course which had been taken. "Lamenting" was the word used by the noble Marquess; and when the leading Minister in the House of Lords stated that he "laments" the course pursued by the representative of the Crown, it was a way of stating, in his judgment, that the proceeding was not justifiable, and he passed a censure on the course pursued. He (Lord Stanley) had expressed a doubt before, whether the original letter of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been seen, before it was sent, by the noble Marquess, by the noble Earl near him, or by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or other Members of the Government. And, in fact, it appeared, though it would seem almost incredible, that the noble Marquess, when he spoke on Friday night, was not cognisant of the contents of the papers which he was about to lay upon the table of the House. He was not cognisant evidently of the fact, that in the course of that correspondence the conduct of Mr. Bulwer, which the noble Marquess said he "lamented," had received the cordial and entire approbation of Her Majesty's Government. This really appeared to be so incredible, that if he did not bring the whole case before their Lordships, they would think that he was not stating facts. The letter of Sir H. Bulwer was dated the 7th of April, and there was a subsequent despatch of the 11th. Then there was a letter of Lord Palmerston of the 19th, and a despatch of the 20th. The letter of Lord Palmerston of the 19th was very short: it said—
748
"Foreign Office, April 19, 1848.
"Sir—With reference to your despatch of the 10th instant, I have to inform you that Her Majesty's Government approve the language which you held to Queen Christina on the 4th instant, pointing out to Her Majesty the importance of governing Spain by constitutional means; and that Her Majesty's Government likewise approve of the note which you addressed on the 7th instant to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, offering similar counsel to the present Ministers of Her Catholic Majesty.—I am, &c. "PALMERSTON."
Their Lordships would observe that Lord Palmerston said, not "I myself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs," but "Her Majesty's Government," approve of the note which you addressed to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs. He would leave it to the noble Marquess to explain the discrepancies which appeared upon the face of that letter. The letter of the 20th April contained remarks somewhat stronger. The letter of the 11th, from Mr. Bulwer, included also a despatch from the Duke of Sotomayor, in answer to Mr. Bulwer's communication of the 7th; and he must say, that Lord Palmerston's answer to that communication was one of the most extraordinary productions that he had ever read. He commenced—
"Foreign Office, April 20, 1848.
"Sir—I have received your despatch of the 11th instant, with its inclosures, and I have to instruct you to state to the Duke of Sotomayor, that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve the step which you took in making your communication of the 7th inst., and likewise of your note of the 12th.
"That Her Majesty's Government, however, are not at all offended, either by the sending back of your communication of the 7th of April, or by the angry tone and language of the Duke of Sotomayor's note of the 10th, however they may regret the existence of those feelings in the minds of the Spanish Government, of which the language of his Excellency's note, and the return of yours, were proofs."
Here, then, was not only the approval of the Foreign Minister of that of which the noble Marquess disapproved—of that which the noble Marquess said was a proceeding not likely to conciliate the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Spain; but it authorised Mr. Bulwer to inform the Duke of Sotomayor that Her Majesty's Government entirely, wholly, absolutely, fully approved of the steps which he had taken, and thus threw upon Her Majesty's Government the whole responsibility of the language, the time, and the manner of the communication made by Mr. Bulwer. He would not comment upon this remarkable letter, except to say, that, whereas

749
upon the one hand the noble Viscount had taken the course by which he had involved the Government in the responsibility of most offensive proceedings; on the other hand he had evinced the most Christian principle of forbearance and forgiveness; one which he confessed appeared to him to be little consistent with the dignity of a great Power carrying on a diplomatic correspondence with another country. The noble Viscount had had his despatch returned as unworthy to be received: he had such an insult put upon him as no one gentleman could receive from another, and such as he believed no other country had ever before suffered. Not only that, however, but the noble Viscount had told the Duke of Sotomayor that Her Majesty's Government are not at all offended. They get themselves kicked, and then add, "I beg to say, that I entirely approve of the steps by which you have brought that result upon us, and I beg you to tell the person who kicked us that I am not in the least offended by the result." In private life such a procedure would not be tolerated for an instant; in diplomatic life it would be ludicrous were it not melancholy to contemplate. This was the most absurd termination to the most inconceivably imprudent step that he had ever heard. The noble Viscount was not offended at his despatches being returned to him. For a space of twenty-nine lines the noble Viscount supposed cases which had not occurred between Spain and England; and instead of taking the course which such an insulting return of his despatch demanded, the noble Viscount concluded by reminding the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs that under certain circumstances, and unless Great Britain had interfered to maintain the present Queen of Spain upon the Throne, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that country might himself have been a proscribed exile in a foreign country. This stroke of generosity, he admitted, he had read with the greatest regret. He saw no prospect of a satisfactory issue on the part of the noble Viscount to a correspondence so conducted. He believed it to be his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the facts as they existed on the face of the documents laid before Parliament; and he thought their Lordships had a right to know whether the course and conduct of Mr. Bulwer in presenting this note, as it appeared by the statement of the noble Marquess the other night, was considered an imprudent course by Her Majesty's Government, or whether the no-
750
ble Viscount was justified in stating that it had the entire and cordial approval of Her Majesty's Government.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say, that the noble Lord had not put an entirely correct construction upon what had fallen from him on Friday night. Undoubtedly, judging of the circumstances in this country, he did regret that the communication in question had been made to the Spanish Government. He at the same time stated that he could not but suppose that Mr. Bulwer, from his knowledge of the country, and from his talents in conducting public business, must have had reasons for making that communication at the time he did, which rendered it imperative upon him so to act. Unless Mr. Bulwer had been instructed to convey to the Duke de Sotomayor the approbation of Her Majesty's Government, it would have been equivalent to an expression of the disapprobation of Her Majesty's Government of his conduct, and must have been followed in fact by his recall—a step which Her Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to determine upon, and wisely so, in his opinion, considering the language of the despatch of the Duke de Sotomayor. He knew, however, from what had subsequently taken place, that there had been a removal of all unpleasant feeling between the parties. The noble Lord, in an early part of these proceedings, had stated that this communication was made at a period when violent measures for adopting a more arbitrary form of government had not been taken, and he supposed it was intended to prevent the adoption of those measures; but it might have occurred to the noble Lord that it was intended to give to Mr. Bulwer a discretion, in the exercise of which he might possibly avert the adoption of those measures which were subsequently taken, and which the noble Viscount was justified in apprehending would be taken. There must have been something to lead the noble Viscount to believe that such was the course Spanish proceedings would take; and from the danger of such a course, he was justified in the advice tendered. That advice was in the spirit of goodwill to the Spanish nation, with an anxiety for the peace of that country and the strength of the Government, and not with any desire to interfere in their affairs beyond that of promoting their prosperity. And he again said, after what had taken place between these parties, though

751
the circumstances were, as he fully admitted, of a painful character, yet the result had justified the apprehensions of his noble Friend. But it was a source of satisfaction to him to consider that there was now a spirit of amity between the parties, which he believed had resulted from the line of conduct Mr. Bulwer had pursued. His recall from Spain was not demanded; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) therefore trusted that their Lordships would not renew a controversy with respect to the merits of this proceeding, which could only end, on one side or the other, in imputations upon parties that were unnecessary.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, your
Lordships have heard the explanation of the noble Marquess of the discrepancy which appeared between the declaration he made on Friday night, and that which has been laid before your Lordships in the correspondence, with respect to Mr. Bulwer and the Spanish Government. I do not know that it is necessary to make any observations on the explanation of the noble Marquess further than this—that, if I collect nightly, the noble Marquess still does not share in the entire approbation conveyed in the despatch of the noble Viscount of the steps that had been taken; but I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that it would be most unjust to Mr. Bulwer to abandon him in this matter, for Mr. Bulwer has not only not acted in contradiction to his instructions, but he has acted undoubtedly according to the spirit of those he received. Mr. Bulwer is a most able servant of the Crown, and I have no doubt whatever that he knew perfectly well what he was about when he made that communication to the Duke de Sotomayor: he knew what, indeed, he appears to have felt with perfect confidence, that he should meet with the approbation of this Government; and when the noble Marquess says that the despatch left it to Mr. Bulwer's discretion whether he should make this communication to the Spanish Government, surely he cannot have read the despatch with grammatical correctness, or he would see that the interpretation put upon it by my noble Friend is the only one it would bear if read in the common-sense manner it required. The only omission I see is a comma after the words "Spanish Government." If that were inserted, there would have been no doubt about the matter. Whether, indeed, that ought to have been there or not, I cannot say; but if it had been, no doubt
752
would have remained upon the correct interpretation to be put upon it. The despatch of the noble Viscount says—
"I have to instruct you to recommend earnestly to the Spanish Government and to the Queen-Mother if you have an opportunity of doing so, the adoption of a legal and constitutional course of government in Spain."
Now, Mr. Bulwer had no reason to seek an opportunity of communicating with the Spanish Government. He had a right to communicate with the Spanish Government—it was his duty to do so; but he had no right to approach the Queen-Mother, and therefore he was to seek the opportunity of speaking to Her Majesty; and accordingly Mr. Bulwer in his despatch goes on to say—and this is evidence that he acted under the instructions of the noble Viscount—
"In conformity with your Lordship's instructions, I took the opportunity of speaking on Tuesday morning with the Queen-Mother."
Consequently Mr. Bulwer correctly interpreted this despatch by the communication he made; although he was not in so many words directed to make, he knew that he should be fulfilling the wishes of his chief by making the communication in the manner he did. The noble Marquess says the approbation conveyed to Mr. Bulwer was in order not to give to the Duke de Sotomayor a triumph after the communication he had received. That might be an answer that would do very well if the noble Viscount had received any knowledge of the letters of the Duke de Sotomayor. But your Lordships will see that the approbation was expressed by the noble Viscount before he had any knowledge of the existence of that letter; because the despatch of the 19th of April has no other object than to express the approbation of Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Bulwer made the communication to the Queen-Mother of Spain and to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs; that is solely the object of that despatch; and that despatch was written before the noble Viscount knew that the Duke de Sotomayor had made any answer at all. The reason assigned by the noble Marquess for that sort of approbation which was given to Mr. Bulwer, in order to prevent a triumph to the Duke de Sotomayor, therefore, does not apply in this case. The noble Marquess said the other night, and has repeated to-night, what I heard with satisfaction, that personal communications have been renewed between Mr. Bulwer and the Spanish Minister. I

753
was glad to hear that. I was curious upon the point when I saw these papers; and, although I fully expected to hear that the renewal of friendly communications had been brought about, I certainly could not have anticipated that it would have taken place in the manner in which it appears by these papers it has done. For your Lordships are perhaps scarcely aware how perfectly unprecedented a proceeding this is that has taken place. I have had some experience in these matters. I have had correspondence, occasionally more or less angry, with foreign Governments, though not very often; but that a despatch of a British Secretary of State should be returned by the Minister of a foreign Government as unfit to be retained or received, appears to me to be a thing utterly impossible. I never could have supposed that such a thing was possible. Not only in my experience have I never heard or seen such a thing; but I will venture to say that this is the first time a British Minister ever suffered such an indignity. It is not right to abandon Mr. Bulwer; he has only acted as he was expected to do, and so far as he was instructed it was his duty; but if it had not been for the discussion that has taken place in this House Mr. Bulwer would have had and might have had his approbation in his pocket, but he would have met with the universal disapprobation of the whole country. But now we see by the production of these papers that Mr. Bulwer was not to blame in the communication he made; and, if censure be used, it is not towards Mr. Bulwer, but of course to those who directed that step, which he only took in compliance with the instructions he had received. The next best thing to not having done it, is to confess that we have done wrong; and I fully expected that the suggestion which was thrown out by my noble Friend the other night, and particularly after what we have heard of some communications going on at Madrid on the subject, would have been adopted on the part of the Government, and that by mutual explanations, both these despatches would be cancelled or withdrawn, as has been done in cases where controversies of this description have arisen, and that the matter would be at an end. The whole proceeding does, I must say, appear to me so utterly unsuited to the dignity of this country, that I can hardly conceive that, with the facts before him, any noble Lord could express himself satisfied with the
754
matter as it now stands. I think it quite indispensable that some sort of understanding should be come to with the Spanish Government, with a view to remove the effect of this very objectionable proceeding; because, though we have withdrawn it ourselves, still we are the parties who have received such an insult as I believe was never before inflicted upon the British Government. It appears to me that the reason given in the despatch of the noble Viscount to Mr. Bulwer for the communication he made, that "the recent fall of the King of the French and of his whole family, and the expulsion of his Ministers, ought to teach the Spanish Court and Government how great is the danger of an attempt to govern a country in a manner at variance with the feelings and opinions of the nation," if it means anything, means approbation of the revolution which has recently taken place. But it is not altogether consistent with good feeling or delicacy, in a fortnight after the arrival of this unfortunate Prince and his family in this country, to hold him up in a despatch of this description as a warning to the Spanish Government; and if it means anything, it means that that Prince, not having acted according to the wishes and feelings of the nation, was in consequence deposed, and therefore the Spanish nation should do the same. I think that is perfectly untrue, but it is evidently implied by this. That is palpably untrue; I think, whatever we might have thought of the Government of the King of France, it cannot be said in truth that he was governing contrary to or at variance with the feelings and opinions of the nation. Those feelings and opinions were expressed in the only legitimate way they could be—by majorities in both the Chambers; and there is no reason, notwithstanding what has happened, to say that he was governing in a manner which entitled him to expect the fate which is threatened to the Spanish Government if they follow his example. But suppose this had been said to Narvaez, he might have answered to this example of the King of the French, "If the King of the French had allowed his able and upright and courageous Minister to act as I have done, he would have been on the throne of France now." Narvaez might have attempted to put down a revolution by using those means which, unfortunately for the King of the French, he abstained from using. The example of the King of the French, as a proof of what might be done by firm

755
resistance, was no argument for Narvaez. But I admit that, although this communication was very objectionable, to be made in the tone and manner, and, above all, at the time, which were chosen, yet I still think it could not have been expected to produce such an answer as that which it received. Everything depends on the feeling and actual relation of the party who gives advice. No doubt, as my noble Friend said the other night, I should have had no difficulty, either through Lord Granville or Lord Cowley, in giving any advice to M. Guizot. But, unfortunately, in the case of Spain, ever since the correspondence took place which was produced some time ago, in which the Spanish Government was alluded to in no very measured terms, there has existed a feeling of suspicion and hostility on their part, which has prevented them from receiving any kind of advice from this country, however salutary, without a certain degree of reluctance. The existence of this feeling was well known, and this made it only the more necessary, if we wished to act with them in a friendly manner, to approach them with all that care and delicacy and preparation, which might render it possible to do away with that suspicion and hostility. But, made as that communication was, I confess it almost appears to me that, if not made purposely with the view of its not being accepted, I am quite sure it must have been made without the shadow of a hope that it would be accepted. To propose to such a Minister—who, whatever his merits may be, was known to possess a most imperious temper—to propose to him to tranfer the Government to persons whom he had at that moment actually under an accusation of attempting a revolution in the State—seems to me to be an act so ill advised that it could only be received as it has been. In the present state of the world we cannot but look with the greatest interest on the condition of Spanish affairs. I think, if at the beginning of the convulsions which have recently taken place on the Continent, anybody had thought that resistance to similar outbreaks would have been successful in Spain, he would have been supposed to be more sanguine than his neighbours; but a successful resistance to an attempt to overthrow the existing Government in Spain having been made, surely it is our interest as well as our duty to give every support in our power to that Government, instead of getting up a miserable
756
quarrel with them about having a little more or a little less infusion of Liberal persons into that Government. Supposing they had accepted your recommendation, and had taken those persons whom you thought desirable for the interest, the welfare, the prosperity, and the safety of Spain, to form the Government, and supposing some calamity had then occurred, what would have been your responsibility? If a convulsion had taken place in Spain, you would have been answerable for the consequences which would have ensued. But this is the first time I have heard of our ever occupying ourselves with recommending particular individuals to compose the Ministry of Spain, whatever might be our interest in the formation of that Government. This is going further than we have ever done before, and further than I think is consistent with the interest of this country. I know it has been said that we are under a sort of obligation to support Spain; that there is a treaty in existence which binds us to support the Queen of Spain, and by which, it is said, we guarantee her throne. This is not true. There is no such treaty at this moment in existence. It is true there is a treaty by which, if Don Carlos or Don Miguel were to attempt a renewal of the war for the purpose of taking possession of the throne of Spain, the Queen of Spain would have a right to call for our assistance; but that is the limit of the treaty. There is no reference to any internal differences, or any struggles among the parties in Spain itself; still less did we undertake to support the Queen of Spain, because she was a constitutional Sovereign, against Don Carlos, because he was a despotic Sovereign. Nobody even pretended that we did. We supported the Queen of Spain because we thought she was the rightful heir to the throne, not because she was either constitutional or despotic. No doubt it was much more satisfactory to us to support a constitutional rather than a despotic Government; but we should never have supported her unless we had believed her to be the rightful heir to the throne. I therefore do not see that the existence of this treaty authorised our interference at all, still less the reference which has been so laboriously made throughout the correspondence. I think Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to establish a really friendly understanding with the Spanish Government; and that for this purpose they ought to avail themselves of the present time, when

757
the bugbear of French influence no longer sways them, and when they may exercise an exclusive influence there if they think proper. Surely we have enough of influence when we have it all to ourselves. I do think that we owe it to the safety of Europe, and to the interests of this country, to look with an anxious and real desire to the establishment of a friendly understanding with the Spanish Government.
LORD BROUGHAM had heard with the greatest satisfaction from his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that the relations of amity, goodwill, and friendly understanding which had so long prevailed between this country and the Spanish Government had been again re-established. He really thought that the less their Lordships entertained discussions of this kind, especially when the matter was over, as he hoped it was, the more likely it would be that the relations of amity would continue uninterrupted—which he was sure both sides of the House must wish—for there was always a little soreness left on such occasions, which continued discussions only augmented. He would only take the liberty of saying further, that he could not call it intervention, in the ordinary sense of the word, when one Government gave a piece of friendly advice to another, even when those Governments, or their agents, were not on perfectly friendly terms. This was not intervention, but advice, which they had a perfect right to give at any time. He denied the right of intervention except in very extreme cases.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY had listened with the deepest satisfaction to what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) on this subject, and entirely concurred with him in condemning the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs. We had no right even to give advice to the Spanish Government, unless we had been asked by them to do so; and our advice had not been asked; still less had we a right to dictate to them in the way that noble Lord had done.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE concurred in the soundness of the advice which had been given by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) not to stir up this subject unnecessarily; but he could not allow the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) entirely to pass without a few observations. It had been alleged that, according to the punctuation, the qualifying words in which the
758
advice was directed to be given when the opportunity offered, would refer exclusively to the recommendation to communicate that advice to the Queen-Mother, or would apply to the whole instruction. But he said emphatically, whether these words were applied grammatically or not to the whole instruction, they were intended by his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) to be so applied and so understood by Mr. Bulwer. The wish of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign affairs was, that Mr. Bulwer should tender, discreetly and at the proper opportunity, such advice to the Spanish Government as the circumstances of the country rendered necessary. Mr. Bulwer wrote that he "had already spoken to the Duke de Sotomayor in the same sense" in which he had addressed the Queen; showing how events went on; so that at last he thought it desirable to place upon record that the British Government had tendered what they considered sound advice to the Spanish Government. Those circumstances gave a different aspect to the correspondence from that which had been put upon it by the noble Earl. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) entirely concurred in the regret expressed by his noble Friend the President of the Council, as he was sure every other Member of Her Majesty's Government did, that Mr. Bulwer had committed the error of making that communication to the Spanish Government by transmitting almost in extenso the despatch forwarded for his own instruction. But it was only an error of judgment made at a very critical moment. If an unfortunate error had occurred, it would be most unjust to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he were to be condemned for that error, in taking a step which was entirely right, namely, putting on record advice tendered by the British Government to the Spanish Government.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Recommitment) read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
LORD MONTEAGLE was understood to object to certain provisions of the Bill, and to suggest that it should be referred to a Committee upstairs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Bill had been before the public for a consi-

759
derable length of time, and various suggestions had been made with a view to its improvement. He did not see, therefore, the propriety of the course just proposed. As to the suggestion which had been made, that a new officer should be appointed to carry out the provisions of the Bill, instead of leaving the duties to be discharged by the Court of Chancery in Ireland, he did not see that it was expedient. He saw no reason to doubt but that the Court of Chancery in Ireland was quite competent to do all that was required by the Bill, as the business before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was very small compared with what came before the Lord Chancellor of England. The Bill gave the Lord Chancellor power to make such provision as he might find to be necessary to the working out of the measure; and, therefore, he thought the appointment of any new officer unnecessary.
House in Committee.
Amendment made; and other Amendments moved and negatived.
Report to be received to-morrow.
House adjourned.