Sitting of 22 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Maxwell's Restitution; Scientific Societies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Alexander Hastie, from Electors of Glasgow, and a great Number of other Places, for an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Mr. Cowan, from Members of the Free West Church Congregation of Perth, respecting Quoad Sacra Churches.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Members of the Presbytery of North Isles, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Blewitt, from Newport, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Baillie, from Kilmorack, Inverness, and by other Hon. Members, from a great Number of Places, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. G. S. Duff, from the Parish of Urquhart, for Abolition of University Tests (Scotland).—From Justices of the Peace, Commissioners of Supply, and Freeholders of the County of Sutherland, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.—By Sir William Clay, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Sir William Somerville, from Clerks of Petty Sessions of the County of Meath, complaining of the Insufficiency of their Remuneration.—By Mr. Cowan, from the Provincial Synod of Angus and Mearns, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.

IRISH FISHERY ESTABLISHMENT.
COLONEL CONOLLY inquired of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for

1235
Ireland whether the fishery establishments on the western coast of Ireland had answered the purpose, and paid their own expenses; and whether the Government would have any objection to communicate to the House the accounts of expenditure, &.?
SIR W. SOMERVILLE replied, that in the instance of the Killybeg station these fisheries had been found able fully to pay their own expenses; and that although other stations had not been so productive, yet that the object for which they were set on foot—as industrial establishments—the promotion of energy on the part of the fishermen—had been quite answered, and that they had acted as very useful stimuli to exertion.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
SIR DE LACY EVANS said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose for Parliamentary Reform embraced four different points, in favour of every one of which he had himself already voted; but he wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection so to bring forward the subject as to put each of those heads or points to the House successively—each, in fact, as a different and independent resolution? It was the wish of many hon. Gentlemen that the hon. Member would adopt this course, as being calculated to ensure better divisions upon each proposition separately than could be expected if the House were to divide upon them as members of one general proposition.
MR. HUME had well considered the subject, and as he believed that no practical reform could be effected unless all his propositions were carried, he meant to propose them at once in the same resolution. In the event of further progress being made in the matter, each proposition would be made the subject of a separate Bill.

STAMFORD ELECTION COMMITTEE.
LORD J. RUSSELL understood that the nomination of the Stamford Election Committee, as the list of its Members stood, would lead to some discussion and to some difference of opinion in the House. He wished to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman having charge of the matter, whether any discussion on the subject might not be eluded by the General Committee of Elections being instructed to report to the House the names of such persons as they should think fit to have on
1236
the Stamford Borough Election Committee?
MR. W. P. WOOD was sorry that any difficulty had arisen, but he had no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition of the noble Lord.

THE SPANISH CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. BANKES wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further correspondence had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Ministry since that laid upon the table of the House; and, if so, whether the noble Lord would produce such correspondence before the subject was brought before the House, which he believed would be on Friday next?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that some further notes had been exchanged. Indeed, there had been, of course, a good deal of correspondence on the subject. Two other notes had passed, subsequently to those he had laid on the table, which related to the personal question between Sir H. Bulwer and the Duke de Sotomayor as to the manner in which the paragraphs had appeared in the Clamor Publico. That correspondence, however, had no bearing upon the note Sir H. Bulwer presented to the Spanish Government, enclosing the despatch which he had forwarded to Sir H. Bulwer. He was in daily expectation of a messenger from the British Minister in Spain, and it was very probable that he would arrive before this subject was again brought under the notice of the House.
In reply to a question from Mr. H. BAILLIE,
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON stated, that a correspondence, which was rather of a private than of a public nature, had taken place between Sir H. Bulwer and the Duke de Sotomayor; but, nevertheless, if he should receive any communication by the messenger he expected to-morrow, or the following day, which might appear to him to render it necessary that such correspondence should be laid before the House, he would wave the consideration of its being of a merely, confidential and private character, and would not object to its production.

PRIVILEGE—SLIGO ELECTION.
MR. ORMSBY GORE rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter of the petition of John Delany, which was presented upon the 18th day of this

1237
instant May, complaining of certain proceedings for effecting a compromise in the case of the Sligo Election Petitions. The allegations of this petition were stated clearly and broadly; and he thought it was for the dignity and independence of the House that it should receive a full investigation. The document stated that—
"At the late election for the borough of Sligo, Charles Townley, esq., was returned as a Member to serve in Parliament by a majority of seven; that two petitions have been presented to the House complaining of said return on several grounds, but especially on that of gross and undisguised bribery; that said petitions and the recognisances thereto were sent over for presentation to the House in charge of Mr. William Kelly, of Castle Lodge, in the county of Sligo, who undertook to have the usual preliminary forms complied with, and that one (being the petition of the petitioner and Dominick Henesy) was presented on the 19th day of April; but that the other, in consequence of an informality in the recognisance, was unavoidably delayed for several days, but was eventually presented on the 1st of May; that, from certain proceedings which took place before the examiner of recognisances on the 9th instant, while examining objections urged against the sufficiency of the surety to first said mentioned petition by James Coppock, of No. 3, Cleveland-row, Saint James's, Parliamentary agent, acting on behalf of said Charles Townley, it appeared, by the admission of the said James Coppock, that certain overtures were made to said William Kelly, by said James Coppock, at the instance, and with the consent and cognisance of said Charles Townley, with a view of inducing said Kelly to compromise the trust reposed in him regarding the due presentation and prosecution of said petitions; that, in consequence thereof, the petitioner instituted a searching inquiry, and finds the facts to be, that on the 29th of April last, said James Coppock called at No. 4, Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico, London, the residence of said William Kelly, and, having sent in his card, introduced himself as the Parliamentary agent of said Charles Townley, at whose instance he stated he called to negotiate an arrangement for the withdrawal of said petitions, and proposed that if said Kelly would either give him (Coppock) authority to withdraw the petition already presented,and withhold the other, or could point out any other way in which the proceedings on said petitions could be stopped, nullified, or rendered abortive, that he (Coppock) would make it well worth his (Kelly's) while, as his client (said Townley) had ample means and was prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice to retain his seat and prevent the damaging revelations that should take place before a Parliamentary Committee; said Kelly said that the proposition was so very unexpected that he would require some time for consideration, but agreed to wait on said Coppock next day, which he accordingly did, when said Coppock wrote out two letters and handed them to said Kelly for perusal, stating that if said Kelly would furnish him with copies of said letters to be used as originals in withdrawing said petition, he (Coppock) would give said Kelly one thousand pounds, and procure from said Townley a letter, pledging himself to use all his Parliamentary influence and obtain the co-
1238
operation of his brother, the Member for Beverly, and Lord Camoys, to secure a good government appointment for him (Kelly); it was then arranged that said Kelly would call next day with the copies of said letters, when said Coppock would be prepared to conclude the arrangement; said Kelly did accordingly call, when said Coppock handed him the promised letter from said Townley, which contained the required pledges, which said Kelly satisfied himself was genuine, from the strict similarity of the handwriting to a letter of said Townley's, addressed to John P. Somers, esq., the unsuccessful candidate at the said late Sligo election, which said Kelly happened to have in his possession; however, said Kelly said as the contingency of an appointment was rather doubtful and remote, he would rather abandon that part of the compact for a money consideration, when it was agreed that a further sum of five hundred pounds should be given in lieu of said letter, and that said Coppock and said Kelly should meet the same evening at seven o'clock in Bellamy's dining-rooms in the House of Commons, and finally conclude the matter; they did accordingly meet, and retired to Fendall's Hotel, when said Coppock proposed that instead of said Kelly's writing him (Coppock) a letter, authorising him to withdraw the said petition, that said Kelly should write a letter himself to the Speaker withdrawing said petition; this, after some hesitation, said Kelly did, from a copy written out at the time by said Coppock, and on said Kelly's handing over said letters to said Coppock, together with the said unpresented petition, said Coppock handed said Kelly one thousand five hundred pounds in Bank of England notes; but on said letter of withdrawal being handed to the Speaker, it appeared that said Kelly was not the authorised agent so to do; whereupon said Coppock hurried back to said Kelly, informing him of the circumstance, when said Kelly refunded the money; said Coppock since called and left his card on said Kelly, who declined having any further communication with him; that petitioner humbly submits that the conduct of said Charles Townley, and his agent said James Coppock, has been corrupt and illegal, and a gross infraction of the privileges of the House; and praying that a Select Committee of the House may be appointed to inquire into the matter, and take such other and further cognisance of it as it may deem fit and proper, in order to uphold the dignity and purity of proceedings before the House."
The hon. Gentleman continued: There was no vagueness in those charges—each of them was specific and distinct. The hon. Member read the correspondence which passed between the agent, Mr. Coppock, and the Speaker's Secretary, relative to the notice given for the withdrawal of the petition, and the warning to the latter Gentleman not to accept such notice. He had avoided all subjects of an acrimonious or party nature; but the mere statement of the facts was quite enough to satisfy the House that the matter could not rest here. A full inquiry into the truth of these statements was not only due to the Gentlemen implicated, but absolutely necessary to uphold the dignity and character of

1239
the House. He sincerely trusted the hon. Member would be able to vindicate himself. But, in addition to the charges made against him, an officer of the House, executing his important functions at their pleasure, was accused on no light grounds, and on a chain of evidence not one link of which was wanting, of conduct which deserved serious and searching inquiry. After the recent conduct of the House in assenting to an inquiry into the interference of a nobler Peer with the course of an election, they could not refuse their sanction to a Select Committee to investigate charges, involving not only the honour of the House, but the most sacred privileges of the electors. The hon. Member read extracts from the speeches of Lord John Russell and Mr. W. P. Wood on the Motion for an inquiry into the interference of the Marquess of Exeter with the Stamford election, and called on them, in compliance with the principles they had laid down and advocated, to support him in this Motion. From the high character of the hon. Member for Sligo, he hoped and expected he would be able to clear himself completely; but he could not express the same opinion with respect to Mr. Coppock. If these facts were true, every opportunity should be afforded for their substantiation; if false, the calumniators of honourable men should be exposed to that punishment which they so richly deserved.
COLONEL CONOLLY seconded the Motion. He was so satisfied that the feeling of the House would lead them to consent to immediate inquiry, that he would not say one word to induce them to sift a charge of this kind, which implicated one of their officers, the character of one of their Members, and the dignity of the House itself.
SIR R. H. INGLIS said, he had been requested by the hon. Member for Sligo, against whom this petition had been presented, and of whom he should for the present speak as Mr. Charles Townley, to state in his place to the House, that Mr. Townley had assured him, on his honour, as a gentleman, that he had neither act nor part in the matter to which this complaint referred, and that he was perfectly unconscious of any portion of the transaction. He was not only personally free, as he assured him (Sir R. H. Inglis), of any taint in the matter, but he was totally ignorant of the transaction itself. Mr. Townley desired him further to state to the House, that he shrank from no investiga-
1240
tion, and would do that which was most honourable to himself as well as to the House—which was, he might be permitted to say, stigmatised in his person by the terms of the petition—and consent to the inquiry. He felt the House owed it to itself not to yield without the fullest consideration to the honourable and generous impulse on the sitting Member for Sligo. Had not an election petition been lodged against the return of the hon. Member, and bad not the Speaker declared to the House, but on their very last sitting, that the securities were unobjectionable with respect to the prosecution of the petition? Might not the matter of which this petition complained come under the consideration of the Election Committee appointed to try the former petition? Even if that were not the case, would it be fair to any hon. Member; and in saying this, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) need not state he was quite impartial, and led away by no party spirit, for he did not concur in all the sentiments of the hon. Member who had entrusted to him the duty of making these few observations—would it be fair, he asked, that while the election petition was about to be decided before the regular tribunal appointed by law and by the constitution of the country, another Committee should be sitting simultaneously to inquire into charges of a different nature, which should not be made until the first Committee had made its report to the House? He hoped, notwithstanding the feeling of Mr. Townley in favour of such an inquiry, that the House would not consent to it—at least not until the Election Committee had reported, and that they would consider whether it might not be fitting to refer the present petition to the Committee of Privileges. But he protested against two Committees sitting at the same time, with concurrent jurisdiction, to inquire into charges against the same individual—one with power to examine parties on oath, and to sift truth from falsehood by a searching inquiry; and the other carried on, perhaps, with too much party spirit, and with no security for a fair adjudication, nor for that inquiry which might take place before an Election Committee. He dissented from the Motion on the plain grounds that the law having provided a remedy for offences alleged to have been committed in respect to the election of Members of that House before a proper tribunal, it was fitting that the House should wait until that tribunal had investigated the charges before them.
MR. G. BANKES believed this question could not be referred, as the hon. Member seemed to desire, to the tribunal which sat on disputed elections; for it did not in any way bear on the decision they were called on to give. The Election Committee could only try the validity of the return, and could not inquire into such charges as those of the petition. He should prefer an inquiry before some other tribunal, with full power to investigate the whole affair. The character and experience of Mr. Coppock were no doubt high; but such charges as these could not be allowed to drop to the ground in silence.
SIR R. H. INGLIS explained. He had proposed to refer the matter to some other body, as the Committee of Privileges, for he did not think the charges should be passed over; but he protested against the sitting of any Committee of Inquiry on this matter concurrently with that of the Committee appointed to try the validity of the hon. Member's return.
MR. V. SMITH thought it was quite clear the petition was not one which could be referred to the Election Committee, for though in the wording it bore some resemblance to an election petition, the mode in which it was brought forward disentitled it to that character; and the clerks of the House, who were naturally the best authorities on such a subject, had not considered it in that light. He did not understand the ground on which the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) founded his objection to the Motion; but he could easily understand him if he opposed it on the principle that the House had ever been jealous of appearing to anticipate in any way the decision and fair judgment of their Committees. The petition did not impute any direct charge against the hon. Member for his own conduct, but stated that he had, through his agent, endeavoured to make a compromise for his seat in order to evade the petition presented against his return. There was no analogy between the Stamford case, to which the hon. Mover referred, and the present, because in the former instance the petition was signed by 210 persons, whereas here there was only one individual who came forward with most serious charges against a Member of the House. The petition did not state that a compromise had been effected—that the petition had been withdrawn, or that justice had been evaded—on the contrary, it appeared that the whole affair had failed in consequence of one of the gentlemen
1242
accused handing over the money to the wrong person, and getting it back from him as soon as he discovered his mistake. He must say it was rather unusual for rogues, if rogues they were, to act in this way, and return the money they had got for their pains. The whole of the case might be tried before the Election Committee, for it was most likely, after what had transpired of the facts, that the cross-examination of witnesses would elicit the fullest statement of the whole subject. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division, but would withdraw it till the report of the Sligo Election Committee had been received.
SIR G. GREY said, that, after the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Gore), he certainly thought some inquiry was necessary; and if the compromise alluded to had been actually effected, and the petition withdrawn in consequence, he would have agreed with the hon. Member in thinking also that the present was the time for considering the question. He hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis)—though he (Sir G. Grey) agreed with him in thinking that, pending the inquiry before the Election Committee, the subject should not be investigated—would not ask the House to place a negative on the Motion of the hon. Member for a Select Committee, for, by so doing, he would, if successful, prevent his being able to bring it forward in the same form again. Believing with the hon. Baronet in the inexpediency of bringing forward his Motion while the Election Committee were sitting, he still thought if that Committee were not able to institute the inquiry, that the hon. Member would have a right to ask the House for a further inquiry, in which be (Sir G. Grey) for one would gladly concur. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion on the present occasion, and to bring it forward after the report of the Election Committee had been presented to the House.
MR. F. FRENCH rose to say a few words in consequence of the remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. V. Smith) respecting the gentlemen engaged in this transaction. The hon. Member stated that among "rogues" it was an extraordinary thing to find such honesty as to induce them to return the money they had acquired. He wished to state to the House the part taken by Mr. Kelly in the business, as he had it from himself just before he came

1243
into the House. When Mr. Coppock called on him (Mr. Kelly) he did not see him, but referred him to the agent of the petitioner, Mr. Walker, and told that gentleman that Mr. Coppock wished to see him. Every circumstance in which Mr. Kelly took a part was with a knowledge of the agent of Mr. Somers, and he wrote the notice to the secretary not to take any paper from him with respect to the withdrawal of the petition. Mr. Coppock might have fallen into the snare, but he (Mr. Kelly) was not responsible for it.
MR. GORE said, that after the wish expressed by the House and by the right hon. Baronet, he would withdraw the petition on the understanding that he should be allowed to bring it on as soon as the report of the Sligo Election Committee had been presented to the House.
Motion withdrawn.

HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
House in Committee on the Health of Towns Bill.
On Clause 60 (power to compel the paving, &., of private streets),
LORD G. BENTINCK objected to that portion of the clause which makes the following provision:—
"If any land fronting, adjoining, or abutting upon the parts of any street so sewered, levelled, flagged, paved, or channelled by the said local board, be unoccupied or unproductive, and the owner thereof shall, for the space of twelve months after demand, refuse to pay the expenses due from him, or if he be bankrupt, insolvent, or unknown to the said local board, or cannot be found, it shall be lawful for them, after the expiration of three months' notice in this behalf, affixed or placed on that land, to take possession of, and piece off, and let the same or any part thereof for any term not exceeding ten
years."
He thought it was rather hard that the owner of the unoccupied or unproductive piece of land should be compelled to see his entire property seized for the maintenance of sewers from which they derived no benefit, and in which they had no interest whatever.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL explained that it was not intended that the clause should apply to highways where the public had a right to the land. But if private landed proprietors chose to open communications with public thoroughfares, their object in so doing being manifestly that of speculation and profit, it was right that they should understand the liabilities they were incurring—liabilities which it was optional with them to incur or not, and
1244
which they therefore ought not to shift upon others.
The EARL of LINCOLN observed that the clause, as at present worded, would have a retrospective as well as a prospective operation. Perhaps it would be better that it should only operate prospectively.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented. If the operation were to be thus limited, proprietors who had already opened their streets, but had not dedicated them to the public, would have their sewering done at the expense of the public; whereas other proprietors, who might hereafter pursue a similar course, would have to pay the expenses of sewerage out of their own pockets.
MR. HENLEY: It was quite possible that cases of hardship might arise under the clause, but he feared they could not be avoided. On the whole he thought that the best course the Committee could pursue was to assent to the clause as it stood.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 63, relating to the width of new streets,
MR. S. CRAWFORD moved to expunge the words granting a power of appeal from the local to the general board.
VISCOUNT MORPETH thought it would be best to leave the question of width in the first instance to the local board; different towns having recommended the adoption of different widths. He thought, however, that there should be a power of appeal, and that it should be vested in the general board.
The EARL of LINCOLN said, that much as he was opposed to central control, except in cases in which it was absolutely necessary, he thought the Government were perfectly right in providing for the power of appeal in this case. That power was necessary to guard against undue favour or prejudice on the part of the local board; and he regretted that a similar power had not been given in the succeeding clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought the appeal to the general board should exist for five years. At the end of that period there might be an alteration, but an appeal to the quarter-sessions would be very expensive, and would be attended with great delay.
MR. HENLEY supported the Amendment. He agreed with the Attorney General that the court of quarter-sessions was a most unfit tribunal for appeal; for

1245
the result must always be either a reference to a barrister, or an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. He was in favour of leaving the whole matter to the local board.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 85; Noes 19: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Lacy, H. C.

Arundel and Surrey,

Lincoln, Earl of

Earl of

Lushington, C.

Bagshaw, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baines, M. T.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Maitland, T.

Bolling, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Morpeth, Visct.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Napier, J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Busfeild, W.

Parker, J.

Butler, P. S.

Patten, J. W.

Carter, J. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Perfect, R.

Clay, Sir W.

Pilkington, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Power, N.

Clive, H. B.

Price, Sir R.

Copeland, Ald.

Romilly, Sir J.

Courtenay, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Cowan, C.

Salway, Col.

Disraeli, B.

Sandars, G.

Drummond, H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Duncan, G.

Sidney, Ald.

Duncuft, J.

Slaney, R. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanton, W. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Stephenson, R.

Foley, J. H. H.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Forster, M.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, Col.

Grace, O. D. J.

Turner, E.

Granger, T. C.

Turner, G. J.

Greenall, G.

Vane, Lord H.

Halford, Sir H.

Verney, Sir H.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Hayter, W. G.

Willcox, B. M.

Heywood, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wyld, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Wyvill, M.

Howard, P. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Kershaw, J.

Bellew, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Locke, J.

Arkwright, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Scholefield, W.

Christy, S.

Smyth, J. G.

Cubitt, W.

Spooner, R.

Gwyn, H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Heald, J.

Sullivan, M.

Henley, J. W.

Williams, J.

Henry, A.

TELLERS.

Hudson, G.

Crawford, W. S.

Humphery, Ald.

Urquhart, D.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 66 (local boards to provide sufficient supplies of water, and may erect water-works, &.) being put, a long conversation ensued as to the literal construction of the clause.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, that he had hitherto abstained from taking an active part in the debate. But he could not help saying that he thought the measure had been much improved by the suggestions of the hon. Member for Oxford; and the noble Lord had done well in agreeing to those amendments, and diminishing the power of the central board. But in the clause under consideration, he feared that the powers given to the local boards would be very objectionable. If they looked to the provisions of the following Clause (67), the Committee would see that the local board was to be invested with the power of entering any one's premises; and having satisfied themselves upon the correctness of the report of their surveyor, that the premises were not adequately supplied with water, of furnishing what they should deem a requisite supply, and for the levying a rate upon the premises at their own valuation, as if the owner or occupier had of himself demanded the supply. Now he saw no security whatever that those local boards might not have a pecuniary interest in some local water company, whose interests they would be thus enabled to advance to any extent. Surely those powers were too great. Unless he heard some very good reason for retaining the 67th Clause, he should oppose it.
MR. SLANEY thought a power should be given to compel a proper supply of water to the habitations of the poorer classes; but he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the proposed mode of doing it was objectionable. The question really was, whether or not they should retain the portion of the clause providing for the constant supply of water at high pressure, and make it permissive only, and not obligatory.
VISCOUNT MORPETH was aware the powers taken by the clause were of a stringent and somewhat tyrannical character; and before the Committee decided upon it, he would show them the ground upon which he founded his belief that something of a very stringent character was required to meet the extensive privation under which the poorer classes suffered. The noble Lord read extracts from the evidence given before the Sanitary Commission appointed by the late Govern-

1247
ment, in which the great destitution of the dwellings of the poorer classes in point of supply of water was dwelt upon; and he contended from those statements that a supply should be made obligatory. He, however, admitted the truth of the observations of the hon. Member for Oxford, that the objects of the Bill would be best promoted by not forcing any system not yet ascertained, but by rather leaving matters which were doubtful to experiment, to ascertain what was the best mode of carrying them into operation. He would, therefore, propose in Clause 66, that instead of making the constant supply obligatory, it should be merely recommended; and, that instead of the words "duty of the local board," the words "lawful for the local board," should be inserted.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 67,
SIR JAMES GRAHAM renewed the objections he had previously made to the powers to be given to the local board, who would be empowered to purchase the waterworks, to compel the laying on of water to their own property, to fix the price, and finally to tax the people for the supply. Besides, the rate would be one on the occupiers and not upon the owners.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that with regard to the rate, there was another clause, which provided that of houses under 10 l. all the rates should fall upon the owners, not the occupiers. As to the provisions of the clause, he thought the powers ought to be given with some qualifications, the habits of the poor requiring alteration, especially in the matter of cleanliness, as exemplified in the evidence just read by the noble Lord. He suggested some verbal amendments in the clause.
SIR J. GRAHAM did not think the proposed amendments would meet his objection. And as to the rates, even if paid by the owner, they would be laid upon the occupier in the shape of additional rent. But the hon. and learned Gentleman rather shocked him by his defence of the clause; for he said he was not satisfied with the domestic habits of the lower orders. So that he evidently intended by this minute legislation to interfere with the domestic habits of the lower classes; and one of the great objections to that Bill, excellent as it was in many respects, was, that it had that vice. It was on that account that that was the first clause which he (Sir J. Graham) thought it necessary to interfere
1248
with. He wished not to obstruct, but to advance the Bill, and he therefore should go through the clause line by line, and state his objections.
SIR W. CLAY acknowledged that the words objected to would give extraordinary powers to the local boards; yet the House must bear in mind that, under the present remiss system, there were hundreds and thousands of occupiers of small houses in London whose landlords positively refused to provide them with any water, although there were the means of obtaining it very easily in the immediate neighbourhood. The landlords would not listen to the demands of their tenants, and the municipal authorities had no means of interfering. It was, therefore, necessary, for the sake of thousands and thousands of the industrious poor, that some compulsory power should be given by this Bill for the purpose of enforcing the performance of the landlord's duties in this matter.
MR. MILES rather thought that the Tower Hamlets had got a little interest in this Bill. It was quite delightful to hear the hon. Baronet dilate on the insufficient supply of water in his own borough. But the theory of this clause might be very admirable, whilst in practice it would assuredly create such a host of evils as the noble Lord had no conception of. It was all very well to talk of diffusing cleanliness throughout the whole of the community, but this was not the way do it. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) strike out the objectionable words.
VISCOUNT MORPETH suggested the postponement of the clause, as the questions involved in it were very difficult, with a view of seeing whether a provision could be introduced to limit the price at which the water should be supplied, or at all events to put the clause into such a shape as would suit the views if all.
Clause postponed.
SIR J. GRAHAM said, that the noble Lord's postponement of it was only in accordance with the conduct which he had all through pursued, and which had so materially conduced to the success of the Bill.
Clauses from 72 to 78, inclusive, were then struck out of the Bill.
On Clause 80, which provided for the prevention of interment in burial-grounds dangerous to the public health, being read,
MR. HENLEY wished to know what the

1249
noble Lord intended to do with the dead. The clause provided that the dead were not to be brought into certain churchyards; but there was no provision in the Bill for having them brought elsewhere; and surely it would not promote the sanitary condition of the public to leave the dead above ground.
MR. MACKINNON said, that his hon. Friend who had just sat down had shown great talent and discrimination in the amendments which he had suggested during the progress of this Bill; but his usual sound judgment appeared to have forsaken him on the present occasion. There was no clause in the Bill more called for by the condition of the country than that now under consideration; but at the same time there was no doubt but that Government should go much further in providing a remedy for the evils of intra-mural interments than was suggested by the present clause. It was clear that if burials were not allowed in full churchyards the parishioners would find cemeteries elsewhere. It should be recollected that at present it was only members of the Church of England who had a right to interment in the parochial burial grounds, and yet no one heard of Dissenters complaining of being unable to find places of burial for their dead. He trusted that his noble Friend would not modify this clause, as he could assure him that a strong feeling existed on the subject throughout the country, and that the clause was regarded by the clergy and the public generally as only a part of a much more extensive measure to be brought in hereafter.
VISCOUNT MORPETH said, that this clause was only a portion of an arrangement intended orginally to be introduced into the Bill, which would have enabled local boards to purchase sites for burial grounds; but it was felt that this subject would involve an amount and a complicity of legislation which would be most injurious, if not fatal, to the Bill, and which it would be desirable to avoid, considering the many other objects of utility found in it. This clause would only come into operation when there was danger to the public health, and in cases where he imagined an action would lie at common law. In such cases it was open to the parishes affected by this clause to purchase new burial grounds; but at the same time it was to be remembered that in all large towns where this clause was likely to apply, there were already public cemeteries
1250
in existence. Besides, the clause would only come into effect on a certificate from the general board of health; and the board would naturally inquire into all the circumstances of the case before issuing that certificate; and one branch of their inquiry would clearly be whether there was another available place of burial in the neighbourhood.
MR. HENLEY inquired whether the noble Lord had any objection to introduce words limiting the power of restraining the use of these burial grounds to cases where the parishioners had a legal right to bury elsewhere? He admitted fully the propriety of putting an end to burials in certain places; but he thought that the restriction should be confined to localities where the public had a right by law to go to other burial grounds; and if the noble Lord did not assent to an arrangement to that effect, he should certainly feel it necessary to take the sense of the Committee on the matter.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL was aware of the difficulty which the hon. Member felt in passing this clause, without any provision being made for opening new burial grounds. Every one agreed in the necessity of putting a stop to interments in churchyards, when such interments were obviously dangerous to the public health; but, at the same time, there were no legal means by which the parishes could be compelled to provide new burial grounds. It then occurred to his noble Friend that the local boards might be authorised to provide cemeteries; but this difficulty arose—that they did not want new burial places within the district, which would be only increasing the nuisances, and the moment they went out of the parish legal difficulties arose, which it would require considerable trouble to get rid of. In fact, the subject was surrounded with so many difficulties, that unless they had a Cemetery Bill with almost as many clauses as the Bill now before the Committee, a full remedy could not be provided. The question then remained, whether they would not put a stop to interments in certain burial grounds where such interments were found to be dangerous to the health of the living?
MR. MILES said, that he thought it better, where such nuisances existed, to leave them to be suppressed by indictment under the common law.
MR. HENLEY said, that there were hundreds of places where no cemeteries ex-

1251
isted, and where the parishioners might be prevented from burying their dead in other parishes.
MR. WYLD said, that it had been ascertained that in the large manufacturing towns two-thirds of the mortality arose from the overcrowded state of the burial grounds. He thought that much credit was due to Mr. Walker for his exertions in procuring the suppression of the frightful nuisances of Spafields and Enon Chapel in the metropolis. The hon. Member was understood to express his regret that the Bill did not go farther in providing a remedy for such cases.
Clause, with Amendments, agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

POST OFFICE REVENUES.
MR. MACGREGOR, moved—
"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the services of the undermentioned persons, who receive the following sums from the Penny Post Office revenue, being deducted therefrom in its progress to the Exchequer, and stating the names of the Heirs of his Grace the Duke of Schomberg:—

His Grace the Duke of Marlborough

£

4,000

His Grace the Duke of Grafton

3,407 10

The Heirs of his Grace the Duke of Schomberg

2,900 0

———

£

10,307 10

being the amount of the gross postages on 2,473,800 letters, and of net postages, deducting the expense, of 7,321,400 letters."
LORD J. RUSSELL scarcely thought the Treasury, or any other public department, could be called on to give an account of the services of the Duke of Marlborough, or of the Duke of Schomberg. There was a book called Coxe's Life of the Duke of Marlborough, and several histories of the reign of Queen Anne, in which the services of the Duke of Marlborough, for which he received a certain pension from the hereditary revenues of the Crown, were stated in detail. As to the services of the Duke of Schomberg, they were known to any one who had read the history of the period. The Duke of Schomberg, to whom the money was paid in the first instance, was well known; and if the hon. Member wished to know the names of his heirs, he (Lord J. Russell) believed they could be procured for him. These sums were paid out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. When the House of Commons took these hereditary revenues, and gave the Crown a fixed sum in return, the House of course took upon itself all the burdens
1252
which fell upon the revenues as well. He did not see how they could well avoid those burdens, or rid themselves of the obligations then incurred. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion.
MR. MACGREGOR said, he regretted exceedingly that the noble Lord should have so far trifled with the taxation of the country, as to have opposed his proposition in such a way. He had brought on this question altogether as one which bore on the profuse expenditure of the public revenues. He did not want to know to what Duke of Marlborough the money had been paid at first, but for what services the pension was paid to the Duke now living. If a former Parliament had been so corrupt as to grant this pension in perpetuity, the present Parliament had a right to inquire for what the money had been granted. The pension was passed in 1723, and since that time 600,000 l. had been paid to the family, which at simple interest was more than a million sterling. If the noble Lord treated the taxation of the country so lightly, Her Majesty's subjects would take a different view of it, and hold him to account for his conduct.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY OF SEAMEN.
CAPTAIN HARRIS moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the Supply of Seamen from the commercial marine to Her Majesty's Fleet, and into the effect of the Registry and Navigation Acts on that supply. He had no intention of obstructing the discussion on the Navigation Laws; but this Committee would not necessarily sit more than a fortnight, it would afford important information, and would bring to a conclusion the labours of the Committee of last Session. He disclaimed all intention of delaying the progress of the Government Motion on the Navigation Laws; but he considered the Committee he moved for was essential, in order to complete the evidence taken before the Committee on the Navigation Laws last Session. The Committee need not sit longer than a fortnight.
MR. LABOUCHERE said, that had the hon. and gallant Officer made his Motion at the commencement of the Session, there would have been something in the plea of continuing the evidence of the Committee of last Session. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion, as likely to lead to obstruction to the Government measure on the Navigation Laws.
MR. BROTHERTON moved that the House do now adjourn.
CAPTAIN HARRIS said, that was rather sharp practice. The hon. Member had sat quietly enough until a quarter to one, while the Ministerial measures were under discussion; but the moment a Motion came from the Opposition side of the House, although quite as important, the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the House. He should have moved for the returns earlier in the Session, but he expected the information would be elicited by the Committee of the House of Lords.
Motion negatived.
House adjourned at a quarter past One.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Cruelty to Animals Prevention.
3a Assignment of Ecclesiastical Districts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale and Lord Stanley, from Derbyshire, Herefordshire, Yorkshire, and several other Places, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Lord Portman, and the Bishop of Norwich, from Lanarkshire, and the Members of several Religious Societies, in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Lord Campbell, from the Members of several Religious Societies, and Others, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays.—By Lord Portman, from several Charitable Institutions, to be relieved from the Payment of Legacy Duty on Bequests made to them.—By the Earl of Cawdor, from the Presbytery of Orkney, Clare, and other Places, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for Churches.—By Lord Redesdale, from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Others, of the City of London, in favour of the Smoke Prohibition Bill.—From the Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to them.—By Lord Portman, from Middlesex, for an Extension of Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments.—From the Members of the Presbyteries of Aberlour, Alford, and several Others, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, and Registering Births, &. (Scotland) Bill.—From the Parish Schoolmasters of Kirkwall, for Improvement in the present System of Parochial Education, Scotland.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from the Ministers and Members of several Religious Bodies in Glasgow, and other Places, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—From Dumfries, for the Prevention of Sunday Travelling on Railways.—From the Magistrates and Town Council of Perth, for the Repeal of the Law of Entail, Scotland.—From the Parish of St. Mary, New Ross, against the present System of National Education, Ireland.—From the Clergy of Ipplessen and
1222
Plympton, against any Addition to the Conditions of Parliamentary Grants to National Schools.—From Tillicoultry, for the Repeal of the Game Laws.—From the Clergy of Cadbury, for Increasing the Number of Bishops.—From the Clergy of Cornwall, and Others, for an Alteration of the Law relative to the Election of Bishops.—From Clergymen in the Deanery of Torrington, that the Clergy may be relieved from Assessment upon their Rent.

DIOCESE OF LINCOLN.
In reply to a question by Earl BROWN-LOW, having reference to some recent statements respecting the clergy of Lincoln,
The BISHOP of LINCOLN said: I feel obliged to the noble Earl for putting the question, and enabling me to offer an explanation upon the subject to which it relates. As soon as I read the report of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Horsman's) speech in the Times newspaper, which represented him to have said that two clergymen in Lincoln or the neighbourhood had died of starvation, thinking that such a statement cast a great stigma upon the clergy of the county, I requested the hon. Gentleman to furnish me with the names of the two clergymen. In his answer he tells me that the report in the Times is incorrect—that he did not state that two clergymen had died of starvation; but that he could give instances of clergymen who had died in such a state of destitution that it would hardly be too much to say that it was bordering on starvation. In confirmation of this, as I asked him for two cases, he enclosed an extract from a report made to him on the subject in January last, and of the correctness of which, in all essential points, he had no doubt. He adds, they are by no means the only cases of extreme destitution and suffering which he could cite:—
"In the parish of Auborne, six miles and a quarter from Lincoln, there died, in the year 1834, the Rev. Mr. Watkins, the vicar of that parish. He came there in 1810, a widower. Some years after he became afflicted with a cancer. Of course he stood in urgent need of the best medical assistance; but his income, 54 l. per annum, and that sometimes not regularly paid, precluded the possibility of his obtaining such advice. His disease became so terrible, and superadded to the misery of his position, weighed down his health and spirits so heavily, that he was driven to the consumption of opium in order to produce stupefaction. Thus he went on for several years. The services of the Church were of course neglected. Sometimes there was no service for six or nine weeks together. No administration of the sacrament for two years. A large dissenting chapel sprung up, and the district soon became, what it still remains, the focus of dissent. Sometimes, when the poor vicar awoke completely to a sense of his position, it is reported his feelings proved almost maddening. He had no one to care for

1223
him—not even a servant to look after him. He was obliged sometimes—so deep was his poverty—even to beg his daily bread. He was forced to the humiliating necessity of asking for the smallest sums of money from neighbouring clergy—not as a loan, but absolutely as a gift. At last death put an end to his sufferings, which it must indeed have required all the fortitude of a Christian minister to endure—agony of body, agony of spirit, agony of mind! He died with no other attendant about him than a charwoman; and he was buried at the cost and by the direction of the clergy of the adjacent villages. Nor is this a singular case of distress. Within the last few days a case has occurred in this very city, by no means dissimilar from that I have depicted. The incumbent of a parish of 95 l. a year, two miles from the cathedral, has died. His death was occasioned, I am sorry to say, by his own excesses, and therefore that amount of pity cannot be entertained for him that must be felt for the poor vicar of Auborne. But the account of his death—I have it from one cognisant of all the facts—is dreadful. He had been sometime ill; his wife was ill also. The only other person in the house was a little workhouse girl of fifteen or sixteen years of age—a dreadful beginning of life, indeed, for her. In the middle of the night this child was awoke by the poor man's groans. She went to his room, found him writhing in extreme agony, threw a sheet over him, and left him to expire. A dog could scarcely have died more wretchedly. It was not till late in the evening that any one could be got to approach the wretched death-bed. When they searched the house not a single coin of any kind, nor a single article of food, was to be found. The body of this clergyman of the Established Church of England and Ireland was interred at the cost of Archdeacon Bonney."
On the first of the two cases, which occurred fourteen years ago, when I was not resident in the county, and consequently could not be acquainted with the circumstances of individual clergymen in it, I can say little. I remember only that Mr. Watkins was represented to me as very poor; and, if my memory does not deceive me, he had once been confined for debt in Lincoln Castle; but I am confident that the neighbouring clergy would never have allowed him to die of starvation. The second is a recent case, and I know that Mr. Baker died in circumstances of extreme destitution; but he had contracted inveterate habits of drinking, and his death was the consequence of those habits. I know that he had borrowed money of the Dean of Lincoln within six weeks or two months of his death; but if a clergyman spends all that he receives in the purchase of intoxicating liquors, how can he do otherwise than die in extreme destitution? I will offer no further remarks on the hon. Gentleman's statement, because as the report in the Times, the only one which I have read, appears to be incorrect, I may be
1224
commenting on that which the hon. Gentleman did not actually say. He quoted a letter from a correspondent, giving an account of a clergyman who rode over the country performing several duties on the Lord's day, in churches at great distances from each other. My persuasion is, that this statement, if inquired into, would be found to relate to facts which took place some years ago. But I must be permitted to remark, that if the hon. Gentleman's correspondent had communicated the facts to the bishop of the diocese at the time when they took place, in order that means might be taken to prevent their recurrence, he would have shown a more sincere desire to correct the abuses in the Church than by the course which he has taken.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move—
"That there be laid before this House an Account of all Charges of which the Amount was voted and appropriated from the Public Revenue in 1838, and which were defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund in 1847; also of all Charges defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund in 1838, of which the Amount was voted and appropriated from the Public Revenue in 1847; showing the Amount of each several Charge in each year from 1838 to 1847, both inclusive, and whether defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, or voted and appropriated from the Public Revenue in each Year."
In bringing forward this Motion the noble Earl said, he wished particularly to draw their Lordships' attention to the great increase which had taken place in the sums expended in Miscellaneous Services every year for the last ten years. During that period there had been three Administrations in this country; and so far as the expenditure went there was no distinction to be made between them—there had been a progressive increase in the Miscellaneous Expenditure every year since 1838. While it was happily in the power of Government every year to propose the remission of some tax, because the revenue was annually increasing, and there was consequently an annual surplus of income over expenditure, it was natural there should be a disposition on the part of Government to adopt, and of Parliament not to discourage, some additional items of useful expenditure; but those days were now gone by, the revenue of the country was no longer equal to the expenditure, and their Lordships could not but perceive that there was on the part of the people a great reluctance to submit to any increase of taxation in order to equalise

1225
them. Nor could he entertain any hope, nor did he think their Lordships could nourish such hope, that there would be any material increase in the revenue of the country, with the present amount of taxation. The prosperity of the revenue of this country depended upon the export of our manufactures; and it was impossible, looking at the present distracted state of the Continent, to expect that we should be enabled for some years at least to increase our exports of manufactures to the Continent. If the convulsions on the Continent continued, it was impossible to imagine that our exports could increase, unless, indeed, those convulsions should continue so long as to utterly destroy the manufactures of the Continent, when a state of things might occur, such as had occurred at the conclusion of the last war, when we had the monopoly of the supply of the Continent; but however much he might desire the prosperity of his own country, he had no wish to see that prosperity produced by such a fatal result. But unless such an event should occur, there was no reasonable prospect of an increase in the revenue of this country. They were now defraying the surplus expenditure out of the balances of the Exchequer. That was a system which could not last; and the strictest economy, therefore, became an imperative duty on the Government and on the Legislature. It was because he was strongly impressed with this conviction that he was desirous of drawing the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He was satisfied they were now at the commencement of a great and protracted struggle. He did not mean to say that they were about to be engaged in war, but they were at the commencement of a state of convulsion among the States of the Continent, which would impose upon them the necessity of keeping up the defensive establishments of the country for some time to come in a state of preparation for war; for, however much we might desire to preserve peace, we did not know how soon war itself might be forced upon us. This was no time for the proposition of organic changes; he was satisfied that nothing but the absence of all agitation for organic changes could enable us to preserve our institutions secure amidst the wreck of the institutions of the nations around us. But while he said this, he said at the same time, it was the absolute duty of the Government, by every means in their power, to show the people of this country that their present constitu-
1226
tion gave them every practical advantage which had at any time been enjoyed in any country, under any constitution; but, above all, that could be best done by showing them that our present institutions were not only compatible with, but were best adapted to secure an economical and at the same time a controllable distribution of the national revenues. No Government could stand long that did not economise the national expenditure to the utmost possible extent; and if the Government should fall through want of economy, or by reason of financial difficulties brought upon them by a disregard of systematic economy, it would in its fall bring down with it a large portion of the constitution. He had thought it necessary to say these few words before drawing the attention of their Lordships to the immense increase which had taken place in the Miscellaneous charges during the last ten years. In the year 1838, besides the special and occasional charges, the total charge for Miscellaneous Services was 2,330,000 l., and in 1847 it was 3,659,000 l., showing an increase on the total charge for 1847, as compared with the total charge for 1838, of 1,327,000 l. But from the mode in which the accounts had been made out, the charges for the Irish Colleges did not appear in the Miscellaneous Expenses for 1837; in that year they were defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund; but they did appear in the Estimates for 1847, and they increased the Miscellaneous expenditure of that year by about 60,000 l., making the total apparent increase 1,387,000 l. There were however, to be deducted from the increase in 1847 certain charges which had been transferred from the poor-rates to the Miscellaneous Estimates, and which amounted to 123,000 l.; and also certain charges for the, maintenance of prisoners, which had been transferred from the county rates, and which amounted to 268,000 l. Neither did he think it fair to charge harbours of refuge, or the Caledonian Canal, to the Miscellaneous Expenditure of 1847; and, therefore, he would not charge the sum of 190,000 l., which appeared under those heads, to the Miscellaneous Expenditure of 1847. These items amounted together to 581,000 l. But, deducting all these charges, they would stiil find that the Miscellaneous Expenditure of the year 1847 exceeded that of the year 1838 by 805,000 l. This increase had taken place under various heads. Under the head of Public Works, with the exception of a

1227
slight diminution during one year of only 1,000 l. the expenditure had been continually increasing every year for the last ten years. Even in the very first column, "Public Buildings and Royal Palaces," there was a very large increase. There were two heads in particular, "Buckingham Palace" and "Home Office, Board of Trade, &.," in which the increase had been very large. Excluding all consideration of canals and harbours, from both 1838 and 1847, and comparing only public buildings and palaces, the charge in the former year was 215,219 l., and in the latter, 376,624 l.; making an increase in 1847 under these heads only of 161,405 l. The charge for Buckingham Palace alone was increased in 1847 to 50,000 l. But the excess in 1847 was not unsual or peculiar to that year. There had been an almost unvaried tendency to increase under this head during the whole period of ten years; and, still deducting harbours and canals, the charge on the average of 1838, 1839, and 1840, was 185 268 l., while, on the average of 1845, 1846, and 1847, it was 304,413 l., being an increase on the compared average of those years of 119,146 l. There was one charge under the head of Public Works, which he was exceedingly sorry to see. During the last ten years no less a sum than 844,700 l. had been expended in the building of the House in which their Lordships were then sitting. He admitted that it was a matter of absolute necessity that the two Houses of Parliament should be built; but he was confident that there was no person throughout the country who viewed with less pleasure than their Lordships the extravagant expenditure which had been lavished on the building of the two Houses of Parliament. He regretted to see that expenditure still going on, apparently without check. It might be very well to continue a lavish expenditure on the erection of these Houses, and to have a magnificent palace, if they could afford it; but even then, when he looked around him, he could not but express an opinion, that this was not the style of building fit for the palace of a nation in the maturity of its strength; it was more suited to the vain-glorious old age of a declining country. Rather than these lavish ornaments, he would like to see a plain building, suited to the plain habits of our ancestors; and he only hoped that they would transact the business of the country in this House as well as their predecessors had in the or-
1228
dinary and plain building with which they had been satisfied. There was also another charge under this head to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships. It was his desire that every possible accommodation should be afforded to the wearer of the Crown and to the members of the Royal Family—that the Sovereign should be placed in the position of the utmost possible comfort; but he could not but express his regret that the heavy charges for increased buildings for Buckingham Palace should have fallen upon the year 1847—the year of great public distress. It would be most satisfactory to add to the accommodation at Buckingham Palace, if the revenue could afford it; but he hoped that the Government would give the country an assurance that there should be no further expenditure under that head until the revenue should be equal to the expenditure. They might afford to build palaces out of a surplus revenue, but they could not afford to do so while the revenue was deficient. There was one charge, which was small in amount indeed, but which he hoped not to see again, for it was perfectly indefensible in the present condition of the country—it was an amount of 22,000 l. for a palm-house at Kew; and, again, there was another sum of 22,000 l. for Trafalgar-square—which seemed to be the Campus Martius of those who desired to overturn the constitution. A sum of 280,000 l. had been expended on the Caledonial Canal. Now, certainly the Caledonial Canal ought to be a work of great national benefit to authorise the continued expenditure of 50,000 l. a year on its works. In the charges of "Salaries to Officers in the Public Departments," after deducting the charges occasioned by the transfer of the business connected with the Poor Law Department, there was an increase of 164,000 l. He regretted to observe that there had been last year an excess of 88,000 l. under the head of printing for both Houses of Parliament in 1847, as compared with 1838: the charges for printing and stationery were, in 1844, 217,000.; in 1845, 226,000 l.; in 1846, 249,000 l.; and in 1847, 295,000 l. He hoped that the Members of the other House would consider, that by moving for the printing of papers and returns, they were greatly, and in some instances needlessly, increasing the public expenditure. There were other charges which required attention; indeed, it was impossible not to observe that there had been a great tendency to an increase in expenditure in all

1229
these charges, and especially in those under the head of Commissions. The Factory Commissions, for instance, began with an annual expenditure of 9,000 l.; in 1846 the expenditure had increased to 15,000 l.; and in 1847 it had amounted to 20,000 l. These were small items, but yet they required the attention of the Government; for the enormous increase in Miscellaneous Expenditure in 1847 over 1838 consisted of these small items. There was one charge, however, to which he must draw the attention of their Lordships. There had been an increase in the charges for the "Salaries of the Officers of the Privy Council Office and the Board of Trade." He knew that for some time that office had to conduct all the railway business of the country; but it was remarkable, that while the increased charge for that office amounted to 12,000 l. in ten years, the charge for 1847 exhibited a slight increase over that for 1846, although in 1846 the Railway Board had been established at an expense of 17,000 l. Surely when that Board had been established it was understood that the railway staff was to have been transferred from the Board of Trade to the Railway Board; and yet, notwithstanding the expenditure of 17,000 l. for the Railway Board, there had been an increase in the expenditure of the Board of Trade. It was satisfactory to observe, that although by the extension of the principle of centralisation there had been a great increase of business necessarily thrown upon the great departments of the State, yet there had been no great increase in the expenditure on that account; and any increase that there might have been under that head was more than counterbalanced by the diminution in the salaries of the officers of the two Houses of Parliament. There had been an increase, slight indeed, in the expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it had increased from 2,500 l. per annum in 1838, to 3,444 l. in 1847. The expenses of the Poor Law Commission had increased from 54,000 l. to 59,000 l.; the Public Record Commission, from 2,063 l. to 12,812 l.; and the Inspectors and Superintendents of Factories, from 9,055 l. to 13,024 l. He could scarcely come across an item in which there had not been an increase. Under the head of "Law and Justice," there had been an increase of 444,000 l. in the year 1847, as compared with the year 1838. From this they would have to deduct a sum of 268,000 l. for the maintenance of prisoners, which charge
1230
had been transferred from the county rate to the Miscellaneous Expenditure in 1845, and that would leave a real increase of 176,000 l. To this, however, they must add law charges for England, on an average of three years, 27,666 l., making a total increase, under the head of "Law and Justice," of 204,059 l. Their Lordships would hardly believe that in the item of expenses of "Prisoners" alone, there had been an increase of 110,000 l., and this great increase had taken place concurrently with an increase in the expenditure for education, which they had been told was to diminish crime. In 1838 there had been expended under the head of "Education, Science, and Art," 70,000 l., and in 1847, 200,000 l.; if to that was added in both instances the charge for Maynooth, it would make the charge for education, exclusive of the sums voted for negro education, amount in 1838 to 107,000 l., and in 1847 to 284,000 l., showing an increase in the expenditure for education of 177,000 l. With regard to the British Museum, he found that in the last year there had been an expenditure of not less than 60,000 l., and the total sum expended in the course of the last ten years in building was 400,000 l,, while the purchases amounted to no less than 200,000 l. Again, the School for Economic Geology, although it had been commenced at an expenditure of 2,000 l. per annum, had risen to nearly 11,000 l. in the year 1845, and still cost 9,000 l. per annum. In 1847 there was voted for the "Encouragement of Arts and Sciences," under various heads, a sum of 234,000 l. After referring to the Colonial and Consular Services, the expenditure of which had considerably increased within the last few years, the noble Lord said that in the Commission for the suppression of the Slave Trade, which had commenced originally with an expenditure of 14,000 l. or 15,000 l., the charge had now risen to a sum of 23,000 l. The total sum expended in the course of eleven years was 1,307,000 l., and the average of the last three years was 146,000 l. He had mentioned the other night that there had been an enormous increase in the Mail Packet Service—the amount since 1831 had increased not less than 335,000 l. There was also a charge of 150,000 l. per annum for the staff of the Militia; but as that force had not been called out for a considerable period, it appeared to him that this expenditure was extravagant and unnecessary, and in these times of financial

1231
difficulty it ought to be done away with. Again, there were the enormous charges in connexion with the suppression of the slave trade. In addition to the treaty by which they were bound to maintain twenty-six vessels on the African coast, and the cruisers on the coast of Brazil, and in the Mozambique Channel, which were included in the "Navy Estimates," there were the charges for remuneration for special services, for the maintenance of the emancipated negroes, and for justices in the West Indies—a charge which was also connected with the slave trade—making a total of 82,350 l. under this head. All
these charges were matter of the most serious consideration. He, for one, was ready to give the Government everything that was necessary to maintain the public security and the public faith; but he must say that the increase which had taken place in many of those items of the public expenditure called for the greatest caution and the strictest investigation; and he thought it was absolutely necessary to postpone every charge which could be postponed without detriment to the public service, and to forego altogether every charge which the Government was not satisfied was absolutely necessary. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the returns of which he had given notice.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, the House was indebted to the noble Earl for the candour and ability with which he had brought forward the statement which he had just submitted to the House. He could assure the noble Earl that the matters to which he had referred were the subject of constant attention and consideration. He would admit that there had been of late years, not only under the present, but also under former Governments, a constant tendency to increase in the items for Miscellaneous Services and Expenditure, which were rendered necessary by the improved requirements of society. Many of the items were not only urged upon the Government, but had been absolutely forced upon them—they had hardly ever been resisted by any party in Parliament and the country, and the Government had even incurred some unpopularity in opposing them. Their Lordships would pardon him if he refrained from following the noble Earl through the various items to which he had referred. There were no means within the reach of Parliament, or of the Government, by which the wants of a constantly increasing
1232
population, and a constantly extending empire, could be provided for without increased estimates and increased expenditure; and it would be impossible to exercise the necessary amount of control without providing for the increase of the various establishments by which the business of the country was carried on. He would notice a few items, for the purpose of confirming what he had said. There was the case of the Royal Palaces, which came first in order, and snore especially Buckingham Palace. That had been originally built and occupied by a monarch who had no family; and of late years there had been a necessity for increased accommodation. But the opinion had of late been repeatedly expressed that it would be more becoming the dignity of the Crown and of the country, that instead of repairing and increasing Buckingham Palace, which was represented as unsightly and unsuitable for a Royal residence, an entirely new palace should be built for the Sovereign. The Government had been represented as insensible and unmindful of the dignity and comfort of the Royal Family, because they had not consented to build a new palace, which would perhaps have cost from 1,000,000 l. to 2,000,000 l. Who was it that resisted that expenditure? Her Majesty. Who had resisted it in Parliament? The Government of the day. Now, although the expenditure on that account had been large, it was inconsiderable compared with what would have been the expense of building a new palace. With regard to the Caledonian Canal, he could only say, that, after having expended so large an amount upon it, they would lay themselves open to the charge of very bad economy indeed if they had not voted the sum necessary to complete the works. The noble Earl had referred to the New Houses of Parliament; but he would remind him that it was the unanimous opinion of the country that the structure should be equally solid and magnificent. He should be sorry to see the design abandoned as regarded its main features, because he trusted they would be enabled to render the building a monument worthy of the country, and a matter of great pride to posterity. He felt, therefore, that while all the leading features of the design were being preserved, a judicious economy should be observed in carrying out the details, and that had been the case up to the .present time. He would remind their Lordships that the expense had been increased by rendering

1233
the New Houses of Parliament subsidiary to the encouragement of art; and although that encouragement had been extended somewhat more than was originally intended, he did not think the country would find fault with the additional expenditure thereby incurred. Then with regard to the British Museum, their Lordships must be aware that it was not what it was forty or thirty, or even twenty years ago. The Museum was now of almost unbounded extent, and its value and importance had been of late years considerably increased. It was impossible to have that magnificent collection properly arranged unless they had a suitable building and officers properly qualified to take charge of them. He believed there was no establishment of similar extent or value in the world in which the officers were paid so low a rate of remuneration, more especially when the learning and accomplishments which these men were required to possess were taken into account. The building was now fast approaching completion, and the expenditure on that account would very shortly cease. Again, with respect to the Superintendents and Inspectors of Factories—these officers had been appointed upon principles of the purest benevolence; and in order to make that interference with the internal arrangements of the trade of the country useful and available, and not vexatious and annoying, it was necessary that the carrying out of the intentions of the Legislature should be confided to such hands as would have the law conscientiously and carefully administered. No more was done than was required by the nature of the Acts of Parliament that had been passed; and without the aid of the able and intelligent men by whom the law was administered, the country would have derived no benefit from its own benevolent intentions. The increase of offices that had taken place in the Privy Council and the Board of Trade were nearly all connected with the extension of the grants for public education. In conclusion, he would assure their Lordships that the Government were deeply convinced of the importance of carrying on the public service with the greatest practicable regard to economy, and that the subject should continue to exercise their earliest attention.
The DUKE of RICHMOND thought it would be advisable to publish in future the costs of the voluminous papers which were moved for; because he believed that many of the economists in the other House of
1234
Parliament only moved for these returns for the purpose of gaining popularity with their constituents.
After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT,
The EARL of HARDWICKE said, he agreed with his noble Friend and the noble Marquess as to the necessity of their most carefully and studiously looking into the state of the public expenditure; but he did not agree with his noble Friend that the expenditure which took place in reference to great public works or great public boards was an expenditure taxing the community without considerable benefit. He was decidedly of opinion that any principle of expenditure which took from the pockets of the rich and gave to the poor was of great advantage; and such public works as the Houses of Parliament, a proper residence for the Sovereign, or keeping up a great public museum, were by no means such an expenditure as was a disadvantage to the public. He believed that that which the public chiefly complained of was the expenditure which went towards the salaries of the great public officers and the commissions which were continually being called for by every hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons, who thought it necessary that certain matters should be inquired into.
Returns ordered.
House adjourned.