Sitting of 11 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Population (Ireland); Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation. 3a Drainage and Improvement of Land Advances.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 30.
The CHAIRMANsaid, they were at the 30th clause, in which he understood the Government had some amendments to introduce.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he proposed to introduce certain amendments in this clause (the clause giving compensation to clergymen), which he conceived would meet the objections that had been raised against it. It had been decided, when the House was last in Committee, that the compensation should not be limited to existing incumbents; but the amount of that compensation, and the distribution of it, were still open to consideration. The House seemed generally to assent to the principle of giving a just and fair compensation to existing incumbents. With regard to future incumbents, it had been thought necessary that some payment should be continued to them, with a view to obviate the deficiency of income which would be caused in many parishes were these fees withdrawn. In several parishes these fees formed a considerable portion of the income of the incumbent, especially of that class of the clergy for whom great sympathy had always been expressed in that House, the working clergy. The average payment on each interment had been fixed at 6s. 2d., which would be below the general average at present received, and would therefore operate with some degree of injustice in some cases. He had received communications from several clergymen, stating that they were in the receipt of fees of a much larger amount; while those received in the more populous parishes were considerably less. The effect of the Amendment which he now proposed was this, he would leave the gross amount of compensation untouched; he still proposed that 6s. 2d. should be the fee payable on each interment, for bodies removed from any of the metropolitan parishes; but, instead of its being paid in the first instance to the clergyman of the parish whence the body was brought, the fees would be carried to a separate account, and that account would be charged, in the first instance, with the payment of salaries to the chaplains, then the incumbents would receive out of it a compensation calculated on their average receipts from burial fees for the five years next before the passing of this Act. Therefore, so far from any of the clergy receiv-

1069
ing more than they had hitherto received, the amount would be regulated by their past receipts; and the board would be enabled, with the consent of the Treasury, to award to incumbents who had been receiving a higher amount, a sum calculated on the average of their last five years' receipts. That would be strictly in accordance with the principle on which compensation was generally awarded; and he believed it would remove one great objection on the part of the clergy to a provision which certainly would have operated with injustice. With regard to future incumbents, he thought it would be necessary to continue the payments; at the same time full power would be given to reduce the amount on the death of an incumbent, should circumstances be found to justify a reduction. If this proposal were carried into effect, it was probable that, with the increasing population in the manufacturing districts, there would ultimately be a surplus to divide out of the fund arising from the payment of those fees. Various propositions had been made for the disposal of that surplus; but he would not then enter into it. He would move the insertion of words in accordance with the alteration he had stated at the end of line 5.
SIR B. HALLwas glad of the alteration, which he thought would do away with much of the objection to the clause as it stood. Its effect would have been, had the compensation been given by fees on each body, to double the income of some of the clergy in about forty years; for in the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras the population had doubled in the last forty years. He had been anxious to prevent one clergyman receiving the whole of the fees, and would move a proviso to that effect, requiring a separate fund to be kept for every parish. Those parishes near the centre of the metropolis could not increase much in population; the great increase was in those on the outskirts; the proviso was therefore necessary to prevent the amount paid to the incumbents of the latter parishes from continually increasing, and ultimately doubling or quadrupling itself. This proviso would prevent the amount paid to any incumbent ever exceeding the average of his receipts for the five years preceding the passing of the Act.
SIR G. GREYwould take time to consider the proposition of the hon. Baronet.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, he wanted to propound distinctly a principle which had only been as it were accidentally men-
1070
tioned; and that was, that the number of clergy must or ought, if there was any reason in the thing at all, to keep pace with the increase of population. If, for in stance, the population in any extensive district was ever quadrupled, it was plain the number of clergymen must increase in something like the same proportion. If he was asked why he put himself forward on this occasion, he would say it was, because he thought that an unfair idea had gone forth, that the clergy of the Establishment were opposed to the contemplated reforms. His personal experience had been exaetly the contrary. He recently attended a public meeting in a metropolitan borough on this subject, the chairman of which meeting was a clergyman of the Established Church, and a number of others were present and assisting; and they said very fairly, that they were aware their incomes might be affected by the present measure, and hoped some care might be taken of them; but they would not submit to the imputation that they were opposed to the contemplated reforms.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYconcurred in the propriety of compensating the present incumbents, but doubted the accuracy of the calculation whereby 6s. 2d. had been arrived at as the average amount of fees now payable. The inquiries he had made showed the amount to be much smaller in many parishes. He wished to know if the amount was to include compensation for the hatbands and scarfs now received.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the 6s. 2d. was not the average of any one parish, but of the whole. In populous parishes, the average of fees was much lower; in others higher. The matter of hatbands and scarfs had never entered into his consideration.
LORD D. STUARTwould refer to the evidence of the Bishop of London, in 1843, in proof of the importance of scarfs and hatbands as a source of revenue to the clergy. Was the five years' average to be calculated on a sum inclusive or exclusive of those receipts? He also wished to know who was to have the disposal of the surplus, if any should be left after compensating the incumbents?
SIR G. GREYsaid, the average would be calculated on the number of funerals, and the number of fees received, exclusive of any presents to the clergymen. The disposal of the surplus, after paying the chaplains and compensating the clergy, would be applied for church purposes in connexion with the growing population.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, the evidence taken, before the Select Committee in 1843 showed that the vicars received more "fittings," as they were called, than the curates. It was a mistake to say that the clergy had never been hostile to sanitary reforms; they were the parties who had most stood in their way; for, like lawyers, they would never teach their own profession with a reforming hand. The Bishop of London, in his evidence, stated that he had never enjoyed better health than when he resided in Bishopsgate-street, near the churchyard of St. Helen's. The same noble Prelate also stated that the "fittings" received by the vicars were purchased by the undertakers, on an average, for 10 s.; while the curates only received about 2s. 6d. for theirs. He therefore wished to know whether there was to be a sort of sliding scale of compensation, according to the amount which had been received by the different parties in the shape either of fees or "fittings."
LORD ASHLEYhaving had personal communication with the clergy on the subject of the Bill, was bound to say that as a body they had shown the greatest desire to assist in the advancement of this measure, even at the expense of their own fees. The clergy, in fact, were entitled to a fee of 8s. for each funeral; but in order that they should not stand in the way of the Bill, they had consented to take the 6s. 2d., as proposed by Government, and he was therefore bound to acknowledge with admiration and gratitude the assistance which they had rendered this great measure.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, he wished to make one observation on a subject which had been referred to by his hon. Colleague. He meant the salubrity of graveyards. A few weeks ago three grave gentlemen who had invested capital in funeral paraphernalia waited upon him to point out the injustice which the measure would inflict upon them. They insisted that there was no necessity whatever for it, and scouted the very idea of a churchyard being at all unhealthy. In proof of this they wished him to go to a neighbouring church and see the sexton, whose children lived in the yard, and were remarkable for their roseate and healthy appearance. He, however, declined the invitation, much to the disappointment of the deputation, who seemed to think that the best place a worn-out Member could repair to at the close of a fatiguing Ses-
1072
sion was not to a salubrious park in the country, but to some lodging house in the immediate neighbourhood of a metropolitan churchyard.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, it was the custom of the House to print amendments before they were agreed to. He knew that it was not absolutely necessary; but in a difficult clause like this, the custom ought to be enforced to enable hon. Members to understand it.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, it would only waste time to print the clause, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend would not press his proposal.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, he had great objection to the 30th clause with respect to the amount of compensation. He would ask the promoters of the Bill if they thought they were dealing fairly with the public? The rate of 6s. 2d. for each interment would very greatly increase the amount of burial fees to be paid. Taking Shoreditch, he found the average amount of fees on each burial was 2s. 4d. In Islington it was, certainly, 6s. 6d. In Bethnal-green it sank to 1s. 6d., and in Lambeth to 3s. 6d. Now was the right hon. Baronet prepared to increase the fees of burials in those districts where, though the people were poor, they still took an honest pride in burying their own dead, from 1s. 6d. to 6s. 2d.? It would have the effect of arising the expense of interment fees very materially indeed to all but the pauper classes. In Bethnal Green the increase would be 400 per cent. He would venture to enter into a statistical argument with the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Health, and to maintain that instead of 8s. being the average amount, 4s. was more correct, and that with respect to all classes. He would urge upon the Government to lower the sum of 6s. 2d. to 4s. 4d., which he was convinced was a much more just amount.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that he believed the statistics of the noble Lord the Member for Bath were the most correct, and he could not consent to lower the standard.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, he must again put the question which had not yet been answered, and that was whether the Board of Health was to have the disposal of the surplus fund which it was expected might perhaps accrue, and if not, who was to have the disposal of it?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that it would be devoted to make some provision for the

1073
spiritual aid of the large and growing population of those districts. He thought the principle was one which was well worthy of being entertained by the Committee.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, the right hon. Baronet had stated the objects of the fund, but had not mentioned who was to have the disposal of it.
SIR G. GREYcould not answer that question at present.
Clause agreed to. Clause 31 was struck out.
On Clause 32,
SIR B. HALLthought the House ought to confine compensation for burial fees to the number of burials of persons who had resided within the parish and had been buried within it. He begged to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that the metropolitan clergy had acted in the most objectionable manner with regard to encouraging the interment of persons who were strangers in the parish. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Speak louder.] It was utterly impossible for him to speak louder. He had addressed thousands of persons within the borough which he represented, and his voice had been pretty well heard by them. The fact that he could not make himself heard in that House, showed the necessity of appointing a Committee to see what could be done with the House to remedy this defect. Some of the clergy of London had made a traffic of their burial grounds, and when they found that the fees were too high they lowered them, in order to induce parties to bring a greater number of bodies for interment than the ground ought to have been made to hold. And yet the House, by this clause, was about to give compensation to persons who had practised this improper trafficking. The disgusting scenes which had taken place in St. Giles's Cemetery, Old St. Pancras-road, had been given in evidence. Sometimes, when they buried a poor person, they threw a little earth over him, but as soon as the burial was over, and the mourners gone, the coffin was removed to a neighbouring vault. In 1846 there were 896 deaths in the parish of St. Giles, but there were 2,323 burials in the ground to which he was referring. In 1847 the deaths were 1,298, and the burials 2,877; in 1848 the deaths were 1,111, and the burials 3,578; while for one-half of 1849 the deaths were 573, and the burials, 3,440. A case could be proved in which a body was entirely broken up, the head being separated from the other parts, and the whole in this disgusting con-
1074
dition put into a wheelbarrow and removed to another part of the ground, where they were thrown into a hole. This was for the purpose of making room for others; yet the rector, when under examination, described the cemetery as in an admirable state. It was indeed notorious that inducements were held out to people to bury in this ground in order to increase as much as possible the fees; and the success which attended these efforts was shown by the great number of burials compared with the deaths in the parish which he had just pointed out to the House. Indeed, there was a part of the ground kept in reserve for the bodies of the rich, as an inducement to the people of the better class. Now, these things were done under the sanction of the rector himself, the Rev. Mr. Tyler. The sexton of the rev. gentleman, the rector of St. Giles, began his life as a soldier, was afterwards a parson, then he became sexton to this rev. gentleman who made those exactions, and then he became, as the natural course, an undertaker and stonemason. It was impossible for him to think of compensating a clergyman in the way proposed by the Bill, who had resorted to such practices as he had pointed out for the purpose of increasing his fees; and, therefore, on the bringing up of the report, he would move a clause for the purpose of dealing with such cases.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that he had no knowledge of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he had known the Rev. Dr. Tyler for a long time, and, from what be knew of that gentleman's character, he believed that he was incapable of giving his sanction to any such proceedings as had been detailed by the hon. Gentleman. If any parties had been guilty of the facts stated, they would be liable to be proceeded against for a misdemeanour. He did not know whether the hon. Gentlemen was misinformed as to his facts, but he felt assured that he was misinformed as to the Rev. Dr. Tyler's having any connexion with them.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that when an inquiry was ordered by the Board of Health, Dr. Tyler objected to the press being admitted, and to have any report of the evidence appear in the newspapers. It came out, however, on the evidence of one of the gravediggers, that the practice was to pretend to fill up the grave whilst the mourners were present, but as soon as they were gone, the bodies were removed to a family vault to make room for others. He

1075
should certainly object to give any compensation in such gross cases.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, it was not very likely that persons would send dead bodies from neighbouring parishes to be interred in the burial ground of St. Giles, if the practices referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been going on.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that the public had not been aware of them till they came out in the inquiry which took place in November last.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that all that had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone was true; but he believed the Rev. Dr. Tyler was not aware of what was going on till the inquiry took place, for the funeral service was performed by the rev. sexton. He would ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath, whether he was not aware of the facts, as a Member of the Board of Health?
LORD ASHLEYwas understood to say that he had no knowledge whatever of the facts, beyond the circumstance that the bodies were removed to a family vault.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, there appeared to be little doubt that this reverend soldier and stonemason had been carrying on a trade in this burying ground. He understood that this graveyard was purchased for the parish by the funds of the parish, levied on the ratepayers for the purpose. And such being the case, it did appear a monstrous thing that the ratepayers should be called on to pay the money to purchase the burial ground, and then that persons should be invited from the surrounding parishes to bury their dead in this graveyard—that the clergymen should put into their pockets the proceeds of this system, and then, when this Bill passed, that they should be empowered to receive in perpetuity—so long as these impostures and evils were permitted—a sum equivalent to what they had received on an average of the last five years. Why, they were trading on the capital and expenditure of the parish; and it appeared astonishing to him that such a system should be suffered to continue. Perhaps he as a Dissenter had not so much right to complain; but he could not understand how Churchmen could tolerate such a system in their Church. A system like that only made him wish that every Churchman should carry a parson on his back till the last day of his life.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33,
SIR B. HALLgave notice that, on the
1076
bringing up of the report, he would move that no compensation be given to parish clerks and sextons. The abominations practised in some of the metropolitan graveyards were truly revolting. It was notorious that in St. Pancras graveyard coffins were deposited within nine inches of the surface. It also appeared by the evidence of a woman residing in the locality, who had been examined before the Committee, that on Friday the 19th of November, whilst looking through a back window she saw two men working in the graveyard—one engaged in dissevering a human body, and the other in making a hole in the ground in which to deposit the mutilated remains, which were finally huddled on a wheelbarrow and thrown into the hole. The witness also stated that she had no doubt the body was one interred some five weeks previously.
COLONEL THOMPSONwas anxious to keep au courant with the arguments of hon. Members around him, but found it difficult. Were these tales of horror brought forward to induce them to make all possible haste with the Bill? On one point, however, he felt a difficulty. There was a story told of a merry monarch, who put the question to the Royal Society, why a dead fish weighed more than a living one? The Society, it was stated, occupied a considerable time in endeavouring to solve the problem, and at last thought of asking whether the fact was so to begin with. Now he would like to know, as a simple mathematical question, how much less ground it took to bury the parts of a body than the whole? He could not help thinking the hon. Member had yielded to the pleasing horror attendant on a frightful story, and had allowed his imagination to run away with his powers of examination.
SIR E. BUXTONthought the fees of graveyards should be limited to those members of families interred within them, and that the fees accruing from the interments of strangers ought to be appropriated to those parishes that were in need of them.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 34 to 52 inclusive.
Clause 53.
LORD D. STUARTstated his determination to oppose the clause, as being most objectionable, and involving the abolition of a constitutional principle—the principle of self-government. The clause gave power to the Commissioners to levy a rate of 1d. in the pound on the inhabitants of

1077
the metropolis; and be called on the Committee to resist that, as being unjust and oppressive, and also because they had the authority of the promoters of the Bill for saying it was unnecessary. The objections to the clause were so obvious that every man must be struck with them; and he, therefore, considered the Committee would not be doing its duty if it did not endeavour to reject the clause. So strongly did he feel on the matter, that he felt bound to take the sense of the Committee on it.
SIR B. HALLsaid, the tax thus levied would realise some 35,000 l. a year. If the Government were anxious to carry out the object of their Bill—as he believed they were—why not allow the parochial districts to regulate their own affairs? It was, therefore, his intention to move, that "Vestries acting under local Acts may provide burial grounds at their own expense, with the sanction of the Board of Health."
MR. T. DUNCOMBEwished to know how much money the promoters of the Bill expected to derive from this penny rate, the proceeds of which were to be placed at the disposal of an irresponsible board. He objected to the clause altogether, as one that was giving to an irresponsible board the power of taxation, a right that belonged only to the House of Commons, as the representatives of the people. He maintained that they were exceeding their power in thus transferring to another body the right to impose taxes. It was to be a penny in the pound this year, but it might be twopence next year; and it would be found that Dissenters as well as Churchmen had to pay, for there was no exemption. There was no precedent for so unconstitutional an act as this on the part of the House of Commons.
MR. STANFORDthought the rate should be a halfpenny in the pound instead of a penny, and moved an Amendment to that effect; but, after some conversation, finding no support in the House, the hon. Member withdrew it.
SIR G. PECHELLobjected to both halfpence and pence. The system of entrusting taxation to an irresponsible board was most disagreeable to all classes, and he should therefore oppose the clause.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYcomplained that the rate would operate unequally in many of the Loudon parishes if the valuation was to be that acted upon in assessing the county rate.
SIR B. HALLthen moved the proviso giving power to vestries to provide burial grounds at their own expense.
SIR G. GREYhoped it would not be necessary for the board to have recourse to the rating clause; but it was clear that, if the fees did not meet the expenses, it would be necessary to have some other mode of providing the necessary funds to fall back upon, otherwise the whole machinery might come to a dead lock. The propriety of having a central board, rather than leaving the whole matter to parochial management, had been amply discussed, and very substantial reasons given why a central board ought to be preferred. As to the remarks which had been made with reference to the unconstitutional character of the rate, he must remind the House that the object was to substitute burial grounds for the existing churchyards in the various parishes, and that, though the machinery by which the rate was to be raised might be new, yet there was nothing new in the imposition of the rate itself. He was certainly surprised that the hon. Member for Marylebone should propose to give power to the parochial authorities to provide burial places after the statements they had heard from him relative to one of the parochial churchyards. He would certainly oppose the proviso he had moved, and he hoped the House would give its sanction to the clause.
Question put, "That the proposed Proviso be there added."
The Committee then divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 100: Majority 64.
LORD D. STUARTthen moved the rejection of the clause.
MR. T. D'EYNCOURTbegged to remind hon. Members that this was a model Bill, and that their own constituencies would eventually, as well as the inhabitants of London, be subjected to this tax.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Bath had stated, that he did not believe it would be necessary for the Board of Health to resort to this tax. Now, the noble Lord must have made that statement on calculations made by the board; and what, therefore, he would suggest was, that this clause should be postponed for the present, or, as he thought, until the next Session, in order that they might have more information on the subject. If it should be proved that the regulations of the board could not be carried into effect without this additional outlay, he believed there would be no hos-

1079
tility in or out of the House to such a proposition.
MR. S. CRAWFORDopposed the clause on great constitutional principles. This Bill was to be confined to the metropolitan districts, but he objected to a precedent of this nature.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committeee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 37: Majority 56.
House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.
The House adjourned at half-after Three of the clock to the Old House of Commons.

HUDSON'S BAY.
MR. CHRISTIEwished to put the questions of which he had given notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, namely, whether he can furnish any information as to the number of pensioners who may be proceeding to Hudson's Bay this season, and also of those who are at present stationed in the Hudson's Bay territory? And whether the Hudson's Bay Company have been empowered to employ these pensioners for the enforcement or protection of their monopoly of trade against the native or other inhabitants of the country; and if not, what duties it is intended they shall perform on their arrival in that territory?
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he might state that previous to the year 1846 the Hudson's Bay Company were without protection from any British force of any description; but in 1846 disturbances arose between the Hudson's Bay Company and certain parties which he did not know how to designate—whether they belonged to the united States, or were marauders acknowledging no government at all—and it was found necessary to detach from Canada a considerable body of the 6th Regiment of Foot. Those troops were kept there for nearly two years, and it was found to be so isolated a position for troops in Her Majesty's service, without communication with other regiments or from home, that it was thought necessary to provide for the protection of those territories in another way, and it was resolved to send out, under the command of an officer, a body of pensioners who would be there in the enjoyment of their pensions, and receive from' the Hudson's Bay Company
1080
certain advantages in lodgings, land, and money. It was arranged that they should be required to go out twelve days in the year for drill, and be prepared to turn out for the protection of the public peace when called upon by the authorities of the place. The number of pensioners originally sent there was fifty-six, and they were now about to add twenty to that number in the present year, and they would sail in the course of a few days to Hudson's Bay. He was not aware that those parties had received orders to interfere with the local concerns of the Hudson's Bay Company. They were under the command of their officer, to be called out at his discretion, and not at the discretion of the Hudson's Bay officers, to preserve the public peace. That was the object of those troops being sent there.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if the military officer at the head of the pensioners was not under the control of the company, he wished to know under what particular orders he was to act, and whether he was to obey the orders the Hudson's Bay Company should give him in case of an affray? He thought it ought to be known under what specific orders and authorities this officer was to act.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, that the officer's orders were to preserve the public peace, and to prevent any persons from interfering with the trade of that company.
MR. CHRISTIEbegged to ask if the pensioners were paid by this country? If they were there solely for the benefit of the Hudson's Bay Company, they were the persons to pay them.
MR. FOX MAULE: The pensioners draw their pensions which are given them for past services, and they get lodgings, land, and money from the company.
Subject dropped.

RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
MR. MACKINNON: Sir, I rise to move for a Select Committee to investigate the revenue and expenditure and present condition of the Harbours of Ramsgate and Margate. The trustees of the harbour receive annually a sum of about 21,100 l. as dues from vessels, besides 5,400 l. from other sources, making a total of 26,500 l.; and the object of my Motion is, to ascertain how these revenues are expended. No advantage arises from levying this enormous toll, but it gives enormous patronage to the trustees of the harbour, who are enabled to expend 25,000 l. a year on I

1081
know not what. Far be it from me to say that the money is misappropriated—the money no doubt is expended honestly; but it is wasted and expended in an improper manner. In 1822, there was a Select Committee appointed, who reported that the enormous dues collected by the Ramsgate Harbour Commissioners ought to be discontinued, and that the expense of keeping up the harbour—paying officers, and keeping it in repair, ought only to be 7,000 l. a year; but since that time the trustees, in addition to 145,000 l., since the harbour was first formed, have expended 1,500,000 l. in repairs and alterations. Vessels of 350 tons and under can only enter the harbour, and yet they are levying tolls to the extent of several thousands per annum upon vessels which cannot enter the harbour. The trustees have now in their hands a sum of 66,420 l., and what I propose is, that they shall lessen their expenses to 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a year, and keep in their hands a surplus fund of 50,000 l., in cases of need, to meet any unexpected accident that might occur in the harbour. I am not inclined to press my Motion, but I am anxious to obtain some information from the hon. Member for the city of London, who is one of the trustees. It is for that purpose that I shall submit my Motion, the object of which I shall state in a few words; but previous to my doing so, I beg to ask the hon. Member for London if he will consent to reduce the tolls 50 per cent? [Mr. MASTERMAN: No.] Then I will as concisely as the subject will admit, state the object of my Motion. It is a subject of very great importance to the trade of the empire, and to the security of navigation. I am aware that a Committee on Shipwrecks is now sitting; but that Committee will confine its inquiries to the question how far it is expedient to educate mates and masters of ships for the merchant service, or to find some place of refuge in bad weather; the Committee that I require is to supply funds for a harbour of refuge, or to give back to the Treasury large sums now raised by tolls to no purpose, or, if these sums, it appears, are not required, to ease the shipping interest of a heavy and useless payment of dues, which dues at present are wasted in a manner unprofitable to the country or to navigation. The House is aware, that in 1840 a 'Commission was named by the Queen, to ascertain the best site for a harbour of refuge on the coast.
1082
The report of that Commission stated, that amongst other places, that between Margate and the North Foreland, the other in Dover Bay, and a third in Beachey Head, were eligible for the purpose; and that the cost of a harbour of refuge might be about two millions. Mr. Cubitt the engineer, however, thought a harbour might be formed at a much less cost, to answer the purpose equally well. The House must understand, that by a perfect harbour of refuge, is meant a harbour accessible at all times of the tide by vessels of any tonnage, the mouth of which is so placed as to be entered easily with the most prevalent wind. Every person of the slightest knowledge in maritime affairs must be aware of the vast importance in our trade of such a harbour both in times of war and of peace; particularly as every year steam navigation, and the intercourse between nations, considerably increase. I am one of those who do not anticipate the probability of war, but think there is no doubt that the communication between England and other nations will considerably increase. Now such a harbour of refuge in one of the spots just enumerated, is most desirable; I am fully aware that the Treasury of the country ought not, if possible, to be called on to supply the means, and I think I can point out to the House some method of obtaining funds for that purpose, without increasing the burthens of the country. If the funds received from tolls on passing ships are now wasted or misapplied, why should these funds not be made applicable to the formation of a harbour of refuge? If the House do not sanction such an application, then ease the shipping interest of the burden, and levy no more on the commerce of the country than the amount absolutely required to keep the present harbours in repair. That such tolls so levied are misapplied, I will now prove to the satisfaction of the House. I will begin with Ramsgate Harbour, and ex uno disce omnes. The House must learn, that by an old Act of Parliament, the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour levy 4d. a ton on all foreign ships, and 2d. a ton on all British ships that pass the Foreland, which are above 300 tons burthen; those under that tonnage pay rather less. This tax is levied to keep up Ramsgate Harbour, and to be continued as long as this harbour wants repair. By this paper in my hand, printed by order of the House on my Motion last month, it appears this rate in 1841 gave to Ramsgate Harbour

1083
19,065 l.; and with some other dues the trustees obtain an average income of 20,651 l., besides a balance in hand of 5,694 l.; in 1849 the tolls were upwards of 20,000 l., and other income 5,000 l. Now I will show by evidence that 7,000 l. a year is more than sufficient for the repairs of Ramsgate Harbour, which harbour, it is notorious, cannot receive vessels above 450 tons burthen—so you tax British and foreign vessels 4d. a ton, for a harbour which can by no possibility be of any use to them. Was there ever any thing so monstrous, so absurd, or so unjust? You commit an act of injustice by such a toll; and you injure all the other harbours on the coast, because it is notorious that foreign vessels will not, for fear of paying this unjust toll, stop at any English harbour if they can possibly help so doing; but they run over to the French, or Belgian, or Dutch coast, where such exactions are not made; the result is an injury to our seaports, by preventing the expenditure of foreign ships in them. Now to show the House the waste of money that takes place at Ramsgate, I will refer to the evidence of Sir William Curtis, the head of the trustees of that place in 1822:—
"Foreign Trade Committee,
April 26, 1822.
"Sir William Curtis examined.
"Q. What ought to be the annual charge of keeping the harbour of Ramsgate in repair?—
A. It will require some little calculations from the books to answer that.
"Q. Do you think that from 5,000 l. to 7,000 l. a year would be sufficient?—A. Yes, it might do.
"W. Domett, Esq., examined (p. 276).
"Q, Do you consider the benefit to the shipping to be in proportion to the money laid out at Ramsgate?—A. Far from it; many thousand pounds have been laid out, of no use whatever. Men are constantly hammering stones.
"Q. Do you consider the benefit to the harbour adequate to the expenditure of 20,000 l. a year?—A. No, certainly not; far from that (p. 271).
"George Good, Esq., examined.
"Q. What has, in the last six years, been laid out on Ramsgate harbour?—A. 147,538 l., with little or no advantage.
"Q. Do you think the advantage derived from Ramsgate a sufficient compensation for the expense drawn on the shipping?—A. No, certainly not.
"Q. Do you know the manner in which the duties are levied on foreign shipping?—A. I do not; but I know it is that of which they very much complain."
Not to fatigue the House by reading all the evidence, I will only add, it appears that, in 1822, the Committee said that
1084
8,000 l. a year was quite sufficient for Ramsgate Harbour, since which period the trustees have received upwards of 400,000 l. Some years ago, a banquetting-house for the trustees to dine in only once in each year, was erected, and it has cost 3,500 l; it is of no use whatever; and that, from its first formation to the present time, that harbour has cost the commerce of the country an enormous expenditure—not less than l,500,000 l. To sum up the evidence of Sir W. Curtis (an unwilling witness). Captain Domett, and Mr. Good, it appears this harbour is of no use but to small vessels about 350 tons, and under; can only be entered at particular times of the tide, and that in a gale of wind, when shelter is required, the danger of entering the harbour is very great; and that the sum of 7,000 l. a year is quite sufficient for every possible purpose required. Now, what is the case? The sum of 20,000 l. a year is collected by dues on large vessels, British and foreign, to which the harbour can be of no possible use, and this money is wasted in the most wanton manner. Let one of these two measures be adopted—either relieve the shipping interest from these most vexatious, useless, and unjust tolls, or, if they are continued, apply them to some useful purpose. Why not, in the latter case, commence a harbour of refuge in some eligible spot on the coast? The surplus fund from Ramsgate Harbour alone would be, say 12,000 l. a year; from Dover harbour, probably 8,000 l., besides many others. Here you have at once a fund of, say 20,000 l. a year, which will establish a sinking fund, or pay the interest of 400,000 l. for a harbour of refuge, and not put the country to one shilling more of expense. At the same time, I am fully aware of the talent and ingenuity, and of the powerful interest both in this House and out of it, of the trustees of harbours, and of other parties connected with these tolls; but let us have fair play—let the House give me a Committee. I defy them to disprove one single assertion that I have made. Let us have a Committee. But why shrink from the severe test of an examination, and of a Committee, if all is right? I repeat, these abuses ought to be corrected—gross jobs cannot be tolerated in the nineteenth century—either prove, as you ought to do, before a Committee, that the harbours of Ramsgate and Margate require all the money they raise on tolls, or let that money be applied for the security of navigation and the

1085
safety of seamen; or give up these at present vexatious and unjust tolls, and relieve the shipping interest from these burthens. Either investigate and prove the case, or let the trustees voluntarily relinquish those immense sums now extracted from vessels passing the Foreland. Let the House consider, also, that these revenues will increase as commerce increases, and that the time is come when an investigation ought to be made of the manner in which these large sums are expended. I am aware of what I have to expect from the parties opposed to any inquiry—I well know their talent and ingenuity; but I trust the paramount duty of the Members of the House will supersede all other considerations, and that no further opposition will be made to a Committee. Sir, I beg leave to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to investigate the revenue, condition, and expenditure of Ramsgae and Margate Harbours."
MR. THORNELYseconded the Motion.
MR. MASTERMAN, as one of the trustees of the harbour, denied that the money had been expended in an improvident manner. No funds could be more justly administered, and no persons could more honestly discharge the trust reposed in them. Under those circumstances the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour had no wish to shrink from any inquiry the House imposed upon them; they acted according to their duty; and the more their conduct was inquired into, the clearer it would appear. With regard to the statement that they had in their hands an excess beyond 50,000 l., he begged to remark that since that excess had arisen, it had been under consideration to make some reductions which he thought would be satisfactory to the shipping interest, and at the same time keep the harbour in a good condition. He could not as an individual trustee make any specific promise with respect to what might be done, but the subject was under consideration, and alterations would be made that would be acceptable to the shipping interest, and with a due regard to the state of the harbour.
SIR G. PECHELLwas anxious to hear what line of defence would be made to the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lymington, for he believed there never was a grosser case for inquiry than that of this harbour, where toll was received for larger vessels than ever entered into it. He must call the attention of the House
1086
to an omission in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the harbour of Dovor. Every word which the hon. Gentleman used with respect to Ramsgate was equally applicable to the port of Dovor. There was, however, this difference—the port of Dovor was no port at all. It was a port, as regarded the custom-house, for levying dues; but as a harbour or place to put into, it was utterly absurd to call it so. To show how the taxation in that harbour bore upon vessels, he called attention to a return laid upon the table for the years 1839 and 1840, from which it appeared that 842 vessels entered the port of Shore-ham, passing by the ports of Dovor and Ramsgate, and paid 391 l. 8s. for the privilege of passing the port of Dovor. And he gave an individual case: there was a single vessel which paid 14 l. 15 s. as tonnage duty for passing that harbour. The hon. Member for Lymington had referred to the extravagance of the port of Rams-gate; but did he look to the information that had been obtained respecting the port of Dovor? The expenditure was 17,419 l. and the sum the parties had to deal with was 23,000 l. There was a sum of 800 l. for law expenses to Mr. G. W. Ledger, registrar, and a sum of 1,036 l. to Mr. Walker, engineer, for one year, though in all previous years the payment was 300 l. or 400 l. That would certainly show there was something that required inquiry. In 1839 and 1840 there was 10,000 l. a year, and now there is 12,000 l. a year, exacted from vessels passing the harbour; and he asked, would the House any longer tolerate such exactions? He proposed, therefore, to include Dovor in the Motion of the hon. Member.
Amendment proposed, after the word "Ramsgate," to insert the word "Dovor."
MR. FAGANcomplained that great wrong had been inflicted on a steamboat company in the city which he had the honour to represent, by the tolls which were exacted on their steam vessels between Liverpool and Rotterdam. He had represented their case to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whom he regretted not to see in his place, and that right hon. Gentleman admitted the injustice, and said that he would lay the case before the Government.
SIR F. BARINGthought it not quite fair to add the name of "Dovor" to the Motion. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton should bring forward the matter by a substantive Motion, instead of by an

1087
Amendment of which no notice to the parties interested had been given. As he was convinced that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would act in the fairest manner, he would confine his reply to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lymington. He would not enter into the question as to the advantages derivable from the harbour, as he could not suppose that the House contemplated its removal. The question as to the relief of the shipping was, however, important, and to this he would address himself. As he understood the matter, the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour, according to the terms of their Act, were unable to reduce the dues until they had in hand a reserve fund of 50,000 l.; and as they now had that sum, they were prepared to reduce the dues. He thought, under these circumstances, it would be more expedient to wait to see what the trustees intended to do; and after they knew what they would do, then the hon. Gentleman, should be think further inquiry necessary, could attain that object by again bringing forward his Motion. He thought that the trustees, having had the trouble of collecting this reserve fund, should be allowed an opportunity of reducing the dues spontaneously; and, therefore, he would recommend that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion.
MR. HUMEthought the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman warranted the appointment of a Committee, for it appeared that the moment the trustees had acquired the sum of 50,000 l. they were bound to reduce the dues, and they had not done so. He considered that the dues charged by harbours was a great tax on the commerce of the country; and their remission had been recommended by every Committee on which he had served during the last twenty years. He thought that, looking to the changes they had made in their navigation laws, it was the duty of the Government; it would be far more creditable to them, instead of waiting to be thus urged on every item, to see what could be done to remove all these taxes which pressed so heavily on the shipping interest. They might as well be without a Government if they would not seek to remit taxation. He would give his support to the Motion.
MR. MOFFATTtrusted that the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton would persevere with his Amendment when the proper time arrived. It was the general impression that these rates were unfairly
1088
exceeded; but he thought, after the intimation given, by which he understood that a reduction of 50 per cent was to be made by the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour, the hon. Gentleman might for the present Session withdraw his Motion.
MR. MACKINNONoffered to withdraw his Motion, provided the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of London would pledge himself to endeavour to reduce the dues at least one-half.
MR. MASTERMANthought it very unreasonable that he, as an individual trustee, should be called on to say he would reduce one item or another. He had stated that the subject had been long under the consideration of the trustees, that there was an earnest desire on their part to do justice to all parties, and he had no hesitation in saying a reduction was in contemplation, but what it was to be it would be very indiscreet for him to say.
MR. THORNELYthought that a case had been made out for inquiry, and that the hon. Member for Lymington was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought the subject under their notice.
Question put, "That the word 'Dover' be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 71: Majority 11.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 47: Majority 31.
Select Committee appointed, "to investigate the revenue, condition, and expenditure of Ramsgate and Margate Harbours."

HOME MADE SPIRITS IN BOND.
LORD NAASsaid, it was not necessary, in order to prove his case, to weary the House with any abstruse calculations or elaborate statistics. He rested the Motion he had the honour to propose, on the ground of equal justice to the home and colonial distillers; and he trusted that, on these grounds alone, the House would accede to his Motion. The case, as between the home and the colonial distillers was this, that in levying the excise duty on spirits of home manufacture, the quantity was measured for duty at the time when it was first made, or as it is called by the trade at the worm's end: if it was then bonded, the distiller, on releasing it from bond, was compelled to pay duty on the quantity originally bonded, no

1089
matter what diminution by leakage or evaporation it might have undergone since that period. Whereas, in the case of the colonial manufacturer, he had only to pay duty to the customs on what was measured out from the bonding warehouse, whenever it was released from bond, irrespective of the quantity originally placed in bond. So the home manufacturer had to pay duty on whatever loss or diminution the article sustained whilst in bond, whilst the colonial manufacturer only paid on the actual quantity measured out for consumption. That, in his opinion, was of itself sufficient to show the injustice and hardship to which the home manufacturer was subjected. Now to illustrate his position the more clearly, he would suppose that three casks of spirits, one of brandy, one of rum, and one of home spirits, were bonded, and that they remained in bond three years. At the end of that time, on being released, if the rum and brandy should be found to have lessened by two gallons each, these two gallons of absorption would not be paid duty on, whilst the home spirits, no matter to what extent it had diminished, would be compelled to pay duty, not in the quantity taken out at the end of the three years, as in the case of the rum and brandy, but on the quantity originally entered. To render it still plainer, he would read to the House the following statement of Messrs. Callwell and Horner:—
"Four quarter-casks of brandy were landed and stored (after a passage from France) in Dublin Custom-house stores, on the 13th of February, 1849. These casks were taken out at intervals, from July, 1849, to January, 1850. The original content of these four vessels was found, on gauge and trial of strength, to be 108 gallons; when taken out, the contents and strength had decreased to 103 gallons; waste, six gallons.
"Being French brandy, and taken out of bond, the duty, amounting to 4l. 10 s., was remitted.
"What would be the result, if four casks of Irish whisky were similarly circumstanced?
"The owners would have to pay 2s. 8d. per gallon on the deficiency—say, 16 s. on 102 gallons.
"Now, had these four casks of spirits been shipped from an Irish distiller to a London dealer, the natural course of trade, if unfettered from excise restrictions, was adopted, the owner would have to pay, when taking them out of bond in London for home consumption, the 'deficiency duty,' as it is termed, at the rate of 7s 10 d. per gallon—that is, the owner of Irish or British-made spirits would be made to pay a species of penalty for having good spirits at the rate of 12 d. 12–100 per gallon, whilst the owner of French brandy would be charged nil, and the favoured proprietor of sugar-made rum would be charged with nil—that is, in this petty transaction the
1090
home manufacturer under free-trade laws would be in a worse position by 21. 7s. than any foreigner."
He was aware that he might be met by the argument, that as the home distiller enjoyed a differential duty of 4d. per gallon on colonial rum, that was a sufficient equivalent for the disadvantage in which he was placed with respect to the mode of levying the duty. But he must beg the House to remember that the 4d. differential duty-was founded on Mr. Wood's evidence before the Sugar and Coffee Committee, of which Lord George Bentinck was chair, man. Mr. Wood distinctly then stated that he thought the distillers had made out a case for 4d.; but what were the items of his 4d.? They were these—

Malt duty

1½d.

Increased Plant

1d.

Excise restrictions

1d.

Duty on decreases

½d.

Total

4d.

Now, the House must see that only ½d. of this differential duty is affected by the present Motion, and therefore it is ridiculous to say that if the duty on decreases be remitted, that on that account the differential duty should be altered beyond the amount of ½d per gallon. The home distillers, however, did not consider the differential duty a sufficient compensation. It had also been objected to the adoption of any plan of measuring the spirits upon coming out of bond, that it would lead to considerable frauds on the revenue. What was, however, proposed, would in no degree affect the measurement at the worm's end, for it was quite possible to measure the spirits at the time of their coming from the still, and on their lodgment in the stores. Again, distillers were perfectly willing to pay the duty upon any deficiency that might arise between those periods, or in transitu; but what they complained of was, that they should have to pay the duty upon the loss occasioned by leakage or evaporation while the spirits remained under the Queen's seal. So far from this arrangement of paying upon the quantity leaving bond tending to increased frauds on the revenue, it would, in some cases, he the means of obviating a certain species of measurement, which was at present considerably against the Excise. For instance, the Excise could not measure to less than one-tenth of an inch, and where the spirit was measured in large receivers, and where there was necessarily a very extensive surface, the large distillers were

1091
frequently able to gain a considerable quantity, varying according to the circumstances of the case; while, on the other hand, if the spirits were measured in the warehouse, and upon their coming into consumption, the Excise would be able to measure accurately every drop of liquor. But, as to the falling oft" in the amount of revenue by reason of alteration in the present mode, those best acquainted with the trade in all its details were of opinion that production would be so enormously increased that the revenue would be a gainer. There was another mode in which these restrictions interfered with the distillers. It was a great object to the traders to be allowed to take advantage of the market, and to avail themselves of the prices that might offer there if favourable. Maturity also materially increased the value of the article. But the restrictions prevented the distiller and trader from keeping on hand large stocks, as he knew very well that by reason of the occurrence of deficiency or absorption he would be a loser in the way of duty chargeable for such absorption. The Irish distiller distilled from a mixture of malt and corn, whilst the Scotch distiller distilled from malt alone, consequently the Scotch distillation sooner arrived at maturity than the Irish, so that a greater time of bond, and consequently a greater amount of excise duty, fell on the Irish article of distillation. These restrictions were most obnoxious, and their tendency was to reduce the number of distilleries, throwing the whole trade into the hands of the large distillers. That reduction in the number of distilleries was injurious in more ways than one, because it threw a number of persons out of employment, as well in the distilleries as in the turf tracts, much of which article was used in the manufacture of spirits, and the cutting of which afforded employment to thousands. The spirit traders also complained that these restrictions interfered with the export trade. It might be said, they were allowed to export duty free; but the House should remember that to avail themselves of that privilege they were obliged to bond their spirits and declare it for exportation immediately on its being manufactured. But no trader could afford to do that. The statement of the trade on the subject is as follows:—
"The Government were compelled from the great injustice of this part of the subject, to order that whisky may be exported under the same regulations as affect colonial and foreign spirits, pro-
1092
vided it be declared by the manufacturer when bonding the spirits, that they are for exportation. This so-called relief is not of the smallest value. No manufacturer will so place his property that he will not be enabled at any time to dispose of it in the best market and to the most advantage. What the trade requires is plain and simple: That Irish made spirits may be placed in respect to the method of levying duty on precisely the same footing with colonial and foreign spirits."
No man would so place his property as not to be able to take it out and make the best sale that the market would allow. Therefore, not only were the distillers of Scotland and Ireland, but all the spirit traders of these countries, immensely interested in this important question; and he could not but think the House would consent to remove these restrictions that weighed so heavily on a large and influential body of manufacturers. The claim was one of simple justice: all they demand is, that the trader and manufacturer should not pay tax for an article which at the time of payment is not in existence. The revenue can hardly suffer to any extent. There is no breach of faith with the West Indies: they ask but equal measurement for all. In these days of free trade, when the removal of duties on every article of necessity was the cry, he could not think the House would refuse to remove these heavy and pressing restrictions on an important branch of home industry.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the present mode of levying the Duty on Home-made Spirits in Bond."
LORD J. STUARTseconded the Motion. He felt a particular interest in the question from the circumstance of his connexion with Campbeltown, where extensive distillery operations were carried on, and an annual amount of duty paid ranging from 250,000 l. to 300,000 l. He had also presented a petition from the island of Isla, where a large amount of duty was also paid. He was prepared to admit that the distillers of Scotland were not so disadvantageously situated as those of Ireland. He would also admit that, two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made very considerable concessions, and in consequence of these concessions, the trade of Campbeltown was in a very flourishing state. It was always with pain that he felt himself compelled to give a vote in opposition to Her Majesty's present Government; but he felt assured that,

1093
in the present instance, the course he was pursuing was that of justice.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the noble Lord, in introducing the Motion, wished the House to infer it was a question of free trade. But if the noble Lord had paid attention to the subject, as, indeed, lhs speech showed he had, he might have seen it was the intention of the House, in arranging the spirit duties in 1848, altogether to disregard the question of protection, and to place the home and colonial manufacturers as nearly as possible in a parallel position. Of the several questions that engaged the attention of the Sugar Committee of 1848, there was none that occupied so much of their time, or to which they gave more laborious consideration, than that of fixing the relative duties on home and colonial spirits. The noble Lord adverted to the fact that duty is paid on the quantity of home spirits originally bonded, whilst, as regarded colonial spirits, duty is only paid on the quantity taken from bond. But the noble Lord forgot that this was one of the chief considerations which determined the decision of the Committee in fixing a duty of 4d. a gallon higher on colonial than on home spirits, and a duty on foreign spirits of 15 s., double what was charged on British spirits. He considered that after a Committee of that House and the House itself had resolved that the difference between the two classes of consumers should be settled at 4d. per gallon, it would be unfair of the House now to disturb that arrangement—both unfair to the West Indians, as well as to the producers of spirits in the other parts of the empire. The position was this: either the duty at present charged on home spirits must be increased, or the colonial duty diminished, in order to bring-both manufacturers to an exact relation. What was the cause of complaint as regarded the home producer? Several years ago an application was made to the Legislature to permit the home distiller to bond any portion of his stock, in order that he might have credit on the duty, and export what he pleased without paying the duty. He should say that such was a great boon, because it was equivalent to giving the home manufacturers credit on the duty; and, consequently, it was not fair that these gentlemen should now come forward—after having so long enjoyed such a privilege—and seek for a further boon and privilege. At the sittings of the Sugar Committee the chairman of the Inland Re-
1094
venue Office gave some very valuable evidence respecting this matter. He showed that in 1833, upon 2,672,000 gallons, the decreases amounted only to 3–10ths of a gallon per cent. In the year 1845–46, upon the transactions of the year, 5,138,000 gallons, the decrease was rather more than a halfpenny per gallon; whilst as regarded the rectifier, referred to by the noble Lord, the decrease was ¾d. per gallon. It was upon such evidence that an arrangement was submitted to the House, and assented to by it, as also by the West Indian manufacturers. It was considered a fair settlement of the question; and therefore if hon. Gentlemen representing the distilling interests should think fit to call for a new arrangement, they should not be surprised if the West Indians came forward and demanded a readjustment likewise. The noble Lord complained that the restriction deterred manufacturers from working on speculation, by reason of the duty to be paid on the quantity of spirits made and bonded, to meet the demand that might turn up in the market. But surely if barley were cheap, they could buy it and store it, free of duty, and in that way there would be an advantage. The West Indian Committee was either right or wrong in fixing 4d. per gallon as a differential duty between the home and colonial producers; and if so, it was clear that that arrangement would be disturbed by any alteration that at present might be made. Therefore he suggested that it could not be for the interest of the home distillers that that arrangement should be disturbed, made, as it had been, after mature care and deliberation; and after every opportunity had been given them to come before the Committee, it would not be fair now to seek that that arrangement should be disturbed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, who was met on his rising by loud calls for a division, said, that he could quite understand the impatience of hon. Gentlemen who had come down in considerable numbers to vote in favour of the Motion, but he did not think that it was quite a reasonable mode of settling a question of considerable importance to divide upon it without hearing its merits discussed, and, therefore, he hoped that they would allow him to state to the House that which he believed fairly represented the real state of the case. Although this Motion did not profess to have that object, it really was as much an attempt to reduce the receipts of the Exchequer as

1095
any of those Motions which had been successfully resisted in the course of the present Session. The proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Kildare was, that distillers should pay duty on their spirits after the loss by wastage had been ascertained, instead of on the quantity manufactured. That would necessarily lead to the reduction of the revenue, and he would ask the House, if any reduction was to take place in the receipts of the Exchequer, whether it would be of most advantage to the country that the decrease should be occasioned by a diminution of the duty on spirits? He did not think that the duty on this article called for any reduction at all; and, as the diminution proposed was a reduction which would apply almost exclusively to Scotland and Ireland, he did not think it would be quite fair to the English distiller. The duty on English spirits was 7s. 10 d. per gallon, on Scotch, 3s. 8d, and on Irish, 2s. 8d.; and yet the noble Lord called for a reduction of the duty on the spirits upon which the lowest charge was imposed. Sound policy would dictate the equalisation of the duties in the three countries, lowering the duty in England, and raising it in Scotland and Ireland, The noble Lord admitted that little or no benefit would be gained by England from the reduction which he proposed, and the distillers themselves allowed that there was no safety to the revenue after the spirits had left the premises of the distiller. Was it "equal justice," then, to England, to make concessions to the Irish distillers which would be of no use to the English producer? The whole question was under consideration when the Colonial Spirits Bill was discussed in 1848, and was much before the House at that time. The objection made to the Colonial Spirits Bill was not to the extent of benefit that it would confer on the colonial producer, but that there was still too high a duty on spirits, both of colonial and home produce. At that time he made a number of concessions to the distillers, who hardly thanked him for what he had done, and said that little benefit would be derived from what he had yielded to them. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to the returns on the table, he would see that his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) measure had created a large export trade in home spirits. The noble Lord said he could assure the House that the Irish and Scotch distillers were destroyed by the competition with the colonial producers; but what
1096
were the real facts of the case? Ireland, years ago, consumed not less than a million of gallons of rum a year; but previous to 1846 the quantity was only 14,000 gallons. The consumption of rum in Scotland and Ireland was not so great in 1849 as it was in 1847, therefore it could not be said that the reduction of the duty on rum in 1848 was injurious to the Irish and Scotch producers. They had been told that there had been a remarkable increase in the consumption of rum during the last two years. The consumption of rum in Scotland in 1847 was 382,000 gallons, and in 1849 it was 250,000. The consumption of rum in Ireland in 1847 was 176,000, and in 1849 it was 182,000 gallons. Surely such a state of things could hardly be said to have ruined the home producer. The home consumption of British spirits in 1847 was 8,749,000, and in 1849 it was 9,050,000 gallons. In Scotland, in 1847, the quantity of home-made spirits on which duty was paid for consumption was 6,193,000; and in 1849, 6,935,000 gallons. In Ireland, where they were told the trade had been ruined by the importation of rum, the consumption in 1847 was 6,037,000, and in 1849 it was 6,972,000 gallons. Thus it appeared that in 1849 there was an increase of 930,000 gallons in home-made spirits, which pretty clearly showed that no great injury had been done to the Irish distiller by the introduction of colonial spirits. He would beg hon. Gentlemen to recollect that since the Act of 1848, of which such complaints had been made, there had been an increase in the consumption of rum to the extent of 6,000 gallons in Ireland, while there had been an increase in the consumption of homemade spirits to no less an amount than 930,000 gallons. Some allusion had been made to the export of home-made spirit. The fact was, by the measure which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had introduced, the trade had been almost created since 1848. The return on the table gave, as the quantity of British spirits exported in 1847, not one gallon, and in 1849 it was 73,000 gallons. The quantity of Scotch spirits exported in 1847 was 64,680, and in 1849 it had increased to 206,000 gallons. The quantity of Irish spirits exported in 1847 was 6,439 gallons, and in 1849, 67,000 gallons, so that there had been an increase to tenfold an extent in two years in the exportation of Irish spirits. Irish and Scotch distillers

1097
had also derived an advantage in the English markets to the extent of 1,500,000 gallons. On these grounds, he thought that the noble Lord was mistaken in the statements on which he grounded his Motion, and, also, that he was not justified in charging him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with having been unmindful of the claims of the Irish and Scotch distillers. The adoption of the Motion of the noble Lord would be attended with great inconvenience; it would be a great injustice to the English and colonial distillers, and it would virtually cause the reduction of the duty on an article upon which he thought no reduction should be made.
The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 53: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Alexander, N.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Anstey, T. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Magan, W. H.

Bateson, T.

Meagher, T.

Best, J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Boyd, J.

Moffatt, G.

Chatterton, Col.

Monsell, W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Moore, G. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Mullings, J. R.

Dawson, hon. V.

Muntz, G. F.

Devereux, J. T.

Napier, J.

Dick, Q.

Nugent, Lord

Dickson, S.

Nugent, Sir P.

Drummond, H. H.

O'Brien, J.

Duff, G. S.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Duff, J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Duncan, G.

O'Connell, M.

Dundas, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dunne, Col.

O'Flaherty, A.

Edwards, H.

Prime, R.

Ewart, W.

Rawdon, Col.

Fagan, W.

Richards, R.

Fergus, J.

Roche, E. B.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sadleir, J.

FitzPatrick. rt. hon. J.

Scholefield, W.

Forbes, W.

Scully, F.

French, F.

Smith, J. B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Smollett, A.

Gordon, Adm.

Somers, J. P.

Grace, O. D. J.

Stafford, A.

Grogan, E.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Gwyn, H.

Sullivan, M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Talbot, J. H.

Hastie, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Hastie, A.

Thompson, Col.

Herbert, H. A.

Traill, G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Jones, Capt.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Keating, R.

Williams, J.

Keogh, W.

Wodehouse, E.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, W.

Naas, Lord

Mackie, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.

Alcook, T.

Adair, R. A. S.

Armstrong, R. B.

Aglionby, H. A.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

1098

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Lennard, T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Lewis, G. C.

Berkeley, Adm.

Lushington, C.

Brotherton, J.

Martin, J.

Brown, W.

Melgund, Visct.

Browne, R. D.

Morison, Sir W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rich, H.

Ellis, J.

Romilly, Col.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fordyce, A. D.

Seymour, Lord

Forster, M.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, R. W.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, I.

Harris, R.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hatchell, J.

Wilson, J.

Hawes, B.

Wood, rt, hon. Sir C.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Wood, W. P.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

TELLERS.

Hodges, T. L.

Hill, Lord M.

Howard, Lord E.

Bellew, R. M.

Matter considered in Committee; Mr. E. B. Roche in the chair.
MR. F. MACKENZIEthen proposed, as the first resolution—
"That the duties payable on British spirits when taken out of warehouse for home consumption shall be charged on the quantity ascertained by the measure and strength of the sum actually delivered, save and except that when such spirits are not in a warehouse of special security no greater abatement, on account of deficiency of the quantity or strength, as ascertained at the time the said spirits were warehoused, shall be made than shall be after the several rates of allowance following, that is to say;—for every 100 gallons, hydrometer proof, for any time not exceeding three months, two gallons; for any time exceeding three months, and not exceeding six months, three gallons; for any time exceeding six and not exceeding twelve months, four gallons; and for every additional six months, one gallon,"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not then make any objections to the details of this resolution, but he should take the opportunity of doing so at some future stage. He wished the House clearly to understand that by this course he did not pledge himself to abstain from opposing the proposal in the future stages of the Bill.
Resolution agreed to.
MR. F. MACKENZIEthen proposed the second resolution:—
"That when British spirits are taken out of a warehouse for ship stores and for exportation to foreign parts, no duty shall be charged on any deficiency that may occur in warehouse, save and except that if the said spirits shall not be in a warehouse of special security, the duty shall be charged on any deficiency exceeding the rate" allowance in the foregoing resolution,"
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed. Resolutions to be reported on Friday.

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT JOCELYN VISCOUNT JOCELYN moved for any papers referring to railway communication in India. He said, that although the Motion now before the House was not of so exciting a kind as that which had just been disposed of, yet it was a question of vast importance to the people of India, and it was one also in which the people of this country had a great interest. His claim to bring this question before the House was principally founded upon the circumstance that the question of railway communication in India was first considered under the Government in which he had the honour of filling the office of Secretary to the Board of Control. A Committee of that House was appointed to consider the subject of the growth of cotton in India, and the internal communication of India was one of the most important features of that inquiry. He begged to premise, that in bringing forward the question of railway communication in India, he did not do so in any hostile spirit to Her Majesty's present Government, or to the President of the Board of Control. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was as anxious as any one could be to take those measures which were most beneficial to the people of that country; and, with regard to the Directors of the East India Company, he could speak from past experience of their views and acts, that there could not exist a body of men more sincerely desirous to promote the improvement of the native population of that country, or more anxious, as far as the revenues at their disposal permitted, to forward those measures of internal communication which were necessary to be adopted before India could be placed in that position in which all desired to see her. He believed that the present was no improper or unwise moment to bring the present subject before the attention of the House. It was a moment when a large portion of the manufacturing interest were suffering severely from a short supply of the raw material of one of our most important manufactures, and when the attention of a large portion of the population was turned towards those countries from whom they expected to receive increased supplies of the article so necessary to our manufactures. There was also a general wish that the produce of the free labour of British subjects should, as far as
1100
possible, be substituted for the produce of slave labour. The question was of equal importance to mercantile men who were looking for fresh fields for their enterprise, and to the consumers of their merchandise at home. The philanthropic body of this country conceived that the people of Great Britain had a duty to perform with regard to the natives of India. There were many who thought, and not unnaturally, that the heaviest blow that could be inflicted upon the slavery and slave trade of the West, was by stimulating and encouraging the produce of Hindostan; and that this would avail more for the discouragement of slavery than the most binding treaties, or the largest blockading squadrons. But India was at present found to be in very much the same condition and position as when she first came under British control. There had been little increase in her production; her manufactures had diminished and declined, and in some cases had utterly disappeared. The cotton and shawls of Hindostan were well known in the markets of the West as being of great value, but this branch of trade had almost entirely ceased. Hon. Members knew, some from personal experience, and others from the evidence of men upon whom reliance could be placed, that there were vast districts of fertile soil in India which were capable of producing cotton, sugar, and indigo to any extent, and that there were vast districts the great mineral wealth of which was as yet undeveloped. The supply of labour was adequate, the population was abundant, the people were peaceful and easy to be controlled, and the labour of India was, in short, the cheapest in the world. The question was, why did it happen that with these natural facilities the produce of India had not kept pace with the demand of this country? Many physical considerations went to account for this, one of which was the wars in which we had been engaged for a series of years in that country, fortunately, in general, just and righteous in their character; just and righteous, because undertaken to repulse aggression. Other causes were the want of capital, and of personal superintendence over its outlay, the land tax in its bearing upon produce, and lastly the internal communication of the country. The hon. Member for Manchester had given notice of a Motion which would come before the House in a few days, and which would embrace many of the questions to which he had referred. He would therefore confine

1101
himself, on the present occasion, to the internal communication of India. The want of an internal communication in that country would hardly be denied. A Select Committee of that House was appointed in 1847 to consider the subject. This Committee included among its Members Gentlemen connected with manufactures and mercantile transactions, others who had served in India, some in connexion with the Government, and some with the East India Company. They agreed unanimously to a report, a portion of which he would read, because it bore strictly upon the point to which his Motion referred:—
"The want of suitable means of internal communication has been prominently brought under the Committee's notice by almost every witness that has been examined, as one of the principal obstacles to the trade in cotton, which it is within the power and province of a Government to redress; and they are of opinion that the representations which have been made to them on this head demand the earnest attention of the Indian Government. With scarcely an exception, they concur in describing the means of internal communication as totally inadequate for the requirements of commerce; and, where roads are formed, great impediments to communication still exist from the almost entire absence of bridges. The consequence of this deficiency is severely felt, and traffic is conducted at an enormous cost of money, labour, and time. In connexion with this branch of the inquiry, your Committee have had before them the question of the possibility of introducing railroads into India; and the witnesses they have examined are not more unanimous in their description of the lamentable absence of the means of communication which now prevails, than they are in urging the necessity for the formation of railways from the great centres of export and import into the interior. It is impossible to urge too strongly upon all those who are in any degree responsible for the management of Indian affairs the necessity of special and earnest attention being directed to this important object."
Yesterday he received a letter from Colonel Simms, late Chief Engineer of Madras, who was appointed in 1825, by Sir T. Munro, to report upon certain great lines of communication and works of immigration required by the Madras presidency, in which that gallant officer pressed his conviction that what India chiefly wanted was better means of internal communication, an alteration with respect to the land tax, and the introduction of capital. Colonel Simms said—
"It has been found that wherever an old road has been improved and rendered more easy of transit, or a new one opened, traffic has increased rapidly, wheel carts have superseded carriage-cattle, the expense of transport has diminished, and the people, as a necessary consequence, have been better supplied with the necessaries of life, and have improved in their circumstances. If
1102
such benefits are found to flow from the improvement and extension of ordinary roads, how much more rapid and enlarged must the advantages prove if it be practicable to introduce into India a general system of well-arranged and judicious railway communication? These lines are stated to be experimental, and the people of Madras are naturally much surprised and disappointed at their presidency being denied the same encouragement which has been given to the two others, and it is impossible to assign any good reason for the exception. What India chiefly wants is the means of ready and safe internal communication, the reduction and modification of the land tax, the improvement and extension of the works of irrigation, and the introduction of European skill and capital. They are all naturally linked together, are all indispensably requisite, and none can be neglected in any general system for the improvement of the country. The first of these, however, is what is now to be considered, and more particularly as connected with the introduction of railways."
Such an opinion from so high a source would of itself, without any other reasons, justify him in bringing forward the present Motion. His object was to give an opportunity to his right hon. Friend the President, or to the Secretary of the Board, of Control to state their views as regarded the general question of railway communication in India, their opinion of those lines to which a guarantee had been granted, and what their expectations were with regard to them in a political and commercial point of view. It was in 1845 that the question of railway communication in India was first opened. The Earl of Ripon was then Chairman of the Board of Control, and he (Viscount Jocelyn) had the honour to serve under that noble Lord. A number of schemes of railway communication were presented to the consideration of the Board of Control, and they had to decide how far they were justified either in carrying on the lines of communication themselves, or whether they would give their support or sanction to the companies who proposed to undertake these lines. If they decided upon giving their support to these lines, then the Board of Control had to consider what the nature of that support should be. The Government considered that it would be wrong to embark hastily in an experiment which might not be applicable to the wants of the country, and it was thought best to despatch Mr. Sims to India, and that his attention should be directed to certain physical difficulties that might possibly be found to prevent the introduction of railways into a tropical climate. Mr. Sims was also requested to give his opinion as to the line best adapted for an experimental line in India. The Court of

1103
Directors of the East India Company expressed their views, and in a minute dated May 7, 1845, and despatched to India for the guidance of the Governor General in Council, said—
"It cannot admit of question that, whenever railroad communication can be advantageously introduced and maintained, it is eminently deserving of encouragement and co-operation from the Government. One object of this committee will be to suggest some feasible line of moderate length as an experiment for railroad communication in India."
Mr. Sims was soon afterwards joined in the commission by two officers in the East India Company's service, and the question submitted by the Court of Directors was put before this commission. In the following year Sir R. Peel's Ministry retired from office, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich succeeded the Earl of Ripon as President of the Board of Control. In 1846 there was a report from Mr. Sims and the other commissioners upon the question whether there were any physical difficulties which would prevent the formation of a railway. [Sir J. HOB-HOUSE: Are you speaking of Madras?] No; he was speaking on the general question of the introduction of railways into India. Their reply was satisfactory, and the experiment had since then been fully tried and had succeeded in Cuba, Demerara, and Jamaica, where lines of railway were now in full operation: the physical difficulties might therefore be considered, after such practical experience, no longer to exist. The right hon. Baronet had the same opinion as to the propriety of first constructing an experimental line, and of not embarking a large amount of capital, until the Government had had some experience of the success of a railway. These views of the right hon. Baronet were fully shared by the Court of Directors: but he would call to their attention that the experiment they now had to try was, not whether there were physical difficulties in the way, but whether the return upon the cost of constructing a railway would be sufficient to meet the outlay, and whether the railway system in India was adapted to the habits of the people, and required by the commerce of that country. There were three lines proposed in 1845, the line from Calcutta to the north-west, the line from Bombay to the east, and the line from Madras to the south-west. The line from Calcutta to the north-western provinces was one the political and military importance of which no one felt more strongly than himself. It
1104
connected the capital of India with those provinces upon our north-western frontier from which danger to our empire was always most to be dreaded. But whether that line was equally important in a commercial point of view was open to discussion. The original project was for a line from Calcutta to Mirzapore, a distance of 400 miles. The present proposal was to make a line of seventy-two miles from Calcutta to a point not yet decided upon, as he understood. The Government guaranteed an interest of 5 per cent upon a capital of 1,000,000 l., to be invested in this line. They gave the company great facilities for obtaining possession of the land—[Sir J. HOBHOUSE: They give the land]—and they retained the power of taking the line into their own hands at the end of twenty-five years. It was said by some that there might have been better arrangements, but he thought the Directors had treated the subject in the liberal spirit which so great an object deserved. But this line, it should be remarked, had the river Ganges on the right, and another stream on the left. He did not believe that it, as now proposed, would draw one single pound weight of traffic from the Ganges. He believed that it might draw a certain amount of traffic from the neighbouring coal district. But Gentlemen who were acquainted with India knew that this coal was brought down in boats navigated by native boatmen, who could bring it down at a more moderate price than it could be conveyed by the cheapest line of railway. If they looked for the result of the working of this line to show that railways were to be remunerative, he feared they would put an end to the further advance of railways in India. He hoped to see this line extended ultimately to the north-west provinces; and it was for this reason that he had touched upon what might be considered the weak points of this project, for until it was extended to some considerable terminus, no traffic could be created, and railway prospects for India must receive a considerable check and much discouragement. The next line was from Bombay to the east. This was a line in which the manufacturers of this country felt a very deep interest. It communicated with the country of the Nizam, in which were places as well adapted to the growth of cotton as any part of the world. It was originally proposed, he believed, to make 140 miles of railway from Bombay; but the present scheme, to

1105
which the Government had given their sanction and a guarantee of 5 per cent, was for a short line from Bombay to Callian, a distance of thirty-three miles. The capital upon which this 5 per cent guarantee was to be given was 500,000 l. This line, if it could not be carried further, could not be expected to pay. It ran parallel to the finest water communication in the world. The water carriage for produce was excellent, and cheap; but from Callian towards the interior, the land difficulties commenced, whilst on the other hand, the produce went up to Bombay by water, and was landed upon the wharfs without difficulty. He feared also that it was not to the passenger traffic upon this line that they could look for remuneration, if it could not be found in articles of merchandise. The people of India were poor, and would not be able to make much use of railways, if even there were not other impediments in religion and castes. The labourer or ryot must give the produce of five days' labour to enable him to go ten miles upon a railway, at the lowest calculation. He was supported in this opinion by Colonel Grant of the Bombay Engineers, who stated of the Bombay railroad—
"The first start to ascertain, not the feasibility of constructing railroads, for of that there can be no doubt, but their suitableness to this country, is to be made at a point offering the smallest opportunities of testing the general usefulness of railroads. True, Callian may possess 40,000 inhabitants, very few indeed of whom can ever afford to travel by rail. Nothing but merchandise will pass on the Callian line, and it is very doubtful whether its merits when constructed so far, will ever be duly appreciated; for by the time the up-country trader has reached Callian he feels his troubles at an end, and he will scarcely say 'Thank you' to have his merchandise carried the remaining short and easy portion of his journey. He has already from this point a cheaper mode of conveyance by water than the railroad can ever supply. It will be of little use as a passenger train to natives, very few of whom can ever afford to travel by it, and it will be of no use to Government, as, with the exception of the small station of Malligaum, it must be carried no less than 360 miles before it reaches a military station. It will be of no use to the community generally; in fact, no line could have been selected possessing so little general usefulness as this Mal Ghaut line."
The capability of the country to support railways could not be fairly tested except by selecting two great towns for the termini, as was done when the first railway was formed in this country between Manchester and Liverpool. They might not be able to get two such important towns in India, but something of the same character
1106
might be obtained. The object was to get a line ending at two termini between which traffic existed, in which no great engineering difficulties presented themselves, and which was not subjected to any active competition. If such a line were constructed, then and then only would they be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion whether India was able to maintain a railway, and whether English capitalists should be encouraged to invest their money in such undertakings. He thought a line might be found and constructed which possessed those advantages. In 1845 a line was proposed from Madras through the southwestern portions of India, connecting together the east and western coasts, and throwing open the districts of Coimbatore and Trichinopoly, where some of the best cotton in the world was grown, and opening the great iron districts of Porto Novo. This line was admitted to be free from those difficulties which surrounded the other lines to which he had referred. Advantage was proposed to be taken of that opening in the southern ghauts, and no great difficulty presented itself in the passing of rivers. A portion of this great arterial line, which was a perfect line in itself, namely, the line from Madras to Arcot, was the more immediate question. The town of Arcot was the point at which all the produce intended to be sent to Madras for consumption and export was collected, and it was also the place to which the goods imported into Madras were forwarded for transmission into the interior. The traffic between the two places was therefore very great, and the increase in the traffic during the last twenty years showed the importance of this communication. The soil in the neighbourhood of the proposed line was of great fertility, and the land would not be subject to inundations. The distance from Madras to Arcot was 72 miles, and the capital proposed was at first 400,000 l., which had since been raised to 600,000 l., at the wish of Mr. Sims. This line had been three times surveyed, and had had the sanction of three Governors-General. There was no competing river or water communication to contend with. It was at first proposed to make a railway from Madras to Wallajahnuggur, Arcot, and concerning this line the Governor directed the following communication to be made:—
"Sir—I am directed by the Most Noble the Governor in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter. His Lordship in Council can have

1107
no hesitation in offering a decided opinion upon the great value of railroads generally to this presidency, if carried out fully and effectually on well-selected lines; and with the report of Mr. Sims, Director of the Railway Department before the Government, he is not aware that any objections exist to the projected line from Madras to Wallajanugger; on the contrary. His Excellency in Council is led to believe that it is well chosen as an experimental line, and that when fully carried out, it will conduce essentially to further all the Interests of society, and stimulate and aid the efforts now made to develop the revenues of the country.
"J. THOMAS,
Chief Secretary to Government.
"March 18, 1846."
In 1842, the line was again surveyed, and since that period it had been a third time surveyed. Such were the claims of this line to consideration. The reasons given by the Government for refusing or deferring to give a guarantee for this line had been threefold. First, that it had been abandoned by the company; secondly, that they could not support a line concerning which such widely-differing estimates had been made; and, thirdly, that the line had not been surveyed by Mr. Sims, their own officer. Now, first, with respect to the abandonment of the scheme. It was commenced by persons connected with the presidency; it continued to be a company for three years, and applied for the sanction and support of the Government. Believing, at length, that it had no chance of obtaining the support of the Government, the company returned the capital to the shareholders, but they always remained upon the register; and as soon as they heard that the Government had given guarantees for the construction of some of these lines, the company was reformed and applied to receive the sanction of the Government. The difference in the estimates was intended to meet the different proposals for constructing the line. In 1837, when the line was first surveyed, it was proposed to be carried out upon the cheap American principle. In 1842 it was proposed to construct a tramway along the line; and in 1847 it was proposed to make a railway upon European principles. But if it were said that this line had not been surveyed by Mr. Sims, and therefore had not been guaranteed by the Government, that was met at once by the fact that the Bombay line had not been surveyed by Mr. Sims, and yet it had been sanctioned. He thought that the line was one that would be remunerative, and that the Madras presidency of itself had fair claims to the con sideration of the Government, and, if pos-
1108
sible, more than the other two. To the presidencies of Bengal and Bombay, nature had given the benefit of water communication, by means of which their productions might reach the consumer slowly, it is true, but nevertheless, surely; but in the presidency of Madras there was not along the whole coast a single port or harbour in which a ship could ride; there were no bays or internal communication whatever. The ryot, too, in that presidency was more heavily taxed than in Bengal. In the latter presidency, with a population of 30,000,000, the tax was 6,500,000 l. In Madras, with a population of only half that of the former, the tax was 4,500,000 l., being in the former case 4s. 4d. a head; in the latter, 6s. 4d. He did not lay great stress upon that point, but it justified the Government in considering the question of the preference of Madras. There was another point, too, connected with the comfort of the people of that presidency well worthy of consideration. The House knew how necessary salt was to the health of individuals. In Madras, however, the price of it was quadrupled by the difficulty of procuring it, and some of the people in the interior were forced to make use of a kind of earth with saline particles in it as a sorry substitute in so important a necessary. He had now endeavoured to lay before the House the question of the railways to which the Government had already given their sanction, and likewise the question of that line he wished to bring under the consideration of the Government. They could hardly tell the importance of increasing the means of internal communication in India, and the effect it would have on the productions of that country. If they looked to India and saw how little they had done for it, surely it must be the feeling of every man that the time had now come when the question ought to be fairly considered. He had endeavoured to lay it before the House, but he feared very inadequately; but he regarded it as a question of vast importance, and one of many duties they had to perform to India—a country with a population of 100,000,000, whose happiness and future prospects must materially depend on the performance of their duties towards them. A country extending over 25° of latitude and 30° of longitude now acknowledge British rule, and when they considered the mighty empire that was under that sway, England might well feel proud. But when they looked to those remains that had been left behind by great Hindoo governors,

1109
showing that they felt for the wants of the people in bygone days, and which were scattered through every part of India, they must feel that the time had come for England to step forward and lay down for herself some lasting memorials which might tell to future ages that amidst all her triumphs and glories she did not neglect her duty to her subjects.
Motion made—
"For Copies of any Papers not already laid before Parliament, referring to the general question of Railway Communication in India, together with Copies of any Correspondence which may have taken place between the Home Authorities and the Madras Government in reference to the proposed Railway between Madras and Arcot."
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he did not rise to refuse the assent of the Government to the proposal of the noble Lord, and much less to complain of the manner in which he had brought forward this subject, for in doing so the noble Lord had done credit to himself and also justice to the cause he had supported. But after the remarks of the noble Lord, he hoped the House would allow him (Mr. Wilson) to make a few observations, partly in explanation of the remarks of the noble Lord, and partly to correct some of the misapprehensions under which he appeared to labour. He was sure that those who knew what the Company had done for India in the last two years would be the last to condemn the Government for looking with indifference to that great subject to which the noble Lord had called their attention. He admitted that it would be difficult, looking at that vast empire, for any question to be brought forward more important in itself, or more pregnant with future results to the happiness and civilisation of India, as well as to the commercial interests of this country; and it was in that spirit, and with those views, that the East India Company and the Board of Control had taken steps which, under any other circumstances, they probably would not have taken. The noble Lord had referred to the present condition of India with regard to the cultivation of cotton and various other articles with which that country supplied us, and he thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in not discussing that subject at any length, seeing that next week there would be an opportunity for doing so. The noble Lord appeared to have overlooked the fact of the enormous increase in the supplies from India of the articles of indigo and sugar,
1110
not only to England, but to other countries. It was only in the last century that the cultivation of indigo had been introduced into the Indian empire, and during that period it had nearly superseded the cultivation of that article in every other part of the world. At this moment our Indian empire supplied that commodity not only to England, but to almost the whole of Europe. Then, with regard to sugar, it was only seventeen years since only 7,000 tons were the whole quantity annually obtained from India. Now, the quantity was increased to ten times that amount. But he came to the important subject which the noble Lord had brought before the notice of the House; and he believed that if the noble Lord had known a little more accurately what had really been done, and the anxiety the Company had exhibited, and the support the Government had given the Company, as to carrying out railways in India, he would not have thought so lightly of those exertions as some parts of his speech seemed to infer. It was quite true, that when this subject was first before them the Government were undetermined as to the best mode in which railways could be made in India. It was quite true, also, that several private companies were started in 1846, and from that period the subject had been under the consideration of the Government. The noble Lord had carefully alluded to the three different propositions which were before the Government about the period to which he referred—that there was a proposition for a railway in Bengal, another for a railway in Bombay, and a third for a railway in Madras; but he begged the noble Lord's attention while he made this distinct avowal on the part of the Government, for the speech of the noble Lord would lead to this inference, that the Government had been influenced by a preference of the two former presidencies in giving their sanction to the railways which he had mentioned; that the Government, in coming to their decision, were not influenced by any preference which those presidencies might be considered to have, and that it was from other considerations that the Madras Railway was not sanctioned, for he thought that each presidency had an equal claim upon the Government for every effort that could be made for its advancement. The Government had consented to give to the railways in Bengal and Bombay the guarantee to which the noble Lord alluded; but the noble Lord must have overlooked the circumstance

1111
that if they were to make a railway from Calcutta to Delhi, the great political importance of which the noble Lord had been the first to acknowledge, and he thought the noble Lord would also admit its commercial importance—for no one could deny that Calcutta and Delhi were the two points in our Indian empire which it was important should be united—they must begin at some point. [Viscount JOCELYN: The first line in England was the complete line between Liverpool and Manchester.] He only said that part must be made before the whole; and if the noble Lord thought that the Government had only determined to make part of the line, and intended to stop at that point, he was mistaken; or, if the noble Lord thought the East India Company were prepared to take the result of that first section of the line of railway as a conclusive evidence whether railways would answer in India or not, he was also mistaken. But, although it had not been actually determined—for the Indian authorities at home had very wisely left the consideration of these minor details to the Government of India on the spot—what course that line should take, except that it should run generally through the north-west provinces, with a view to carry out the ultimate object the Government had, yet there was a place sixty or seventy miles from Calcutta from which might be expected much traffic—he alluded to Nuddea, which was a town immediately connecting the three rivers which joined the Hooghly and the Ganges, and one of which was generally open, although the other two might be closed. Then the noble Lord referred to the experimental line which had been sanctioned by the Government in Bombay, and, although he said afterwards everything in his power to condemn it, yet he justly stated, that as a commercial line it appeared to be of greater importance to the manufacturing interests of this country than any other, and simply because it would run towards the great centre of the cotton districts; but that line was no more intended to stop at the first point indicated, namely Callian, than was the first section of the line from Calcutta. They had been so much disappointed in this country in all their calculations as to the quantity of traffic on lines, that he would not venture to say what it might be in India. When the question of the Manchester and Liverpool Bill was before the House, the question of passengers was scarcely even mentioned—the calcula-
1112
tions were made with reference to the carriage of goods; and yet now the calculations were not of goods, but of passengers. He assured the House that the East India Company and the Government were perfectly disposed to extend the same privileges to Madras which they had given to the other presidencies as soon as they were in possession of the information which they had already taken means of obtaining. It was a question of time; it was not a question of preference; and he thought the noble Lord must admit that they had some considerable reason for their present course, seeing that they had no report whatever before them as to the line in Madras. They had no report later than that of the year 1837 or 1838 to which the noble Lord referred, and the noble Lord must recollect that that report was made for a totally different purpose. When it was proposed to make a railway to Arcot it was not with a view to the general system of railways in India, but as an independent line to bring a cheap and large supply of salt to Madras; but as soon as railways became a matter of speculation in India, it was most obvious that whatever railway was made in Madras should be made with reference to the system of railways contemplated in other parts of the country. Now there was a considerable difference of opinion, whether the particular line from Madras to Arcot would answer the description which Mr. Sims thought desirable; whether it would not be better that the line should run rather to the north-west, with a view to join a general system of railways in the presidency of Bombay. Again, one report said it would cost only 4,000 l. a mile; another, 5,000 l.; another, 6,000 l.; and Mr. Sims' report was, that it would cost 8,000 l. a mile. Four reports, therefore, varied in these particulars, and the Government would not be justified in coming to a conclusion without a specific report as to the particular line that ought to be adopted, and some better estimate of the probable cost. But another reason which had actuated the Government in the course they had taken was this: the noble Lord was aware that the system which the Government had undertaken as to railways in India, was novel in its character, and it was, therefore, only prudent in the Government to see the operation of the principle before they extended it too far. The noble Lord was also perfectly aware of what encouragement the East India Company had consented to give

1113
to these railways; he was aware that the Company had given them the land free—that they had guaranteed interest on the capital—[Viscount JOCELYN: Not a dividend]—at 5 per cent for ninety-nine years, and that at any time during that period, if the railway companies chose, they might call on the East India Company to purchase the railways at prime cost. He thought, therefore, that the noble Lord could not charge the Government with not having extended its most liberal sanction to railways in India. By a late mail—the one before the last—some of the India papers contained statements to the effect that some great impediment had been discovered, on the arrival of the engineers in Bengal, against making railways in that presidency; and it was said broadly that the idea was abandoned and given up. He might state, for the satisfaction of the House, that he believed there was not one word or tittle of truth in that statement. On the contrary, the railway companies that had been guaranteed—the East India Railway Company and the Bombay Railway Company—were proceeding to the entire satisfaction of the East India Company; and he believed that their prospects were better than they had been at any former period. He could only conclude with assuring the noble Lord and the House that already the Government had anticipated the noble Lord, for they had despatched a letter to the Government of Madras, requiring them to furnish, at the earliest possible period, the information necessary to enable them to extend to Madras the same privileges which they had given to the other presidencies; and he believed that on receiving that information no time would be lost in extending to Madras every advantage and encouragement which had been already extended to the other two presidencies with respect to the lines to which the noble Lord referred.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that there could be no doubt that Government had dealt most liberally in extending railway communication to India, and the same would be extended to the Madras presidency. There should be a controlling power sitting continually at the board of these companies. Under such an officer, not only was public confidence inspired, but great satisfaction was created. The agreement which Government had made for the public had been complained of as too liberal; but in a great undertaking of this sort,
1114
subject to so much doubt, in an unknown country, it was plain that no capitalists could have ventured to vest their money unless they were guaranteed, and Government were fully authorised in giving the concession without which they could not so well have effected their object. The Government here should not decide the exact point. No one could do it so well as the Governor General of India, and he had no doubt that they would select such a line as was best adapted to the pecuniary wants of India.
SIR T. E. COLEBROOKEsaid, that the Indian public would be thankful for the attention which had been paid to their interests. He had followed the policy and history of recent attempts to introduce railways into India, and had laboured under a misapprehension that this limited line to be entered into in the province of Bengal was to be understood as an experiment upon which the success and value of railways in India was to rest; but he now understood that this line was to be considered as the commencement of a far more important project. There was another misapprehension of the public, namely, that this line was to terminate half way between Calcutta and Delhi. The line would traverse for two-thirds of the way a hilly country of very little population, which scarcely had one single great town in a distance of 500 miles in length, and would only have its value as the commencement of a more important line which would join the commercial classes generally with the capital of India. There certainly could be no line of more importance to India, either in a military or commercial point of view. He feared, however, that if the question dirt not advance more rapidly than it had hitherto done, some time must elapse before it had any effect on the development of Indian resources. He feared that the delay had been mainly caused by the error of entrusting the enterprise to a joint-stock company instead of having it achieved by the Indian Government. He thought, however, that the thanks of the House were due to the noble Lord for having elicited the views of the Government on this great question.
MR. HUMEbelieved the only certain mode of developing the inexhaustible resources of India was by railways and irrigation; and it was not so much the weight of taxation as the want of the means of disposing of its produce that prevented the extension of commerce in that country. It

1115
was said, that the Government had been more the cause of the delay in extending railway communication to India, than the East India Company itself; and he certainly thought it most unsatisfactory that only 70 miles out of between 400 and 500, was all that was commenced. He had no doubt that the result of the experiment of the first 70 miles would be favourable; but they ought not to wait till that experiment was tried before commencing farther extensions of the system. He wished to see a railroad formed without delay from Delhi to Allahabad, with branches extending to the military stations; and if the East India Company had carried out such a line themselves, he was satisfied that the saving it would effect for them in the economy of military stores alone would defray a large portion of the expense of construction. He was convinced that the saving of life, labour, and all the etcæteras for the troops, together with the traffic that might fairly be expected from the district, would liquidate the entire outlay required for the line within five or six years. There had also been delay in other parts. He thought there ought to be a railway from Madras to Bombay, across the peninsula, by which the communication would be greatly accelerated, and the traffic largely and rapidly increased. Expense was not the only point to be considered; because politically, commercially, and in every respect, railways would be of immense benefit in India. He hoped, before long, to hear that the line from Mirzapore to Calcutta had been begun at the upper as well as at the lower part, and that the system was being speedily extended throughout India generally.
SIR J. HOBHOUSEwas not surprised that the hon. Member should declare himself not entirely satisfied with the progress which railroad communication was making in India; because, from long and intimate experience of his character, he knew that it was not easy to satisfy him upon any point. In all that had been said upon this occasion as to the importance of railroads for India, he entirely concurred, and he was exceedingly glad that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had been the first person to call the attention of the House to the subject in away which might have fairly been expected from his experience—from his devotion to the interests of India—from the office which he had held—and from the attention which he was known to give to subjects of the kind. After the speech of his hon. Friend the
1116
Member for Westbury, which seemed to meet almost every point to which the noble Lord had adverted, it was unnecessary for him (Sir J. Hobhouse) to enter into any detail, and he would defer to another opportunity the notice of the only points on which he ventured to differ from the noble Lord—namely, the political condition of India, and the merits or demerits of those to whom the government of that country had been intrusted. With respect to those points, he entirely differed from the noble Lord; and when the subject should come properly under discussion, he hoped to be able to show that the East India Company had not slumbered at their post, and had not forgotten what was due to their own character or the happiness of the many millions of people intrusted to their care. This, however, was not the time to enter upon that discussion; and he would now merely touch on one or two points which his hon. Friend had, it was true, adverted to, but without developing as fully as other topics. The House was not yet aware of the reason why the Madras Company had not obtained the same degree of encouragement as had been given to the two other railroad companies. In the first instance, it was the intention of the East India Company and the Indian Government to have given the preference, if possible, to the Madras line, for the very reason the noble Lord had mentioned—namely, that it had the advantage of the others as regarded engineering facilities as well as of the population of the country through which it would pass. There were, besides, other considerations which induced the East India Company to look with favour upon that line, and the noble Lord had briefly alluded to what had occurred; but when the Indian authorities wished to keep the Madras Company alive it died. When they wished to prolong its existence, it had no longer an existence to prolong. It was impossible to support a nonentity. When, subsequently, gentlemen who had been connected with the Madras Company asked the Indian authorities why they had not given them the same guarantees which had been given to the Bengal and the Bombay Companies, the Indian authorities very naturally asked why the Madras Company had not come forward with the same offers as the other companies. That was the reason why the Madras experiment had not been tried simultaneously with the other two experiments. The delay which had occurred with respect to the

1117
Madras Company was attributable chiefly to misfortune, not to culpability. It was owing to the disgraceful transactions in regard to railroads which had stigmatised this country, and would for ever remain a blot on its history—transactions which showed that the spirit of speculation had not been confined to those who were supposed not to have as nice a sense of honour as persons moving in the higher classes of society; but had spread amongst the well-educated and the upper classes, and extended to that class to which the people of England had long been accustomed to look up, not only for the making of laws but the forming of morals. To the discredit brought upon all railroad speculations by those transactions must be attributed the failure of the project to which the noble Lord had so pointedly referred, in spite of the efforts which the East India Company constantly and almost recklessly, as regarded their own interests, made to avert the catastrophe. An examination of the state of the money market at the time would show the reason why the Madras railroad had not been carried on simultaneously with the Bengal and the Bombay lines. But, although the Madras Company had unfortunately suffered a check, the undertaking was not abandoned; and if those then present should live to meet each other at this time next year, they would probably have cause to congratulate each other on the progress, of the Madras line. It was not his intention to enter at any length into the question whether railroads in India should have been left to the enterprise of private companies, or undertaken on the responsibility of the Government. The whole question was fully considered when the noble Lord was at the Board of Control in 1845, and the Earl of Ripon decided that railroads in India should be undertaken on the responsibility of companies, as they had been in England. That determination was arrived at after long deliberation; but whether it was a wise conclusion or not was another question. For his part, he thought it would have been a wiser course for the Government to have undertaken the responsibility of constructing railroads in India. The advantages which would result from the rapid transmission of goods and military stores, and other considerations connected with the question, would, he thought, have justified the Indian Government in spending 1,000,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. at once on those great enterprises. That, however,
1118
was not the question before the House at the present moment. The only point now raised was as to the degree of encouragement which the Indian Government had given to the companies which had undertaken the formation of railroads in that country. His hon. Friend the Member for Westbury had stated clearly the encouragement which had been extended to those undertakings. The Government had given the land for the line; it had also guaranteed interest on the capital to be expended in forming them, and if, after a certain number of years, the companies found the speculations unprofitable, they had nothing to do but to hand them over to the Government, who undertook to purchase them. It was impossible for any Government in the world to give greater encouragement than this to such undertakings. Without wishing to detract from the merit due to the noble Lord, he begged to assure him that the Government did not want any stimulus with reference to this subject. They required the curb rather than the spur; and he would say to the noble Lord—Parce, puer, stimulis, et fortius utere loris. The Earl of Ellenborough, in another place, blamed the Government for proceeding too hastily rather than too slowly, and complained of pledging the Government of India on behalf of undertakings which ought to be left to the enterprise of private parties. Having said thus much, it was necessary only to add, that the Government had not the slightest objection to grant the papers now moved for by the noble Lord, or any others that he might apply for, and that the Government would make every effort to bring to a happy conclusion the object which the noble Lord had not more at heart than he himself had.
MR. MANGLESsaid, the East India Company had no funds in their coffers to carry on those great works. He would be the last man to disparage what had been done, but he thought more ought to be done. A railroad, seventy miles in extent, starting from Calcutta, could not be regarded as a fair experiment of the financial success of Indian railways. He thought the experiment ought not to be tried in the lower part of India, seeing that a noble river, from which the traffic would not be diverted, ran along the proposed line. It would have been better to start such a line from Benares; but it was now, perhaps, too late to remedy that error. He thought it desirable that the Government itself

1119
should engage in the construction of railway lines in the central and south-western parts of India; and if they had not the money, let them see if they could not borrow it, for to promote the great works of peace was at least as desirable as to carry on war.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNreplied: From the observations that had fallen from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, it might be inferred that his (Viscount Jocelyn's) Motion was made in a hostile spirit to the East India Company. [Sir J. HOBHOUSE: Oh, no, I did not say so.] He had stated distinctly that he knew the East India Company were quite alive to the necessities of the population, and to the improvement of the country. The object of his Motion had been attained. He had heard from the Government that it was not their intention to deny to the Madras railroad that support and that guarantee that was given to the Bombay and Bengal lines. He felt gratified that he had brought forward the subject, for it had elicited the opinions of the Government; and the subject was one of the greatest importance, not merely to the native population of India, but to the people of this country.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster). 3a Railway Audit Bill (No. 2).

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
House in Committee.
LORD MONTEAGLErose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. The question which he was about to raise was one of the utmost importance to the Australian colonies, in relation to their primary and fundamental interests. That question was, whether, in establishing a new constitution in these colonies, Parliament was prepared to adopt the principle of a single chamber, or whether in New South Wales they intended to revert to the old constitutional principle of a legislature composed of two chambers, analogous to the order of things established in the mother country. He thought that the arguments which had been brought forward in favour of the Bill in its present stage were founded upon a mistake in a-matter of fact. The noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department had stated that in his opinion, the voice of the colonists had been pronounced in favour of a single chamber. Now, he should endeavour to show their Lordships, upon various autho-

1031
rities, and, among others, upon the authority of his noble Friend himself, that he was in error in asserting that a government by one chamber was deemed by our Australian colonies preferable to a legislature composed of two. But even in the absence of such direct proof, he presumed it would be conceded that unless there could be clearly shown to exist special and exceptional reasons to the contrary, the result of all practical experience was such as strongly to recommend the adoption of the double chamber in the case now before the House. If any exceptional circumstances did exist, he wanted to know what they were. If on a late occasion their Lordships had wisely consented to hear at their bar authorities upon the subject, fully competent, as they were, to speak to the feeling of the colonists, much of the trouble which their Lordships would have to endure in listening to his argument in favour of a double chamber might have been spared. But as their Lordships had unfortunately come to a different conclusion, and rejected the prayer of Mr. Lowe and Mr. Scott's petition, in the absence of better authority, it would be his duty to refer to evidence already existing and bearing upon the subject. They had already had the experience of the great colonial possessions of this country in exemplifying the relative advantages of a single or a double chamber. Our colonies did not all of them, it was true, commence with two chambers; but all our British colonies, properly so called, had adopted two chambers as soon as they found that form of government practicable; and they had found it practicable, when their social condition was much less advanced than that of the Australian colonies at present. Our colonists, indeed, had universally held to one general principle, to which they had adhered from the outset, to the present time, and that was a love for the institutions of their mother country, and a desire to adapt those institutions to their condition. He found that principle very clearly and forcibly propounded in one of his noble and learned Friend's (Lord Brougham's) earliest productions—namely, his Colonial Policy. The whole of the constitutional part of this question had, their Lordships would recollect, come under discussion in the memorable debate on the Quebec Bill, memorable for the results to which it led. The question was not at that time whether there ought to be a double chamber or a single cham-
1032
ber; that was assumed throughout as incontrovertible, but the question in controversy was how the upper chamber should be constituted. A preference of two chambers rather than one was indeed agreed to by universal consent. Mr. Fox considered two chambers to be so essential to good legislation, that, with all his love of popular rights, he asserted any second chamber, any council chosen in any manner, to be preferable to a single assembly. As much might turn on the capacity of the Australian colonies to receive a second chamber at present, he begged leave to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that, at the time of the debates on the Ca-nada Bill, Upper Canada contained a population of not more than 10,000 individuals; and yet Fox, Pitt, Burke, and all the great men of that day, assumed as an admitted fact, that it was essential to the good government even of an infant colony that it should have a second chamber. New South Wales contained a population of 220,000 in 1848. Would Parliament refuse to them, on the ground of unfitness, what Pitt had granted to 10,000 Upper Canadians? He would next refer to that wider experience which this country had derived from our earlier possessions, those extensive provinces which were once ours in North America, and which now constituted the United States. The experience thence obtained led to the same conclusion, that it was preferable to have a legislature of two chambers rather than of one. Even when those colonies, after their separation from Great Britain, established their republican confederation, they adhered to the principle of a double chamber; after mature deliberation they determined to adopt it in their congress; and this after an elaborate comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of a double and single chamber. Hence originated their House of Representatives and their Senate. Experience had fully justified the wisdom of their choice. He then quoted at great length the opinions of Chief Justice Storey and Chancellor Kent, in which those great lawyers gave their reasons for deciding that a double was in all respects superior to a single chamber. Their authorities were more important as coming from citizens of a democratic Republic. The world had seen a sad and remarkable instance of the mischievous and dangerous effects arising from a single chamber in the French constitution of 1791—a chamber which he

1033
looked upon as a monument of human folly. And yet that experiment had again been fatally tried in our own times in France, and was likely to be attended again with the same consequences. He challenged his noble Friend, with all his knowledge on the subject, to show him an instance in which the experiment of a single chamber had been permanently successful, whilst he would show his noble Friend many instances in which it had been unsuccessful. In Rhode Island and in Carolina the form of a single chamber had been tried, and after a long trial it had been abandoned, and two chambers were finally established. The constitution of Rhode Island was thus described in Mr. Roebuck's valuable work on the Colonies, p. 56:—
"The constitution is supposed to have been drawn by Clarendon. The assistants sat with the representatives, but they claimed a right to consider separately the resolutions passed. A shorter, simpler, and more honest proposal would have been to form a separate chamber. The representatives resisted their pretensions, 'yet,' says Mr. Bancroft, 'the authority of the patricians was long maintained, sometimes by wise delay, sometimes by a judicious sermon, till a judicious compromise divided the court into two branches, and gave to each a negative on the other.' The case of Carolina was equally striking. There the constitution had been framed by John Locke, but founded as it was on a false principle, its failure was complete."
Yet his noble Friend, after having such examples of failures before him, was about, not only to continue one chamber where it was already established, but to establish it where it had never as yet existed, and where, he believed, it was not asked for. He took it for granted that he might now assume that he had shown that a double chamber had hitherto been found to work more beneficially than a single one. He would, therefore, proceed to explain to the House the progress of our later legislation on this subject; but, first, he would call his noble Friend (Earl Grey) into court as a witness in favour of the expediency of a second chamber. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had been a great dealer in constitutions. He would not say that all the coin which his noble Friend had put into circulation was pure coin—some of it certainly had a Brummagem look about it. His noble Friend had at a former time tried his hand at constitution-mongering in New South Wales. He had also tried his skill in constitution-mongering in New Zealand. In New Zealand his noble Friend established a double chamber. In 1847 he
1034
proposed to establish in Australia a double chamber. He had recommended such an institution in the warmest terms to the able men whom he had appointed governors of those colonies. What, then, had since happened to change the noble Earl's previous opinion? On the 31st of July, 1847, Earl Grey wrote to Sir Charles Fitzroy—
"One of the most material of the proposed constitutional changes is that which involves a return to the old form of colonial constitutions. In one case, the legislature is divided into two separate houses or chambers; in the other, the representatives of the people and the nominees of the Crown form a single body under the title of the Legislative Council. It does not appear to me that the practical working of this last system would by any means justify the conclusion that it is an improvement on that which it was formerly the practice to adopt; on the contrary, I see many reasons for the belief that the more ancient system, by which every law was submitted to the separate consideration of two distinct houses, and required their joint consent for its enactment, was the best calculated to insure judicious and prudent legislation."
On the 31st of July, 1848, his Lordship wrote again to Sir Charles Fitzroy in the following terms:—
"As to the divisions of the council, your (Sir C. Fitzroy's) opinion, founded, as you state, on long practical experience, that it would be a decided improvement on the present form of the legislature, is one to which I have already stated my own adherence. Had, therefore, the general feeling of the colony responded in any degree to the views expressed by myself, I should have had no hesitation in advising Her Majesty's Government to lay before Parliament the measures necessary to accomplish the change. But it is not such a reform as I consider it to be at all incumbent on the Home Legislature to press on an unwilling or even an indifferent people."
He asked his noble Friend to state the grounds upon which he had abandoned, in 1850, all the sound principles and all the just arguments which he had thus twice enunciated in favour of a double chamber. Could he do so, more especially after the progress made by the Australian colonies, which he so forcibly described, and on which he had so justly congratulated the House—on which he justly prided himself. He would ask him why he considered two chambers less proper in 1850 than they were in 1847? How happened it, likewise, if Australia proposed the elements of a double chamber in 1847, that it did not possess them now? Population, trade, revenue, had all increased. He admitted the proposal of 1847 had failed. But why? Because, together with the sound principle of a double chamber, the noble Earl unfortunately introduced into his Bill

1035
the indefensible system of a double election. When the measure was sent out to the colony, it was treated, as he (Lord Monteagle) hoped 'their Lordships would treat the Bill now before them if it remained unchanged—it was laughed to scorn. Both the constitutions for New Zealand and Australia were suspended or withdrawn; and their Lordships would do well to compel the noble Earl either greatly to amend, or to withdraw, the present Bill in like manner. He would next show their Lordships that the colonists themselves, as well as the governors of the colonies, were in favour of a double chamber. Sir Charles Fitzroy, as he had already shown. Sir William Denison, and Sir George Grey (the Governor of New Zealand), as he would show presently, had declared their opinions decidedly in favour of two chambers. Sir Henry Young, the Governor of South Australia, had, in like manner, declared the opinions of the colonists to be in favour of the ancient system of a governor and two chambers. Sir William Denison, the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, had written to the following effect on August 15, 1848:—
"Under the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, I should most strenuously recommend the adoption of a second or upper chamber. Your Lordship can hardly form an idea of the character of the population. There is an essentially democratic spirit, which actuates the large mass of the community, and it is with a view to check this spirit that I suggest the formation of an upper chamber. The members of this, call it senate, or what you may, will be raised in some measure above the general level of society, independent of popular blame or approbation, but also free from the suspicion of government control; they will conciliate popular feeling, and hold a fair position between the executive and the legislature. Government should have as little as possible to do in the nomination or selection of the members."
On the 28th of December, 1849, Sir William Denison again wrote:—
"I agree with the Privy Council, that it is undesirable to press a reform upon an unwilling or indifferent people; but I much doubt whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the people of New South Wales are unwilling to adopt two chambers. Indifferent they may be perhaps, but I submit, the welfare of the three colonies now about to be called into existence, might outweigh the indifference of New South Wales. I fear the proposed remedy of empowering the legislature to amend their constitution, by resolving single houses into two, will hardly meet the evil. It is not probable that they will originate a change to diminish their power, and tending to deprive each individual of the importance which attaches to himself. My opinion remains unchanged—every additional day adds to my conviction that it would be most desirable that when a change does take
1036
place, a second chamber should be constituted at once by Parliament. A large portion of the Members should be elected or rendered independent of the Government; otherwise they should hold for a long period, if not for life."
Sir George Grey, Governor of New Zealand, wrote on the 29th of November, 1848—
"That the reasons which induced him to recommend that the legislature should consist of two chambers were so obvious, that he need not trouble the Secretary of State with stating them."
Lord Grey having transmitted the despatch adopting a single chamber on the 3rd of August, 1848, to the Governor of South Australia, Sir Henry Young, on the 16th of November, 1849, described in the following terms Mr. Morphett's notice in favour of two chambers—the first nominated by the Crown and hereditary, the second elected. "These resolutions," he said, "may be described as a transfer to South Australia of the institutions of Great Britain, by which the grandeur of the empire has been enlarged and preserved." On the 17th of December, Sir H. Young communicated the resolutions adopted by the Council:—
"Two chambers, the upper chamber nominated for life, the second elected, with official heads of six departments, sitting and voting in right of office, without election. These recommendations favour the establishment of that early form of government, consisting of a governor and two chambers, which has prevailed in the older colonies, with the exception of New South Wales."
On the 22nd of December, 1849, he communicated the resolutions of Adelaide:—"Bill is generally approved of; but the federal assembly condemned, as well as the life nominees in the upper chamber." He (Lord Monteagle) had thus shown that all parties, including the noble Earl himself, were favourable to the system of a double chamber. But his noble Friend had taken a most extraordinary and unprecedented step to get himself out of the difficulties into which he had been plunged by his former experiments. He introduced a new principle unheard of before. He sought the aid of a Committee of the Privy Council to assist him in naming constitutions for the colonies, casting on them a responsibility which should have attached to himself alone. But he did not leave to those councillors the freedom of thought and action essential for offering sound advice. He had already prejudged the question, and committed the Government. The Committee of Council felt themselves bound by what the Secretary of State had already announced. He only allowed them to advise,

1037
so far as he was himself pleased to take their advice. It was, on the whole, the greatest farce ever performed. He wished to speak with the highest respect and consideration of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, of his excellent friend, Mr. Labouchere, of that most able and efficient public servant, Sir James Stephen, who had recently gone into an honourable retirement, after a life spent to the benefit of this country, and so greatly to his own credit, and of Sir E. Ryan, the Railway Commissioner. But of what avail were their high principles, their intellectual powers, or their varied information, when the noble Earl only consulted them with the intention of following their advice when it coincided with his own? To call in two members of his own cabinet to decide whether he was right in his former decision, as Secretary for the Colonies, was one of the most preposterous instances of unmeaning formality which he had ever heard of. The conduct of his noble Friend reminded him strongly of a couplet in Pope's "January and May"—
"Firm and determined in his mind was be,
As those who ask advice are wont to be."
The noble Earl asked the advice of his appointed councillors, having firmly determined in his own mind beforehand what course he would pursue. It was what Mr. Carlyle would call "a great sham," to call upon that Committee of Privy Council for advice when the noble Earl knew they could not give it freely. If he had failed altogether in his argument hitherto, he had one authority in reserve, which he felt should be conclusive with his noble Friend. What had been the last act of the Colonial Government in regard to new forms of constitution for the colonies? Why, this—The Secretary of State for the Colonial Department was called upon to give a form of government to the Cape of Good Hope. He had given it. The Cape was a Crown colony. The interference of Parliament was not required to settle the form of its constitution. The noble Earl was neither thwarted in his own endeavour nor driven into a different course by Parliamentary opposition. Yet into the constitution which he had devised for the Cape, he had avowedly introduced the principle of two chambers; he had done so of his own free will and seeking, and of his own preference, founded upon a recommendation from the Privy Council—a tribunal which, in that instance, left free and untrammelled, had recommended
1038
two chambers, as they would hare done in respect to Australia, had they been equally free to express their preference. Now, it followed either that the noble Earl was entirely in error with regard to the Cape, or that the circumstances which made two chambers desirable at the Cape, did not exist in other colonies. But what were the circumstances which distinguished the Cape from Australia at the time the new constitution was devised? The Cape was in open resistance to the law. Australia was tranquil and obedient. He had already upon a former occasion said that the resistance of the Cape colonists was altogether unjustifiable. They might have had fair grounds of complaint. Their interests might have been slighted and disregarded; but still he thought their open resistance to the law of the land was without excuse. They virtually imprisoned, and attempted to starve out the naval, military, and civil servants of the Crown, in order to compel the governor, and those colonists who differed from them, to submit to their dictation. This was altogether unjustifiable, even supposing their case to have been a very hard one. He, for one, never would have given his assent to the submission of the Government to such violent dictation. Yet it was to that colony of the Cape, which thus had triumphed over the noble Earl, the Government, and the Crown, that the noble Earl gave the boon of a legislature formed of two chambers; whilst to those colonists who had been obedient, peaceable, and loyal, he was prepared to refuse it. But there remained the question. Was there some little doubt in what manner this single chamber would work? He knew that it was not well to prophesy evil results from acts of the Legislature. Such prophecies had sometimes the effect of leading to their own accomplishment. He could not help looking forward with great alarm to the effects that might follow in one colony, from the example of successful violence in another. He dreaded to see the spirit of man roused to resistance. Since the days when the chests of tea were broken open and their contents thrown into the harbour of Boston, so fatal an example as that of the Cape had not been given. To yield to the rioters at the Cape that which they refused to a colony more advanced, more enlightened, and more fitted to deal with constitutional forms, he feared, could hardly fail to give rise to a deep feeling of discontent. A case had been cited on a former night

1039
which seemed to weaken his argument for two chambers. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) stated that a double chamber had been tried in 1832 in Newfoundland, and had been found wanting. Such was the case, but he must observe the circumstances were not analogous. The Newfoundland experiment was too rash a one to succeed. There was no property qualification, and the members were elected by almost universal suffrage. The consequence was that great confusion arose, and that Parliament suspended the existing form of government from 1842 to 1846—the two chambers were merged into one, and this charge succeeded: thus far his noble Friend was right. What since had happened? Why, in 1847 the double chamber was restored, and the government had worked there perfectly well ever since. He begged to apologise for having so long taken up the time of the House. He had dealt with facts, and with facts only, and those facts were, he believed, quite sufficient to establish the principle for which he was contending. He had not dwelt on the example of this country: it was unnecessary he should do. In defending two chambers in the assembly where he stood, it would be enough for him to say, as a summing up of his argument—Si argumentum quœris, circumspice. Would the noble Earl attempt to apply his doctrine of one assembly to the mother country? If he were not dealing with colonists, would he have attempted to refuse them the best constitutional form of legislature? He denied that the noble Earl was justified in endeavouring to establish his case, as he had done, by quotations from colonial newspapers. If newspapers were to settle the argument, he too could bring down colonial newspapers which dealt with his noble Friend and with his measures in a manner that he (Lord Monteagle) thought to be neither respectful nor just. But he denied that newspapers could safely be relied on as evidence in the case. He could refer to Australian papers expressing sentiments very different from those on which his noble Friend relied. His noble Friend should have sought more authoritative support. Why did not the noble Earl direct the governors of the different colonies to lay his Bill before their respective assemblies, and thus seek and obtain an authoritative declaration of the opinions of the colonies? In the absence of legislative declarations he was disposed to consult the petitions from Australia. If there
1040
was one argument, if there was one prayer which ran through the whole of the petitions and memorials he had presented, it was that their institutions should be assimilated to those of the mother country. They seemed—and long might they preserve the feeling!—they seemed still desirous to cherish an unbounded attachment to the mother country, an unshaken loyalty to the Crown. It was true that they had entreated the home authorities to make no alteration in their constitution without their consent. But under what circumstances was that request made? It was at a time when they had been frightened from their propriety by the acts of the noble Earl; when he had proposed to inflict upon the colonies that most desperate of all quackeries, the system of double election—providing that the people should elect municipal councils, who, in their turn, were to elect the assembly. It was when the colonists felt equal indignation and disgust at being insulted with that proposition, that they asked that nothing might in future be done without their own consent. But if the noble Earl assented to their principle, he could not justify the present Bill. If Parliament were bound to do nothing without the previous consent of the colonists, how could the noble Earl introduce so great a novelty as his proposed federal constitution; how could he justify that novelty, which had never been heard of in the Bill of 1842? But he did not think that mistrust and discontent would be called forth by the establishment of such a double chamber as he should recommend. He proposed that the upper as well as the lower house should be elective, the members being of a graver age, and elected for a longer period, than the members of the second chamber; in that way they would obtain a real conservative but at the same time a popular chamber. He would put it to his noble Friend himself, who had laid down so broadly the principle of responsible government—Did he feel very comfortable in anticipating the first burst of popular feeling upon any question at issue between the Home Government and the colonies, when that feeling came to be expressed by all the vehemence of a single representative chamber? Did he think there would be no advantage in having some intervening authority that would break the wave of popular feeling, before it burst in Downing-street? His noble Friend would obtain protection as well as guidance, the colonists would ob-

1041
tain wisdom from the counsel even of a numerical minority sitting in another chamber—a minority it might be in point of numbers, but not a minority in point of weight and experience. He would venture to prophesy that if the principle of a single chamber were adopted, invested with an unlimited power of varying their form of constitution, the new constitution that would be returned to this country would be a legislature formed of a single chamber, but excluding all nominees—in fact, a simple democracy, which he contended this Bill would give the colony an absolute power of creating; and he would say that no Secretary of State, and least of all the noble Lord who had expressed himself on the subject of responsible colonial government in a manner which he thought somewhat dangerous to himself and to the Government, would, after confering unrestrained powers, dare to interpose the Queen's prerogative to negative such a colonial act. He therefore called on their Lordships to weigh well the importance of this question, and to secure to the people of Australia the blessings of the constitution under which the mother country had flourished. He concluded by moving as an Amendment—
"After the words 'and be it enacted,' to insert the following words:—' That there shall be within each of the said colonies of New South Wales and Victoria a Legislative Council and a Representative Assembly.'"
EARL GREYwould not now occupy much of their Lordships' time, the greater part of the arguments having been previously disposed of. The noble Lord had gone very carefully and very elaborately into the abstract political question of the merit of one or two chambers; he had gone into an historical survey of the different forms of constitution in our ancient colonies, and those of the united States and other parts of the world; he had indulged in a good deal of criticism on his (Earl Grey's) measure—which criticism, at the proper time, there would, he believed, be no difficulty in answering—he had mixed up with it a good deal of very harmless banter, and some jokes which their Lordships might consider to be a little ponderous. The noble Lord had done all this, but in the whole course of his speech he had not even touched the real argument which he (Earl Grey) took the liberty last night of pressing upon their Lordships. The noble Lord had not shown how it was possible to adopt his views of dividing the legislature of New South Wales into two
1042
bodies without flying directly in the face of the recorded wishes of the colonists in this matter. The noble Lord had not ventured to deny that, from the petitions then upon their Lordships' table from all parts of the colony of New South Wales, it appeared that a unanimous resolution had been there carried, in which the colonists asked that no change, however small, should be made in their existing institutions without their previous assent being given. He (Earl Grey) had said on the previous evening, and he would not then repeat the argument, that when they once gave representative institutions to a colony, such a colony had a right to demand that no change should be made in those institutions without their concurrence; and he would repeat that he, for one, was not prepared to be the Secretary of State who should send out to those colonies a complete and total alteration of the system of government under which they now live, upon which alteration they had not been consulted. The noble Lord had said— "Introduce into these colonies our own institutions." That was very fine, but unhappily it was impossible to do so. A House of Lords existed in this kingdom; but it existed nowhere else on the face of the earth. It had grown up from the time of the Conquest; but it was an institution which they could no more create than they could create one of the magnificent oak trees which had been planted at the Conquest, and which were now crumbling into dust. He had showed their Lordships, on the previous evening, that the present system of government in the colony of New South Wales had worked well and satisfactorily; and upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, he asked their Lordships not to disturb it. The noble Lord had not attempted to pursue his argument, and therefore, without following him into his elaborate examination of the merits of two chambers, he (Earl Grey) would ask their Lordships to concede to him this plain and simple principle, that they should not disturb that which they found to work satisfactorily to the inhabitants of New South Wales, and to leave that constitution practically unaltered, except in those respects in which the colonists themselves had signified their desire for a change.
LORD ABINGERsaid, the inevitable consequence of giving the colonies a single chamber, and then giving that chamber the power of making such alterations in their constitution as they thought fit, would be that they would adopt, not the

1043
principle of a double chamber, but a single one with Government nominees excluded, making their constitution in fact a pure democracy. Some years ago he had much intercourse with people who were very conversant with the affairs of the colony of New South Wales; and from the information they gave him, he was assured there was a strong democratic feeling in New South Wales. There were two ways of governing that country; and, unfortunately, the noble Earl had chosen the worst of the two.
LORD LYTTELTONcould not admit that when the present constitution was granted to New South Wales, in 1842, it was ever intended to withdraw from this country the power of altering it without the consent of the colonists. It appeared to him that it was the duty of the mother country to give the colonies the best constitution which, under existing circumstances, could be prepared for them. Besides, the colonists had, over and over again, petitioned that the principles of the British constitution should be extended to them, and one of those principles was undoubtedly the existence of a double chamber. His noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey) had not dwelt to-night on an argument which, elsewhere, had had great stress laid upon it, that there were not the materials for a double chamber; but he contended that it would be of great advantage to lay down the principle, leaving the colonists to fill up the outline as their circumstances might warrant them. They were all agreed on the question that in the abstract a double chamber possessed a great advantage over a single one, and in addition to the other authorities on that subject that had already been quoted by his noble Friend, he would quote an extract from a work by the noble and learned Lord who had just left the House (Lord Brougham), That noble and learned writer, looking forward to a case of almost political perfection, said that legislation by a single chamber was less likely to be adopted the more enlightened communities became, and proceeded to show that the use of a double chamber was in preventing evils arising from overhasty decisions. In this view, therefore, he contended that it would be of great value to the future destinies of the colonies, that they should lay down the legislative machinery for a second chamber, leaving it to the colonies themselves to decide how that second chamber should be constituted. If the noble Earl's policy were carried out, not only would they have
1044
a single chamber now, but it would be impossible that they should ever have a double chamber, because there was no resisting the argument of Sir W. Denison, that it was not in the least likely that a single chamber would ever adopt the principle of a double chamber, which would operate as a check upon their own proceedings. He did hope, therefore, that the House would adopt his noble Friend's Amendment, leaving the details to be settled by the colonists themselves.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSconcurred with those who argued that a double chamber was, considered in the abstract, the more advantageous form of constitution; but it was a different thing to say what, in the abstract, ought to be, and to vote for an Amendment which would have the effect of disappointing the hopes held out to the colonies. His noble Friend, who moved the Amendment, told them that the object he had in view was the establishment of an elective double chamber. Now, it appeared to him that a fallacy ran through the whole circle of his noble Friend's speech in this respect. He spoke of making the colonial institutions identical with those of this country. But surely he did not mean to say that an elective upper chamber would bear any resemblance to the House of Lords? There could be no wider discrepancy than between an elective chamber and the House of Lords as it existed in this country; and yet the noble Lord insisted upon his proposition, in order to render the institutions of the colonies identical with those of the mother country. Then the noble Lord relied upon the despatches of the different governors as being in favour of his proposition; but no one could read the despatches of Sir Charles Fitzroy, Sir William Denison, or Sir Henry Young, without seeing that they never contemplated an elective chamber. What they wanted was a chamber of nominees, which would save them, in many cases, from the ungracious task of interposing their veto upon the acts of the legislature. And yet, notwithstanding this, his noble Friend had argued throughout as if the governors were in favour of a measure which, as the noble Lord who had last spoken (Lord Lyttelton) truly told them, had never been before the colonies at all. He looked with suspicion on the formation of a double chamber under existing circumstances, because he felt that if they took away the best men in the colony to form a second chamber, they would materially injure the character of the first;

1045
and it must be remembered that there were not many among the settlers who would be ready to give their gratuitous services in aid of the government of the colonies. Many of the settlers resided a thousand miles from Sydney; and it was impossible for them to leave their flocks, their herds, and their farms, and reside, for several months in the year together, at Sydney. The choice of representatives must be confined, for the most part, to the residents in Sydney, and its neighbourhood. The present system was adopted by Lord Stanley in 1842 as the one best adapted to the then existing circumstances of the country; and the noble Lord who had just sat down declared that it had worked well. If that were the case, he saw no reason for interfering with it.
LORD WODEHOUSE: The noble Earl (Earl Grey), in support of this measure, had alleged that the Australian colonies were so fond of their present form of constitution, that it would be quite gratuitous on the part of their Lordships to make any alteration in it, as such alteration must prove highly disagreeable to the inhabitants of those colonies. Now, what were the real facts of the case? From the papers which had been laid upon their Lordships' table, it appeared that they were simply these. In the year 1847, the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies proposed to introduce into New South Wales an entirely new constitution, similar, or very nearly so, to the constitution which had been given to New Zealand; and the consequence was such as might be imagined—a storm of indignation arose in the colonies, and remonstrances were sent to this country against the Government measures. They prayed that they might not be subjected to crude experiments. They objected to two chambers; but it must be borne in mind that it was not to the principle of two chambers that they objected, but simply to two chambers, one of which would be entirely nominated by the Crown. The colonies never had the simple question, whether two elective chambers were better than one, brought before them. The only question which they had to consider was, how they could place the nominees of the Crown in such a situation that they should be of the least possible obstruction to the elective members. The colonies required, very naturally, that the nominees should be mixed up with the representatives of the colonies, and that they should not form a separate chamber of themselves, as they would
1046
thereby be enabled to place a veto oh the proceedings of the representatives of the people. The colonies did not object to the principle of a second chamber; on the contrary, they distinctly prayed that their constitution might be assimilated as nearly as their circumstances would permit to the constitution of this country. And were not two elective chambers, representing the wants of the people in different ways, a much nearer resemblance to the spirit of the British constitution than this anomalous single chamber? But then their Lordships had been told, "Oh, all that is very true, but it was necessary that these colonies should have been trained to the exercise of representative institutions before you confer upon them the privileges of a double chamber." It was also objected that there were no materials in these colonies for two chambers; but if there were not materials for a second elective chamber, how could they find materials for nominees? How could they find persons of such influence as to be fitted, on the bare nomination of the Government, to control the votes of their elected colleagues in the same chamber? And it should be recollected that in the United States of America representative institutions had been granted to colonies of far less importance in population and wealth than the colonies in question. By the ordinance of 1787, for establishing a government in Ohio (which had been the basis of legislation on this subject ever since), it was provided that as soon as in any territory there should be 5,000 male inhabitants of full age, there should be established a legislature consisting of two elective chambers. And if their Lordships would take one of the latest examples, they would find that to the district of Oregon, by no means the most civilised portion of the united States, two chambers of legislature had been given, the first consisting of nine elective members, and the other of eighteen representatives of the people. And were they to be told that there was such a moral and intellectual inferiority in a colonial population, that the backwoodsmen of Oregon could afford materials for a senate, and they were not to be found in New South Wales, which, in 1848, exclusively of Port Phillip, had 170,000 inhabitants. As to the objection that such a senate would be too small for practical purposes, he need only point to the State of Delaware, where the senate consisted of only nine members, or New Hampshire, where it had twelve, as

1047
a refutation of their argument. He did not, however, agree with those who wished to establish an aristocracy in the Australian colonies; he did not think it likely aristocratical institutions would take root there: they were the result of long habit and old associations; but the necessity for a second chamber did not rest on these grounds. To prevent hasty legislation—to provide a nucleus of experienced members—and to combine together those conservative elements, always found in all populations, were the legitimate objects of a second chamber; which, he thought, might be attained by its members being fewer in number, with a higher property qualification, of greater age, and holding their office for a longer period. He thought if they passed this Bill in its present shape, they should commit a great error. If they believed, with him, that there were great and radical defects in this constitution—that in forcing it on the colonies they were about to forsake the tried paths of legislation—if they believed, with him, that they were about to disregard the experience of constitutional governments, and, above all, of the British constitution—if they believed that they were, by this Bill, about to give to the Australian colonies a constitution to which it was not safe to confide the interests either of the colonies or the empire at large, then they would adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend.
On Question,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-contents 22: Majority 2.

List of the CONTENTS.

EARLS.

Wodehouse

Fitzwilliam

Kinnaird

Waldegrave

Monteagle

Harrowby

De Tabley

Galloway

Abinger

Nelson

Redesdale

Romney

Lyttelton

Powis

Bayning

BISHOP.

Polwarth

Salisbury

Kenyon

LORDS.

Colchester

Bolton

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

MARQUESSES.

Stafford

Anglesey

BISHOP.

Lansdowne

Limerick.

EARLS.

BARONS.

Carlisle

Ashburton

Chichester

Beaumont

Granville

Byron

Grey

Camoys

Ilchester

Erskine

Lismore

Foley

Minto

Langdale

St. Germans

Overatone

Shaftesbury

Saye and Sele

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

MARQDESSES.

Minto

Anglesey

Morley

Lansdowne

Oxford

EARLS.

Scarborough

Chichester

Shaftesbury

Carlisle

BISHOPS.

Cowper

Limerick

Granville

Down

Grey

BARONS.

Harrowby

Abinger

Hehester

Beaumont

Lismore

Byron

1056

Camoys

Foley

Colborne

Langsdale

Erskine

Overstone

Eddisbury

Say and Sele

Resolved in the Negative.
On Clause 5, regulating the franchise,
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment for reducing the franchise to one-half the amount at which it stood at present in New South Wales; but as the noble Earl intended introducing a clause on that subject, he should beg leave to withdraw his Amendment. In consequence of the great proportion of convicts in New South Wales, a high qualification was considered necessary in 1842; but the same necessity did not apply to the other colonies.
EARL GREYconfessed that he had always thought the franchise in New South Wales too high; and the only reason the Bill was drawn as it stood was, that he did not wish to make any alteration in the existing state of things that could be avoided. However, as there was a very general feeling in favour of a reduction of the franchise, and as it was likely that the existing franchise would probably operate unfavourably at the first election in Victoria, he proposed to introduce the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, in a clause which he intended to submit for the approbation of the House.
Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 6 and 7.
On Clause 8,
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, by this clause it was provided that, no matter what the capacity, numbers, or intelligence of the population of Western Australia might be, yet they were not to have the benefit of a constitution until they were prepared to pay all their expenses. He thought this a most severe restriction, as it should be recollected that, until a comparatively recent period, an annual vote was passed by the Imperial Parliament towards the expenses of the Government of Canada. The best way to get a revenue, and to render taxation palatable, was to give good government to a country. Certainly Van Die-men's Land had, for some years back, been obliged to borrow to the amount of 40,000 l. to 50,000 l. a year; but surely that was no reason why it should not have a constitution.
EARL GREYsaid, it was no new principle that representative government and provision for the public expenditure should go hand in hand; on the contrary, it was as old as the British constitution. Until the people of the colonies were able to pay the expenses of their own civil government, they had no right to expect the advantages of representative government; the

1049
two should go together. Every one knew that, to the want of money by the Crown, and the necessity of obtaining it from the House of Commons, the growth of our own liberties, or at least their establishment and security by the sanction of specific laws, were owing. His noble Friend said we had gone on an opposite principle in the case of Canada, Most certainly, if he (Earl Grey) wanted an instance to make out his own case, he should fix on that. In Canada, Parliament created representative institutions, but at the same time enabled the colonial government for a long time to be carried on by means of lavish grants voted by the House of Commons; and the consequence was, that in that country representative government remained a farce and a delusion until the system was put an end to by the pressure of economical considerations on the Imperial Government. If, in 1791, we had thrown on Canada the burden of her own government at the same time that we created representative institutions, those institutions would have been a reality.
LORD MONTEAGLEcontended that the case of Canada offered no analogy to that with which their Lordships had now to deal. As to this country having formerly defrayed the expenses of colonial government, such things as colonial estimates still existed, and the salaries of West India governors, as the noble Earl well knew, were in some instances paid by this country.
EARL FITZWILLIAMthought that, although the withholding of a constitution might be right, the ground alleged for it was wrong. It was true that the power of the purse had given the House of Commons the means of exercising its functions; but the rights of the people were anterior to its origin, and this was a free country before the House of Commons furnished money to the Executive Government.
EARL GREYsaid, his statement was merely an historical one. If his view was practically true as regarded ourselves, which could not be disputed, he believed it also theoretically true as regarded the colonies. With respect to the salaries of governors, he thought it would be wise in all cases to pay them from the Imperial Treasury.
LORD LYTTELTONrejoiced that his noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey) should have come round to the views he now expressed as to the simultaneity of representative institutions and provision for public expenditure; for it was quite certain that at one period they had been very different. In 1846, when the Government to
1050
which he (Lord Lyttelton) had belonged were in office, the noble Earl pursued an entirely opposite course, being in favour of giving a representative constitution to Western Australia at once, before any step had been taken by the colonists to defray their own expenses.
Clause agreed to, as were the succeeding Clauses up to 13.
On Clause 14, charging the colonial revenues with expenses of collection, &c., subject to the regulations of the Commissioners of the Imperial Treasury,
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to know if any steps were to be taken for bringing this branch of the expenditure under the cognisance of the colonial legislatures?
EARL GREYconcurred in the opinion that the colonies should have the fullest information as to the whole of the expenditure, but thought it might lead to inconvenience to insert any provision on the subject in an Act of Parliament like the present. Hitherto the Imperial Legislature and Government had kept exclusively in their own hands the whole management of the customs establishments of the colonies. He had lately been in communication on this subject with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had very little doubt that they would be able to mature an arrangement by which very much greater control over their own customs establishments would be given to the local legislatures, still maintaining the principle, that the cost of collection should be paid out of the gross produce, laying at the same time the accounts of expenses before the legislature.
Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 15 to 24.
LORD LYTTELTONthen proposed to introduce the following clause:—
"That the Governors of Victoria, New South Wales. Van Diemen's Land, and South Australia respectively, with the advice of the Legislative Council, to be established in the colony under this Act, shall have leave to repeal all or any part of the Acts of 5 and 6 Victoria, and 9 and 10 Victoria, for the regulation of the sale of land or any Orders in Council issued by Her Majesty in pursuance of those Acts, or either of them, and to make further provisions for the management of the said waste lands and the appropriation of the revenue arising therefrom."
The noble Lord said, his object was to give the colonial legislature the power of dealing with the sale of the Crown lands, and especially with the price of them. With regard to Van Diemen's Land and South Australia, the value of the Crown

1051
lands was equal to the amount placed upon them by the Government, and he expected those colonies would not be disposed to meddle with the existing system; but he had been reluctantly brought to the conclusion that it was no longer possible to maintain through the whole extent of New South Wales and Port Phillip the existing price of unsold land at 1l. an acre. The extent of unsold lands in those colonies was so enormous, that, for an indefinite period it could not be suited for any other than pastoral occupation; and the franchise which the Government proposed proceeded entirely upon the fact of this kind of occupation. He contended that on this ground, it was expedient that the local legislatures should have the power he proposed to give to them. It was said, indeed, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to concede this power to the federal assembly. The whole principle, if that were the case, was then given up; the whole point of the Land Sales Act was conceded when the federal assembly was intended to be invested with this power. He might perhaps be told that the machinery of the federal assembly had been blown to the winds; but whether that was so or not, it had been proved to demonstration that they would never be able to deal satisfactorily with the power of selling waste lands. Such being the case. Her Majesty's Government now proposed to leave the existing law intact. He could not believe they meant long to abide by that position; but in the meantime he submitted that Parliament was ripe for giving this power into the hands of the colonial legislatures. Few more popular measures could be adopted. Few measures would more conciliate the feelings of the colonists towards the whole Bill as it stood; and he saw no reason for doubting that the legislatures of Victoria and New South Wales would not deal with the subject consistently with the interests of those colonies. That they would reduce the price of land he had no doubt; but he believed they would not be inclined to alter in any other respect the principle of the existing Land Sales Act. They would be willing, he expected, to retain the existing division of the funds arising from such sales—one portion being appropriated to local improvements, and the other to the promotion of emigration. But if they were not, it would still be in the power of Her Majesty's Government, through the Colonial Office, to re-
1052
fuse their assent to any measure offered to them. The particular point with the colonies, however, would no doubt be that of price. At the same time he should object to the price of land in New South Wales being reduced to a nominal amount. The question, then, was one of degree; and he contended that the colonial legislature would, upon such a subject, have the best means of arriving at the best decision. The chief practical difficulty in the way of their dealing with the question would be the vested rights and interests of individuals who had purchased at a higher rate — that was, supposing the price to be reduced. On this point he would only express his belief that the difficulty would be fairly met by the colonial legislatures; but at the same time he would add, that since the year 1842, when the Land Sales Act passed, the sales of land, both in New South Wales and Port Phillip, had been exceedingly few in number. The vested interests which could interpose any practical difficulty were therefore extremely limited. It had also been urged that the proposal to give over the unsold lands of the Crown to the colonies, was an absurdity, inasmuch as, owing to their extent, they were out of the reach of the colonies. Certainly not, was his reply. The reserve would still be in the hands of the Crown. The practice had always been that the amount of land, such as could be easily ascertained, was, in nearly all the colonies, in the power of the colonies themselves to deal with; but at the same time he admitted it would be important, if his proposal should be adopted, that boundaries should be accurately defined. Entertaining these views, he should submit the clause which he had read, hoping by it to give the colonies practically the power of reducing the price, if they should think fit, of the unsold Crown lands.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not concur in the proposition of his noble Friend, because if the House adopted it, the greatest blow would be given to the future prosperity of all the Australian colonies. Up to the year 1831 the practice had been to grant lands to all applicants under certain rules and conditions. The object of those rules was to endeavour, as far as possible, to prevent land being claimed by parties who really did not belong to them. To accomplish that, a regulation was required that the amount of grant should be in proportion to the capital possessed by the settler, the grant to be resumable unless

1053
there was a certain amount of improvement upon the land. But, practically, all these useful regulations were a dead letter, for they were evaded in a manner which it was impossible by any vigilance to prevent. It was, therefore, suggested that, instead of giving land away, it ought to be sold, and the proceeds applied so as to increase the value of the land to the real settler, and to assist the emigrant. When the prices were settled under Lord Ripon's regulations, the greatest discontent was, no doubt, caused in the colonies; but the beneficial effect of the new system soon became obvious. In 1840 the whole subject was brought under the consideration of a Select Committee, and after a very long, full, and patient inquiry, that Committee came to the conclusion that the prices of land ought to be raised, but that in order to induce persons to purchase more largely, a parliamentary security ought to be afforded to them against the prices being subsequently reduced. This view was adopted by the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, and then the Colonial Secretary, but he did not remain in office long enough to carry it out. His noble Friend, however, (Lord Stanley), who succeeded him, brought in a Bill in 1842, founded on the report of the Committee, and, with the object of guaranteeing to future purchasers that their property should not be reduced in value, provision was made for the permanent fixing of a minimum price, and very large sales subsequently took place. He wished, indeed, to call their Lordships' especial attention to the effects which had resulted from the policy thus adopted. Their Lordships would recollect that it was in 1831 that the scheme was adopted of selling land, and applying the proceeds to emigration. Since that period eighteen years ago—there had been realised by land sales no less than 2,500,000 l., all of which was expended in furtherance of emigration. Previously to the time in question the emigration to our Australian colonies consisted only of convicts and small numbers of persons in the superior classes of life. The lowest sum at which a passage—a steerage passage—could be obtained, amounted to upwards of 40 l., whereas, at the present time, a person could be conveyed to the colonies in question at an expense of from 12 l. to 14 l., and with infinitely superior accommodation. Well, the number of persons sent out by means of this 2,500,000 l., amounted in the eighteen years to 117,000 souls. Nor
1054
was this all. The indirect effects of the system were to encourage voluntary emigration, which was carried on to the extent of 61,750 persons, making a grand total of 179,350 souls. Under these circumstances he had to ask the House not to shake the confidence of purchasers in the value of the commodity offered to them for sale. If they did so, the result would be seriously to check the tide of emigration, which, as he had shown, was setting so strongly towards the Australian shores. But there was still another party interested—a party formed by the general body of the British public at home. He maintained that the Crown lands were domains held by the Crown as trustee for the benefit of the great bulk of Her Majesty's subjects, and that it was of the greatest importance that they should not be engrossed by a few persons to the detriment of future purchasers. He found, however, that were the prices of the lands to be now lowered, they would be bought up by speculators to hold until the gradually increasing population enhanced the value of land, and then to be resold at a corresponding advance of prices. One of the arguments in favour of the proposition before the House was, that that proposition was popular in the colonies themselves. He did not, however, by any means admit that this was the case. He believed, on the contrary, that public opinion was much divided upon the point; that in South Australia the general feeling was in favour of the maintenance of existing laws as to land prices; while even in New South Wales a considerable diversity of opinion existed. He believed, indeed, that the legislative council of that colony would not now support the report of a committee of their body, made in favour of a reduction of price. The resolution against the present minimum of price come to by the council in 1846 showed that there were only ninety-seven representatives in favour of reduction, the great body of the majority being made up of nominee members. He repeated, however, that he had every reason to believe that the report of the committee to which he had alluded did not embody the opinion of the council, or that of the colonial public. Their Lordships had had some experience of committees, and knew how very generally it happened that the formal opinion pronounced by a committee was in reality the opinion of its most active and influential member. He need only allude in conclusion to the petition most numerously signed by the squat-

1055
ter class in the colony, against any lowering of the price of lands, and to appeal to their Lordships if the system had produced the results which he had demonstrated—if under and by means of it, Australia had grown from being a mere convict settlement into the dignity and power of a nation—he appealed to them not to endanger or to change a course of policy, of which the results had been so uniformly advantageous.
LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the Amendment. The system which his noble Friend had subverted was most vicious, and he deserved the thanks of the country for its abolition. But it did not follow that the system which he wished to introduce was a good or a beneficial one. The great argument which had been urged in favour of the proposition of his noble Friend was, that a large fund would be raised by the sale of those lands for local purposes, and for the promotion of emigration. But he contended that the sale of those lands would never realise the expectations of his noble Friend. It was a matter of great interest to the people. The noble Lord admitted that they were entitled to deal with the matter, yet he practically refused to them the privilege which he acknowledged in theory was their indisputable right. In the year 1842 a report was adopted condemning the land system. In the year 1844 another report was adopted of a similar effect; but before that was agreed to, a circular was sent round to the magistrates, who all concurred in it. In the year 1846 there was a resolution in council condemning the system; and in the year 1849 the present report was adopted. He entreated their Lordships to act upon the principle which they had hitherto adopted, to give the local legislature the power of acting for themselves, and to support the Amendment.
LORD LYTTELTONreplied.
On Question,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Non-Contents 28: Majority 10.
Resolved in the Negative.
The BISHOP of OXFORDthen rose to move the insertion of a clause, the object of which was to relieve the Established Church in the colonies from the restrictions imposed by the statute laws passed to regulate the Church since the Reformation. He felt the less embarrassment in doing so, because of the statement to which he had listened with so much satisfaction on the previous evening, that Her Majesty's Government were ready to listen to any reasonable suggestion to extend the spiritual power of the Church of England. The present position of the Church was this—that all the laws and ordinances affecting her, and in force when the colonies were founded, became binding on the colonial clergy. It was foreseen when bishops were first appointed for the colonies that it would be necessary to provide some machinery by which those things so easily done in England could be effected in the colonies, and power was accordingly given in the patents of the first bishops to enable them to hear and examine witnesses and to exercise the ordinary episcopal powers in their own courts. It was found, however, the first time those powers were put to the proof, that the authority of the bishops was disputed; and in reference to the highest law authorities at home it had been decided that in advising Her Majesty to insert those powers in the bishops' patents, they had exceeded the just limits of the Crown's prerogative, and had gone beyond the powers they could properly convey in those instruments. The words conferring those powers were now withdrawn from the patents, and the position of the Church was this—that it was utterly impossible for the bishops or clergy to make any rules for their own internal management, because no such rules could be enforced without the authority of the Crown, and by one of the canons it was prohibited even to discuss them. Nay, more, it was impossible to make any rules binding on the members of the Church, even by their own consent. Now, these were no fanciful evils. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) last night had referred to the authority of a rev. gentleman to show that the colonial, and not the Imperial Legislature, was the quarter where those evils ought to be redressed. With the noble Earl's leave, he would quote the

1057
valuable evidence of the chaplain to the Bishop of Tasmania to give their Lordships some idea how the law had operated, and how far the Church of England was entitled to look to the Legislature for redress:—
"As chaplain to the Bishop of Tasmania from 1843 to 1848, and having, either previously or subsequently, visited the other Australian colonies, I have seen many serious disorders and inconveniences arising from this anarchy and want of due regulation."
In a memorandum, to show the evils of the want of discipline, he said—
"On the removal of doubts concerning the right of the bishop, clergy, and lay members of the Church of England in an Australian diocese to make regulations by consent among themselves for the better conduct of their local ecclesiastical affairs, the doubts which it is proposed to remove cause much embarrassment to the members of the Church of England in the Australian colonies; and, as the Government have now determined to give the colonists the initiative in proposing their own civil constitution for the sanction of the Crown, it seems reasonable to extend to them the same freedom of action in ecclesiastical affairs, or rather to remove the doubts which hinder the members of the Church of England from assuming the freedom which other denominations already exercise with advantage. Nine years' intimate experience of the most recent proceedings of our Church in those parts convinces me that the internal affairs of the Church of England and Ireland in the Australian colonies are now in a state of almost complete anarchy; because the ecclesiastical law and courts of England will not work there, and there are no lawful means of making local regulations by consent. The Tasmanian letters patent authorise the bishop 'to proceed to final sentence in due form of law 'with criminous clerks. But' no tribunal exists which has power to try and convict a chaplain,' says the Registrar of Tasmania (19th July, 1845). The Bishop of Australia (now Sydney) endeavoured to proceed with the consistorial court, which the old letters patent of Australia seemed to sanction, but he could not. In his protest (1836) he stated the serious inconvenience resulting from these doubts: 'The bishop has no opportunity of stating, in the face of the Church, the grounds upon which his judgment is formed, and the party condemned is deprived of the benefit of an appeal;' all which was afterwards verified in the experience of the Bishop of Tasmania, who deprived Messrs. Wig-more and Bateman of their licenses pro arbitrio suo. The ecclesiastical laws of England were not very applicable to the colonies; and doubts existed almost in every case which arose, whereby their application was in practice forbidden. I have before me the opinion of Mr. Home, Attorney General of Van Diemen's Land (May 20, 1845), stating the objections against extending the improved English Church Acts to the colonies; which objections were acted upon. The same authority said that there was not in these colonies a single preferment in the sense of the English statutes; so that the power given to the bishop in the new letters patent of Sydney, 'to give institution to benefices' which do not exist—'to call before him the clergy,' who need not come—' to have
1058
full power and authority to affirm, reverse, or alter the judgment, sentence, or decree 'of inferior ecclesiastical courts, which cannot be enforced; all these provisions are nugatory and perplexing to all parties concerned. The Church of England in the Australian colonies cannot at present make or enforce local regulations for want of some removal of doubts which exist as to her power to do so. 'The Churches of Rome and Scotland,' said Mr. Harrison, the Registrar of Tasmania (July 18, 1845), 'are not amenable to the temporal courts in this colony for any ecclesiastical judgment passed or discipline exercised by their respective heads; they, however defective they may be in law, are yet final, and are not open to further legal censure, nor can the clergy of those churches harass their ecclesiastical superiors by appeals to the superior courts here, or to the Privy Council at home; whilst the judgments of the Church of England, however just and equitable, however founded upon notorious facts and admitted delinquency, if they are not conducted in strict accordance with the ecclesiastical law, are open to appeal both here and at home, to mandamus, and to sundry vexatious proceedings. Nay, if they be even legally correct, experience has proved that they are not secure from attempts to reverse them through the medium of the civil power (that is, the Secretary of State). Instances might be multiplied in proof of the doubts which enveloped all the relations of the Church of England in these colonies—doubts which could only be removed by the wholesome action of local experience and discussion."
He went on, in another paper, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, to show how all attempts to give the Church of England full scope, and extend her usefulness, had failed. The bishop tried, for instance, to hold home visitations—he was utterly unsuccessful. Again, he attempted an ordinary visitation, but, from the absence of all power in his hands, he was obliged to abandon it, as he could not procure the attendance of his clergy. In one instance the bishop called the clergy together to consider the affairs of the Church; but they told him they had nothing to do with the matter—had no power to interfere—did not wish to be mixed up with it, and that they would leave him to manage it himself. Another case was mentioned by this gentleman, to which he begged their Lordships' attention. It was this: the Bishop of Tasmania, thinking there was not sufficient service in his own cathedral church of St. David's, determined to give a service himself on every Saturday evening, from which he believed great advantages would arise to the inhabitants. The officiating clergyman, thinking this interference an indignity, ordered the churchwarden to lock the gates. The bishop, who was very popular with the inhabitants, came down to the church attended by a large congregation, who, on

1059
finding what had occurred, became violent, and threatened to break in the doors, whereupon the churchwarden unlocked them. It was found, however, impossible to settle the question finally, or to lay down any rules which would be attended to; and the consequence was that it was left to be determined every time by brute force whether the Bishop of Tasmania was to preach in his own cathedral or not. The last statement with which he should trouble their Lordships was one not less remarkable:—
"The Bishop of Tasmania was desirous to divide Hobart Town into four parishes; but, at a meeting of the clergy concerned, whom he had summoned to concert a plan with him, one retired, after having protested against the whole proceeding. The rest remained, and voluntarily followed the wishes of the bishop, which were reasonable enough; but great doubts hang over this parochial division, and it is set at nought with impunity."
Such were the evils that resulted from the impossibility of combined action. He did not wish to exaggerate the evils to which the members of the Church of England were subject in the colonies in making internal regulations, even by consent, or the restrictions and difficulties to which they were exposed. He had been lately told by an intelligent gentleman that it was impossible to conceive the state of the Colonial Church, and that the simple fact of its being known that every clergyman held his office by the mere ipse dixit of the bishop, without any rule or control, as well as the feeling that the clergy did not stand in the same position as the clergy at home, and on an equally sound and ascertained footing, had a most material effect on their status, and lowered their standard of usefulness. It was the opinion of the most eminent legal authorities that all the laws which affected the clergymen of the Church of England in this country affected them in the colonies also. The restraining clauses which subjected the clergy of the Church of England to fine and imprisonment if they laid down laws for their own government, applied to all the clergy subject to the province of Canterbury; and in the letters patent of the colonial bishops it was provided that the bishop and his clergy should be subject to the see of Canterbury; and therefore they were placed under the same restraining enactments as the clergy of that see; but they were not given the same power in local matters, and did not enjoy the force of a body of rules carried up by prescription from generation to generation, and acted on in every diocese at home.
1060
None of the cases he had quoted could arise here: they were all provided for by the regular course of church discipline, and by the growth of those prescriptive rules of which he had spoken. The Church of England was hampered, while other churches were left free. To the clergy of other churches—grave, zealous, and earnest men, as he rejoiced to know—they had given freedom, while they bound the members of their own Church. They gave them just so much of ecclesiastical law as would impede them, but not enough to make the position of the Church intelligible, or her ministration effective. That then was the evil to be remedied. And the clause he proposed to insert provided, that when members of the Church of England—bishops, clergy, and laity—assembled together, and, by consent, laid down rules for their internal government, it should be impossible for those who had consented to those rules afterwards to appeal against them to courts at home. He had been assured by lawyers of the highest authority there was nothing objectionable in the clause. The effect of intrusting members of the Church of England in the colonies with the right he proposed, would be that they would be left to make some rules for their own internal government. These would be tested by experience, and if they were found to succeed, application might be made to the colonial legislature for their sanction. The time was not now come for that. What he asked their Lordships to do was, what the colonial legislature could not do—what concerned not local but imperial law—to set their co-religionists free from certain consequences of imperial legislation. It was a point to which Black-stone had adverted, that although all the laws relating to the church courts were valid in the colonies, yet reason and experience prevented their enforcement there, because they were not suited to colonial life. All that the clause proposed to do was to remove the doubt which existed, the illegality which he believed existed, in regard to doing what could be done by all bodies of religionists, but which could not be done by members of the Church of England. These restraining laws did not apply to other bodies at home; but owing to the connexion at home between the Church and the State there was a jealousy, and the Church was restrained. But what their Lordships were asked to do was, not to apply that restraint under circumstances where there were none of the escapes from

1061
the mischievous effects which might be found to exist at home. It was said, what was asked to be done, ought to be done by the colonial legislature only. But it was not a matter for their colonial legislatures, for it did not touch colonial but imperial legislation. The object was to set free from the chain of imperial legislation those who were members of the Church of England. Then it was said, they ought not to attempt to claim in that part of the world the powers of a dominant church for the Church of England, but rather trust to the purity of her faith and her spiritual power. He entirely agreed in that opinion; and if there were anything in the clause which went contrary to it, he begged their Lordships to believe he would not be the man to propose it for their adoption. But it was in the spirit of that objection that he proposed the clause. The clause was purely permissive; it proposed to give no power to the Church of England in the colonies which the members of the Church of Rome and the Presbyterian body did not enjoy. It gave them no superiority; it gave them power merely to draw up such interior rules for their own conduct which they were restrained from drawing up by their anomalous connexion with the restrained Church at home. It was not settling a home question in settling a colonial question. The difference was perfectly plain. When a colony was first founded, there was the same difficulty, at first, in knowing how far the temporal laws of the mother country would apply to the colony. How was that question settled? It was very soon settled. Some representative assembly was called together which proceeded to make internal laws. Courts were instituted. An incidental code of legislation began to be made, marking, however, what were the laws of the mother country. There was the same need in respect of spiritual legislation; and the question was settled precisely in the same way, by allowing members of the religious body to meet and agree among themselves as to the necessary rules for guidance in their own spiritual affairs—which rules being established in practice, application might be made to the colonial legislature for their sanction. The concern of Parliament was to set the churches in the colonies free from the embarrassment of their anomalous connexion with the Church at home, which gave them neither rule nor freedom. Again, it was objected that there was
1062
danger lest the churches in the colonies, possessing such powers, should adopt a new faith, and separate from the Church at home. But if the proviso appended to the clause were considered, that danger would be found to be guarded against, The oath of allegiance was required to be taken, and the Thirty-nine Articles to be signed, by parties admitted to any see or pastoral charge. The liberty and licence given were to be given within the definite restrictions which limited the Church of England at home. It was not proposed to give power to alter a single Article, or to touch the Liturgy. The objections to the clause fell absolutely to the ground. The expression, "declared members of the Church of England," had a second intention, and was meant to apply to those who claimed to themselves the privileges of the Church of England in their application to the Government—so bringing themselves under the description. It was alleged that, whatever might be said to the contrary, the proposed clause would place members of the Church of England in a position of advantage over others. What, candidly and judiciously weighing the matter, was the effect of the words which clothed the last proviso? It was declared that these regulations should not have any other effect than the regulations, laws, or usages of other churches or religious communities in the same colonies. If there were force in language, that to which objection was taken was specially guarded against it. If it were possible to suggest any form of words which could more effectually attain the object he had in view, the proposal would be hailed with pleasure by him, and not only by him, but by numbers out of that House, who had heard it said last night by the Government that they were really and honestly sincere in the desire to aid the Church of England in working herself free—not gaining new power from the State—for the exercise of her own inherent spiritual power in a way beneficial to herself and not injurious to others. The only objection that he remembered to the clause was, that however good it might be, it was not right to introduce such a clause in a special Act, but that it would be more convenient to make it part of a general Act, applying to all the colonies of Great Britain. For his own part he thought that the noble Earl was perfectly right in temporal matters not to propose one grand scheme for the whole of the colonies; and he would apply the same principle to the

1063
spiritual rule of the colonies, because a mode of legislation which might be wise and just with regard to one, might be very unwise and unjust with regard to another. To say the contrary, was, he thought, really to attempt by a side wind to get rid of all legislation upon the subject. He begged their Lordships, in considering this clause, to give it that fair weight which an attempt to meet a great practical evil pressing on the most important interests of the colonies deserved at their hands. He begged them—without distinct and sufficient cause shown—not to continue to the colonies that which was a sore and ever-present restraint upon those spiritual energies which for their Lordships' sake and the sake of the colonies it was most important they should set at liberty and strengthen. He begged to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice.
EARL GREYhoped that the right rev. Prelate would not insist on that occasion upon pressing the House to come to a decision on this subject. He was far from the opinion that the matter alluded to was not an evil that required to be redressed. It was, however, one of very great difficulty, and he was sure they could not safely meet it by introducing a single clause of the nature he held in his hand. A near examination of the clause would show how extremely defective it was, and how impossible it would be to create powers of the kind proposed without going further, and declaring by whom and in what manner those powers were to be exercised. They were going by the proposed clause to create neither more nor less than a legislative authority in the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate had told them that he had guarded it carefully with certain provisoes. That might be true; but still it would create a legislative authority, which might lay down an interpretation of the Articles, and of the Book of Common Prayer, in accordance with their own views; and what would the right rev. Prelate say if in some case the majority were to decide in support of the views on a most important question held by Mr. Gorham? Yet there was nothing in the clause to prevent such an interpretation being so authoritatively imposed in that colony. Then, again, they should look at who were the persons to whom that large authority was to be confided. They were to be the "clergy and lay persons being declared members of the said Church," &c., and then came the words.
1064
"severally and respectively." What was the meaning of that? Were the clergy to meet in one house, and the laity in another? and was the consent of both necessary to make these regulations binding? or were they to meet together? He confessed he was unable to construe the words. In fact, he felt convinced that they could not by a clause of this description deal with a difficulty of the nature it was meant to obviate. It was of the utmost importance that they should avoid clashing with the colonial legislature; but he was quite certain, from what he knew of the temper with which the colonies viewed these matters, that, let them do what they pleased, or say what they could, if they introduced a special provision of the kind proposed into this particular Bill, it would be considered that it was intended, in some way or other, to overrule the colonial legislature. He hoped, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate would not put them to the pain of a division, but would consent to reserve the subject for more general and deliberate consideration.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYexpressed his intention to support the clause proposed by his right rev. Friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that, if the noble Earl would go somewhat further than he had gone in the speech he had just de lievered, and promise that the Government would not only give a fair and candid consideration to any measure that might be proposed, but really take it in hand as a matter properly belonging to them, it would, under such circumstances, be desirable to meet such a proposition, and not proceed to a division. While he admitted that the question had been met by the Government in a kind and gracious manner, still he thought the noble Earl had in his speech gone rather farther than he might have done in pointing out difficulties which of course were to be urged against every important measure, no matter of what description it might be. He was not prepared to say that there were not difficulties in the way, for unquestionably there were difficulties; but if the Church of England laboured under disadvantages by the action of the Imperial Legislature, it was the duty of those who were the advisers of Her Majesty carefully to enter into a consideration of those difficulties, with a view to their abolition or mitigation. The noble Earl had said that the object of the clause was to give legislative authority to the Church. However, the noble Earl was

1065
much mistaken, for its only object was to give the Church of England that power to regulate its affairs which was possessed by every other religious denomination. On these grounds he would support the insertion of the clause; while, at the same time, he admitted that, if the Government would undertake a general measure, he would rather leave the matter in their hands.
The BISHOP of LIMERICKsaid, that the clause would mix up the clergy and laity in an extraordinary manner, and that any disputed questions which arose would be determined by the majority. It was true the clause provided that such questions should be referred to the metropolitan; but the delay which would occur from the difficulty of communication would only tend to augment the angry feelings and passions that might have been excited, and would lead to discord and confusion. He (the Bishop of Limerick) could not, therefore, vote for the clause, and he would recommend his right rev. Friend not to press his Motion to a division, but to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the hope that this and other important questions might be considered under more favourable circumstances of quietness and peace. He was anxious beyond all things for the peace of the Church, and, therefore, under existing circumstances, he conceived that they were peculiarly called upon to act with the greatest circumspection.
The EARL of HARROWBYregarded the clause rather as embodying a declaration of opinion than as a measure of legislation. He hoped his right rev. Friend would not press this clause on the present occasion, but that an opportunity would be afforded of fully considering the position of the Church of England, in the colonies. That question, he thought, ought to receive the careful consideration of the Government and the Legislature.
The EARL of CHICHESTERadmitted the unsatisfactory state of the law as it at present stood, and hoped something would be done to remedy it; but he doubted whether the clause proposed by the right rev. Prelate would produce the desired effect. He suggested that there should be a revision of the entire state of the law in the colonies, so far as the Church was concerned.
The BISHOP of DOWN and CONNORsaid, the simple question was, whether the proposition of the right rev. Prelate was sufficient to remedy the evils which were acknowledged on both sides of the House
1066
to exist. He was afraid that the clause as it now stood was not sufficient in itself, and he should should feel obliged to oppose it.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, what the right rev. Prelate wished to do was simply to place the Church in the Colonies on the same footing as the Church of England was in the United States. He had heard nothing to induce him to withdraw his support from the clause; but at the same time he would put it to the right rev. Prelate, whether, under the circumstances, he would press the matter to a division?
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the question was one which he thought it was impossible any one except the Government could deal with in a satisfactory manner. He should wish to hear from Her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared to appoint such a commission of able lawyers and theologians as the right rev. Prelate had alluded to, with a view of inquiring into the condition of the Church in the colonies?
EARL GREYsaid, after what had taken place that night, it was obvious that an inquiry should be instituted as to the best mode of proceeding on this question. He felt the deepest interest in the subject, but he could not undertake at that moment to give a specific answer to the question just put to him.
The BISHOP of OXFORDhoped the noble Earl would tell them what sort of inquiry he proposed, and whether he intended it should take place this Session or not. He should like to hear something more definite than what he had heard from the noble Earl.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, there was a clear and practical grievance as regarded the Church in Australia, and with a full expression of that feeling, he thought it was hardly fair to press the Government any further; and it was unfair when the right rev. Prelate had so long given his attention to the subject—after he had been in frequent communication with the members of the Church in those colonies—it was too much when the right rev. Prelate believed he was fully prepared on the subject, to expect that at twenty-four hours' notice the Government should be ready with any definite plan. On these grounds, then, he ventured to think that his noble Friend had gone as far as any one could be expected to go without consulting the Government. He thought that his noble Friend had gone quite far enough when he stated that the question brought

1067
under the notice of the House was a fit subject for inquiry, without stating the nature of that inquiry. It would be impossible for him to do so then, for the grievance must be ascertained and investigated before it could be redressed, and before they could state what would be the practical nature of the remedy to be applied; but this he might venture to assure the House, that it would be inquired into at no distant period, that there would be no unnecessary delay, and that the inquiry would be rendered most effectual, whether conducted by a commission or otherwise.
The EARL of POWISobserved, that the right rev. Prelate was entitled to expect that the noble Marquess would give the assurance which the House had heard, namely, that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government; and it was not too much to expect, on the part of the members of the Church of England, that the Government should take the matter in hand.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsuggested that a few words might be introduced declaratory of this, that the disabling Act which bound the Church in England should not extend to or bind the Church in the colony. If they agreed to that, he should not press his proposition any further.
EARL GREYobserved, that it was true that what the right rev. Prelate suggested could not be regarded as open to the same objection which a different Motion might have been; but he could not consent to place the Church in Australia on a different footing from that on which it stood in this country.
The BISHOP of OXFORD, after the general assurance which he had received that the grievance was to be inquired into, said he should not press his Motion any further. He, however, earnestly desired that the Government would introduce such a clause as he had suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Friday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.