Sitting of 29 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°Ballot. 3° Medical Charities (Ireland).

CASE OF ANN HICKS.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwished to ask the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, whether Ann Hicks held a house in Hyde Park by the gift of George II., or by what tenure she occupied the house from which she had been evicted; and also whether the noble Lord had per-

1681
mitted any other house to be erected in the Park?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state, that Ann Hicks did not hold any house by the gift of George II., or of any other. Royal personage at all. The first time he (Lord Seymour) ever heard of her claim to a house as the gift of any Royal personage was a few weeks ago. In 1843, Ann Hicks, like several other persons, had a little stall where she sold apples and gingerbread in the park. Previous to that she had occupied one of the old conduits there. She subsequently wrote to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and requested leave to build a place to lock up her ginger-beer bottles in; and, after some correspondence with the Commissioners, they told her she might have a wooden stand, the same as some persons had near where the cows are kept in St. James's Park. Shortly afterwards she wrote to the Commissioners again, saying she was very much obliged by their reply, but that she should like to build her stall of brick instead of wood, as a wooden one was insecure, and liable to be broken open; but in all those applications she never made any allusion to any Royal gift, but always rested her claim on her having fifteen children to support. After some time the Commissioners allowed her to make her stand of brick instead of wood. Having got that leave, she wrote to the Commissioners, and said that her stand was not quite large enough, and she wished to make it larger, as she had so many ginger-beer bottles she did not know where to put them. The Commissioners gave way to her, and said she might make her stand five feet high, but no higher. She then wrote again in the following year, and said that she was very much obliged for the little but she had got, and that it was a great accommodation to her, and that she had not the least wish to make a residence of it; but that if the Commissioners would allow her to have a little fireplace in it, it would he of great use to her to make a cup of tea. The Commissioners resisted that, and told her they could not allow her to have a fireplace; that her but was a place merely allowed her to put by her bottles in, and that she must not use it as a residence. She again wrote to the Commissioners, saying that the roof of her shed wanted repair, that the rain came in, and might she be allowed to repair it and keep the rain out? The Board told her she might repair it so as to
1682
keep the rain out, but that she must make no alteration in it. However, shortly afterwards the Commisioners found that the but had a roof and a chimney. When he (Lord Seymour) came into office, in 1850, the but not only had got a roof and chimney, but there was a little garden to it, with hurdles round. Ann Hicks said, the hurdles were put up because it was so disagreeable to have people looking in at her window. His attention was called to the matter from the frequent disputes between the authorities of the park and Ann Hicks. The hurdles were continually advancing and encroaching on the park. She was told to put them back; but she made so much noise and abuse about it, that none of the park authorities cared to meddle with her. They all gave him very bad accounts of her. He also asked a gentleman who was connected with the management of the park, though not with his (Lord Seymour's) department, and he gave him an account equally unfavourable of Ann Hicks. Upon that he thought it time that some proceedings should be taken against her, because it was quite unusual to allow any residence in the park. The law was decidedly against it; and he was also told that if they sanctioned this for a few years, there would be great difficulty, eventually, in removing her. Before he took any step, however, he wrote to the Duke of Wellington, as ranger of the park; and his Grace, with that consideration which he gave to the minutest details, wrote him word that he was coming to town and would inquire into the whole case. Accordingly, when his Grace came to town, he wrote to him (Lord Seymour), and said he ought to apply for legal advice, and remove Ann Hicks from the park at once. He then referred all the correspondence to the solicitors of the office, and Ann Hicks was served with a notice to remove; but he told her, that if she would go from the park and not give them any trouble, he would take care that some allowance should be made to her. But she would not go; she said it was her ground, and that nothing could remove her. He then gave directions that proceedings should he taken to remove her, and she would not move until those proceedings were actually taken. She then wrote again to the Commissioners, and said that she owed a small debt of 6l. or 7l. for the repairs of her cottage, but she said nothing of a Royal gift. He thereupon told her that if she went, she should have 5s. a week for the next year, and that would secure her a house in lieu of

1683
the one to which she had no legal right. He also gave her some money at once to pay for the repairs; but a builder afterwards called upon him and said that she owed him his debt for the repairs of the cottage still. In fact, instead of paying the debt with the money he (Lord Seymour) had given her, she spent it in getting some placards printed and placing them about the park, charging the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with hardship and oppression towards her. As to any other cottage being erected in the park, the only one be was aware of was the cottage proposed to be built by Prince Albert as a model cottage. When it was built, he, (Lord Seymour) said it could not be allowed to remain, and his Royal Highness promised that it should be taken down next November.
LORD DUDLEY STUART: Will the noble Lord state how many years this cottage of Anne Hicks was built?
LORD SEYMOUR: In 1843 she commenced building her place of brick instead pf wood.
MR. WAKLEY: Would she have been ejected if the Crystal Palace had not been erected?
LORD SEYMOUR: Her ejection had nothing whatever to do with the erection of the Crystal Palace.
Subject dropped.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he should move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, on that day three months. He much regretted that such a Bill should have been introduced at so late a period of the Session. The object of this Bill was to continue the present Commission, and to give the Chairman a salary of 1,000 l. a year. There were several other subjects, such as the supply of water and the question of interments, which with that now before them were branches of one great question, and should all be dealt with together upon some comprehensive plan; but he was sorry to see that Her Majesty's Government did not at present show any intention to do so. The business of this Commission was conducted in the loosest manner, and he thought it was not right that the ratepayers of the metropolis should be taxed to the extent they were by an irresponsible body like this Commission.
1684
They had much better appoint one responsible and well-paid party as the head of the Commission, and do away with such a mongrel body as the present board. During the last year the Commission had received 77,000 l. from rates, and 13,000 l. from contributions; the total payments, however, during the year, were 94,500 l., and the total charge was 125,900 l. The charge for management was 23,463 l.; and observe that this enormous charge came out of the pockets of the metropolitan ratepayers, who were complaining of this Commission as a greater nuisance than even the sewers themselves. Under these circumstances, it would not be very pleasant to them to see that the Chairman of the Commission was to receive this salary. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would see the propriety of merely prolonging, with alteration, the powers of the Commissioners, until some new arrangement could be made with regard to all the branches of this important question. The gentleman (Mr. Frank Forster) who conducted the general engineering business of the Commission received 1,500 l. a year. Now, if he was a competent per, son, why not make him the only Commissioner, and they would then obtain, a concentration of responsibility?
MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Amendment. He considered the measures which the Goverment had introduced with respect to the metropolis as gross jobs, which had met with the general disapprobation of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not think that either of the two Gentlemen who had addressed the House had shown any good reasons for rejecting the Motion before them. The Bill had not been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, on account of the investigations which had been going on before a Select Committee with respect to the supply of water to the metropolis, for as it was evident that this was intimately connected with the sewer question, it was thought inexpedient to bring in any measure which might have been rendered unnecessary, or have been superseded by the Report of that Committee. As, however, that Committee had not been

1685
able to make any Report during the Session, it was necessary to pass the present Bill, which merely proposed to continue the present Commission, with some alterations introduced to make it a more working Commission, and to secure the regular attendance of one person. It was not proposed as a permanent measure, but as a means of bridging over this year, and of waiting for the Report of the Committee which he had mentioned, and which might lead to quite a different arrangement. But while it was inexpedient to bring on a permanent measure without being in possession of the information which would be derived from the Report of that Committee, it would be impossible to let this body drop during the present year, as there were works and arrangements in progress which must be carried out.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that the argument of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been a very good one, if applied to the Commission as it now existed; but this was a new Bill altogether. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint a Commissioner with a salary of 1,000 l. a year, and to reduce the quorum from six to two. He considered such a proposition a perfect farce: who ever heard of such a quorum?—there was not a single public body doing business with such a quorum. As to the present Commissioners, it was utterly impossible they could attend to the duties of the Board; for all of them, except perhaps his noble Friend the Member for Plymouth (Viscount Ebrington) had various other duties to perform; the consequence of which was, that the proceedings of the Board were continually adjourned. The Government ought not to do this themselves; it was their duty to give to this great town municipalities of its own, and let them govern their own matters. He objected to bridging over the next year at an expense of 1,000 l. a year, for the Commission had already cost the country sufficient. They had in the last year levied a rate of 33,000 l., and he believed that all of it but 6,000 l. was expended. Rather than proceed with this new Bill, be would prefer continuing under the old system.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to ask the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) what was the original estimate of the Victoria sewer, what was the contract price, and what was the actual cost? He decidedly objected to this Bill, nor did he think that it was creditable to the Government to act
1686
as they had with respect to it, bringing it in on the 25th July, and then telling the House that they must pass it because some Bill was necessary. He believed that it was quite an after-thought to say that there was any intention to deal with this and the water question, and that of interments in one measure. He would not, however, even by the inducement thus held out by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, be led to pass this Bill, which would give 1,000 l. a year to some officical personage, and give the Commissioners the power of acting with such a quorum as he had never before heard of. He would support the Amendment, and he trusted the House would prevent the Government from passing the Bill.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid: In rising on this late but first and only opportunity yet afforded me of answering the calumnies—for by no other name will I describe the speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth—the calumnies and misrepresentations sp sedulously circulated both in this House and out of this House against my Colleagues of the Commission of Sewers and myself, I feel that I am placed under very heavy disadvantages. My own natural incapacity for public speaking, aggravated by the habitual silence imposed on me for several years by my late office; the absence of my distinguished Colleagues the Members for Whitehaven and Norwich, whose high reputation and practical skill in the planning and execution of great works are known to every one except to the Members for Marylebone and Lewes; and, above all, the peculiar nature of the subject under consideration, which, while it deals with much that is disagreeable and repulsive, requires much study and attention before it can be comprehended: these obvious disadvantages, together with the unfavourable period of the Session we have arrived at, would almost make me despair of your attention; but for my confident reliance, I will not say so much on the indulgence of the House, though I know I much need that, as on that spirit of justice and love of fair play, and that readiness to give a full hearing to any one who has been attached, when speaking in vindication of himself and his Colleagues, which have always honourably characterised this House. In order to place the whole case more clearly before you, perhaps I may be allowed very shortly to recall to the recollection of the House the condition in which Her Majesty's Government found the administration of

1687
the sewers of the Metropolis, when they issued the first Consolidated Commission in 1847, and a short recapitulation of what those two Consolidated Commissions performed, before I come to the acts of my Colleagues on the present Commission and my own.
The existence of Commissioners of Sewers is of very considerable antiquity; but with those times we have nothing now to do, further than to remember that the law under which the former separate Commissions acted, was the general statute on Sewers of Henry VIII., together with certain separate local Acts, most of them of recent date, and all containing different, if not conflicting, provisions. The total number of Commissioners having jurisdiction over the seven districts into which the natural drainage area of the metropolis was arbitrarily divided, had long amounted to between 500 and 1,000. The whole of these Commissioners were by law nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and nothing was less attended to in their appointment than their qualifications or fitness for the office. The members of the various Commissions consisted of a few persons of the highest eminence, such as the Duke of Wellington, the Lord Chief Justice, and others of that class, who, of course, never attended at all—indeed, some of them learnt, for the first time, the office they had for years been filling, on receiving their writ of supersedeas in 1847; of a number of less eminent persons, who attended very seldom; and, lastly, of a small, and in some instances by no means disinterested, body of persons, who, in fact, transacted the business of the Commission, though latterly cheeked, to a certain extent, in the instance of the Westminster Commission, by the public-spirited opposition and interference especially of Mr. Byng and Mr. Leslie. The Holborn and Finsbury Commissioners were wisely in the habit of acting on the suggestions of their able and valuable officer, Mr. Roe; but as to the demoralised system of management of the Westminster Commission—and that may serve in most particulars as a sample of others—I need say no more than that, on most conclusive evidence, Mr. Leslie's allegations were established (I quote from the Report of the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission), as to the practical self-nomination of the Court; as to the surveyors being paid by a commission upon the cost of their works; as to a series of suspicious circumstances on
1688
each occasion of obtaining contracts; as to the increase allowed to parties after they had obtained contracts: while as to the engineering skill, it was proved that works in opposition to the known principles of engineering and hydraulics, and sewers of a form at once most expensive, and ill calculated either for durability or efficiency, were ordered, in spite of the remonstrances of the surveyor; that there were no complete maps, levels, or plans of the district, and that what few existed were so bad as to mislead rather than assist those who sought information. I need say no more of the other districts, which seem generally to have been rather worse than better managed as separate concerns, than to observe that there was no uniformity of practice and little concert among them for combined works, though the natural lines of outfall often led from one to another; and that in the Surrey and Kent division, comprising a rental of more than one and a half millions, works were on the point of being executed by the Commissioners at the time they were superseded, to the extent of more than 100,000 l., and others still larger were contemplated, most expensive as well as inefficient and objectionable in their character. In consequence of the want of combined action, and of the complete absence of trustworthy information, examples most ludicrous, if they had not been disastrous and expensive in their consequences, occurred of sewers running up hill, or parallel to each other; of their missing each other when intended to join, and crossing each other when never expected; but the most serious instance is that given by Mr. Roe, of a quarter of a million wasted in the construction of large works on a radically wrong basis. Not to speak of the larger works of sewerage, or rather elongated cesspools of that description upon which not tens but hundreds of thousands had been wasted, I may mention that the ordinary drains for houses communicating with the street sewers cost more than four times as much on an average as our's now do, and that the expense of other operations on the new system, when compared with those under the old, is in much the same proportion. And, lastly, I must add that for such corrupt and inefficient and uncombined management, the general average of cost to the ratepayers was, during 1847, at the rate of more than 7s. per cent per annum on the rateable annual value of the seven

1689
districts, while, notwithstanding the disadvantage of having to procure much information which ought to have been bequeathed to us by our predecessors, the charge for management under the new Consolidated Conmmission was, during 1849, actually below 5s. per cent on the rateable annual value of the district under their active jurisdiction; and has not since at all materially increased.
When in the autumn of 1847, as is well known, the whole of these former Commissioners were superseded, the new Commissions for the seven districts were all addressed to the same body of gentlemen, who formed practically one consolidated Commission for the management of the sewers of the metropolis. They continued thus, by an evasion, to manage the business as one concern, till Parliament, by the Metropolitan Sewers Act of 1848 placed the whole metropolis, with a certain extent of suburban district, under the jurisdiction of one body of Commissioners; and the Crown, with some few exceptions, reappointed the original body as Commissioners, to work out the provisions of the new Act. On account of its unmanageable numbers, and for other reasons which I need not now enter upon, that body was superseded in October, 1849, of the following year, when the present Commission was appointed. As I, however, was a member of both these Commissions, and as much abuse has been most unfairly levelled against them, I hope the House will allow me to recapitulate a few of our principal labours. And I will do so, not in the words of my noble Friend, Lord Carlisle's Charge to the Westminster Jury, nor in those of any official or Government authority, lest the account should be tainted with partiality, but in those of a bitter assailant of the Government—a writer in the Westminster Review, who concludes a most hostile article on the Ministerial proceedings of the Session of 1849, with a short review of what had been done with regard to the sewers of the metropolis:—
"The Metropolitan Sewers Act was passed, with the object of consolidating the metropolitan areas under one management, and for giving extended powers of draining and sewering the whole. The gigantic cesspool system, which had so long numbered its thousands and tens of thousands of victims, was to be grappled with, and, if possible, put an end to. The main sewerage was to be remodelled every where, and introduced for the first time in many parts. The river was to be purified, and some other outlet provided for the liquid refuse of 2,000,000 of human beings, and
1690
several hundreds of thousands of horses and cattle.
"The universal abolition of cesspools was a totally now proposal. No such measure had ever been realised in the history of the civilized world. It required that there should be introduced for the first time, into the wretched tenements of the poor, conveniences and luxuries that have always been the monopoly of the rich, and which are associated in the public mind with affluence and expense.
"To effect this object, it would not serve to give the order to the builders and plumbers, whose business it is to supply first-class houses with water-closets and drain pipes, to enlarge their business fifty-fold, and go forth to every court and alley, and erect their fittings in every domicile. The consequent bills, in their aggregate of millions of money, could never be discharged by the population that had entailed them. If there were no other alternative, London must be a city of cesspools until it became at least a city where every man paid Peel's income tax.
"To reduce the cost of the water-closet apparatus so low, that every householder in London could afford to pay it, was therefore, one of the duties of the new Commission. This task had to be accomplished partly by the utmost economy in the apparatus itself, partly by distributing the cost of it over a series of years in the form of an improvement rate. The preparation and collection of this now species of rate formed one very heavy item in the duties of the Commission. A number of other matters, many of them full of difficulty, had to be undertaken as indispensable conditions to the grand desideratum of purifying the dwellings of the metropolis, and the water of the Thames. The procuring of a proper supply of water is only one of several of those preliminary conditions.
"On the matter of rectifying the main sewerage and obtaining a proper outfall, it was obvious, that a perfect survey must first be obtained. This was commenced in the beginning of last year; and from the enormous extent of ground to be gone over is not yet completed.
"In connexion with the purification of the Thames, extensive inquiries and experiments had to be undertaken as to the means of disposing of the sewage in the agricultural lands of the suburbs. Although the value of this sewage as manure has been proved beyond dispute, it has never yet been applied on a great scale; and the difficulty of the application in the case of the metropolis, probably surpasses what would have to be encountered in any other place whatsoever. Any person who has followed the actual proceedings of the Commission, instead of merely listening to the personal altercations that gave newspaper value to its debates, will find that it was fully aware of the extent of the operations devolved upon it. The survey was prosecuted with the utmost speed that the Ordnance could be stimulated to sustain. The means of economical house drainage were carefully considered and brought to maturity. The question of substituting impermeable earthenware pipes for expensive brick sewers was reduced to practice. The value of the sewage manure and the practicability of disposing of it on the suburban lands were made the subjects of direct experiments with clear practical results: and in the meantime the Commission were taking the most active steps that lay in their power for mitigating

1691
the evils of the existing state of the drainage, while preparing for its total renovation. No promise was given of an immediate remedy of all that was matter of complaint, but works were commenced, and actively pressed forward to secure this after a reasonable interval of time.
"The first practical difficulty that clogged its Operations is now pretty well known to have been the existence of a small minority of two or three Commisssioners, who differed from the great body in the point of working by committees; it being scarcely disguised that the exclusion of the dissentients from the Works Committee was the cause Of the stand taken by them in the principle. This minority acquired more and more of the character of a standing opposition, whose business it became to scrutinize with hostile fervour all the Current proceedings of the body.
"A memorial abruptly produced at one of the meetings of the Committee, by the chief surveyor, containing a fierce onslaught on the policy of his masters, and propounding a great subterranean tunnel scheme for the removal of the entire drainage of the metropolis, was the occasion that brought the Commission Under the special lash of the Times. This organ had made up its mind on the proper mode of draining the metropolis, and was not to be gainsaid by mortal man.
"To the antipathy of the "Thunderer" was joined the factious opposition of the parochial bodies, which showed itself in many ways. The internal Opposition was led by the representatives of vestries; without, there arose a perpetual shower of calumny at the meetings of parochial boards. The Commission was held liable at all hands for every nuisance in the metropolis; the popular mind was studiously imbued with the notion that it was since this Commission came into existence that the gullies began to smell, and the open ditches to exist. Boards of Guardians, when applied to to take steps for the temporary abatement of nuisances during the height of the cholera epidemic, threw off their responsibility and laid it on the Commission of sewers."
I have given this passage thus at length, because it lays down very clearly what I have always considered to be the real end and business of the Commission. There may be differences of opinion as to the order in which these several indispensable requisites for the economical providing of efficient sanitary arrangements for the metropolis should be dealt with; and as to the extent to which the requisite operations for the water supply, sewerage, and house-drainage, street cleansing, and disposal of sewage manure, may be advantageously undertaken by one body; as to how much of them should be discharged by public bodies, as a public trust, and how much of them made over to traders as a commercial speculation; but one thing is clear, all must be efficiently conducted before the sanitary condition of the metropolis can be pronounced to have been placed on a satisfactory or economical footing.
1692
In October, 1849, as I have already-said, the present Commission was appointed; and as it is that Commission's acts which I have this day to defend, I must again entreat the indulgence of the House, while I shortly state the difficulties we have had to contend with, recount some of the things we have done and are doing, and reply to as many as I can remember of the multifarious and often contradictory charges that have been brought against us here, and elsewhere If I am asked, whether I consider that the inhabitants of London have had all that was requisite and feasible done for them; if I am asked whether the Commission have satisfactorily discharged all the functions which are theoretically entrusted to them by law, and have done all the work which they are presumed to have the power to do: I answer at once in the negative. The Commissioners are most painfully conscious how far what they have done falls short of what is required for the health of the metropolis. It is impossible that a body so constituted, under such an Act of Parliament, an Act of 146 clauses—encumbered with such an absurd machinery, and fettered by such perplexing technicalities—should discharge at its intermittent meetings such vast and important functions with satisfaction to themselves or the public. The fault, however, rests not with them, but with the system under which they are working. When I compare what we have done, with what ought to have been done, I am grievously disappointed. When I compare what we have done, with what, circumstanced as we were, we might have been expected to have done, I am astonished at our having effected so much. When I reluctantly accepted the thankless office, at the request of my truly zealous and excellent Friend Lord Carlisle I warned him that the Commission, under such a system, must prove a failure. And I can answer for it, that nothing but the public spirit, good feeling, and industry of the Commissioners and their officers, could have enabled me to lay before the House the results to which I will shortly call your attention.
When the present Commissioners entered upon their duties, they found the business of the Commission disorganised by the quarrels of the officers, fomented, if not originally caused, by the contentions already described among the former Commissioners their masters. We began by restoring order. We found in

1693
the office above 200 plans for the drainage of the metropolis, which had been imprudently invited by our predecessors: every one of these was carefully analysed, and separately considered. Not one of them, however—though many of them displayed much ability—was found to be practically available; and for this obvious reason, that the surface survey and the subterranean survey, which were indispensable preliminaries to the preparation of any efficient plan of drainage, were not sufficiently advanced at the time when that premature invitation was issued, to enable any one to frame a proper plan of operation. The present Commissioners, however, pressed forward the subterranean survey commenced by their predecessors; and it may now be pronounced complete, with the exception of correcting levels, and finishing some small branch sewers. A total extent of 760 miles of underground sewerage has been surveyed, besides some 4,500 acres, or two square miles, for house drainage. The survey for the new arterial drainage, extending to six miles, has been accompanied with plans for the sewers made on a large scale; the Ordnance survey on the twelve-inch scale only requires four sheets out of the 44 entirely to complete the mapping of the area embraced by the Commission; while of the block plan, of five feet to the square mile, 380 out of the 450 sheets required to complete it have been finished. These plans and surveys will be completed in less than half the time, and one-third the cost, at which the work was calculated by the Ordnance, in the original estimate they sent in to Sir Robert Peel; and both of them are now on sale to the public at the same low rate of price as the maps and plans of the Ordnance are. I need not tell any Gentleman conversant with matters of this kind, how indispensable it is to other works, besides those of drainage and of water supply, that accurate maps, plans, and levels, should be easily accessible.
Meanwhile the Commissioners were not idle, as they were represented to have been. Though they would not be driven by any popular clamour into undertaking works On insufficient data, before they were satisfied as to the line of drainage which ought to be adopted, they executed Of superintended the execution of 34 miles of sewers, which they knew would fall in with any plan that might be ultimately adopted for the drainage of the metropolis; and they also went into the subject of
1694
contracts, which involved the consideration of 15,000 items in the price list, requiring 150 drawings for their illustration. Though each court requires the attendance of half the total number of Commissioners, we have held every month upon an average two courts, instead of one (which is all that was required by law), besides six committees of the whole body (not required by law at all), not to mention meetings of the Finance Committee, or other meetings for particular business. Nearly 2,000 orders of court have now been made by us since our appointment; and it is to be remembered, that at the courts only the formal announcements are pronunced of decisions at which the Commissioners have arrived after previous consideration in committee. The mere record of the business transacted at a court sometimes occupies 90 or 100 pages; and the manuscript minutes of one single committee frequently extend to a similar number. To say nothing of the time bestowed by myself, Mr. Lawes, Mr. Hawes, Captain Dawson, or others upon the business of the Commission, I remember on one occasion Mr. Stephenson sat up at work for us throughout the whole of the night. The result is, that some 13,000 complaints, and some 4,000 applications for private drainage, have been attended to; and that above 20,000 letters have been officially registered as received and sent, exclusive of a mass of correspondence between different branches of the office.
I ought to have mentioned that the Commissioners, as soon as the surface and subterranean surveys were sufficiently advanced, directed their engineer to prepare a general plan for the arterial drainage of the metropolis, and had many and anxious deliberations on that most important subject. In August last the general scheme for the drainage of the south side of the Thames was formally announced, and in the following January the scheme for draining the north side of the Thames. As the latter involved dealing with the drainage of the City, it was requisite to submit it to the Commissioners for the City, who, I am happy to say, fully concurred with us, and have indeed co-operated with us throughout in the most friendly and harmonious manner. It Was not until the general plan was settled that the Commissioners were enabled to proceed with full vigour; but the Secretary's report laid on the table of the House at the commencement of the Session, showed that up to the close of 1850 the present

1695
Commissioners had constructed upwards of 85.000 feet of pipe sewer, and more than 30,000 of brick sewer, at a cost of about 85,000 l., besides planning and superintending the execution of private works to the amount of upwards of 40,000 l. more. We have since completed more than 55,000 feet of pipe sewers, and more than 15,000 feet of brick sewers, at a cost of about 42,000 l., and have superintended private works to the amount of more than 33,000 l. besides. The total cost of the works planned and executed under the present Commission, to the 26th of this month, is about 200,000 l. When it is remembered that the present Commissioners, as has been shown by accounts and estimates found in the office, execute their works at less than half the cost for which similar works used to be executed by the former separate commissions; and that the engineering staff costs altogether about 19,000 l. a year, some 6,000 l. of which is expended in the preparation of the surveys; I do not think, that if this were all, the Commissioners could be justly charged with extravagance in that department. But there are, in addition, works fully planned with drawings and specifications quite ready for execution, some now actually in progress, some ordered to be proceeded with, and others, for reasons I will presently mention, though ready, suspended for the present, to the amount of 150,000 l. more. So that works have been superintended and executed by the Commissioners, or are planned and ready for execution, during the year and nine months we have been in office, to the amount of 350,000 l.; while the detailed drawings and specifications for the general arterial schemes of drainage to the north and south of the Thames, that is, of works of an estimated cost of some 2,000,000 l. are in an advanced state of preparation, and expected to be completed in the course of a few months.
I think after this statement I may claim for the Commissioners and their officers the credit of not having wholly neglected the duties intrusted to them. No one has yet dared to make any attack upon the survey, or on the plans for the arterial drainage of London which the Commissioners considered themselves more especially appointed to prepare and to execute; but the parochial gentlemen and their representatives, who have been so clamorous against the Commissioners,
1696
have uniformly confined themselves to attacks upon the smaller works, or to questions about official appointments. Nay, such absurdities has malignity suggested, a doubt was actually cast upon the identity of a man who had been personally known for many years to more than half the Commissioners who appointed him, and the public was seriously told that Mr. Forster was not himself, but somebody else. One of the chief attacks has been directed against the Victoria-street sewer. I have, however, the high authority of my friend, Mr. Stephenson, who personally inspected every inch of that sewer, as well as of Sir J. Burgoyne, Mr. Peto, and several other gentlemen well acquainted with such matters, for stating that, considering the great difficulties involved in the completion of such a work, it was not discreditable, but the reverse, to the officers of the Commission. The nature of the ground through which both parts of the sewer had to be taken, some of it hollow and treacherous from the remains of old arches and former buildings, now buried beneath the surface—some of it rendered dangerous and difficult by subterranean quick sands and morass—would sufficiently account to any person practically acquainted with such works—though not perhaps to such critics as the vestries of Marylebone, or St. George's, and their representatives—for the extra time and money expended beyond the estimates on its construction. As the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests thought proper, the other day, without giving me any notice, to read a report with regard to the lower part of this sewer, implying some reflections on the Commissioners and their officers, it is right that the House should understand the position in which the Commissioners have been placed with regard to its construction. The Commission has not been thwarted at all in the first contract west of Westminster Abbey, for this part of the sewer lying through private property, they had full power over it; but in that part of the sewer which lay between Westminster Abbey and the temporary outlet in the Thames, and which passes through Crown property, we have been much thwarted, and many obstacles have been put in our way. Though by the law of sewers the Commissioners have full power of passing through any private property, on making compensation for damage, there is a special exemption with regard to land in the occupation of the So-

1697
vereign. A question was raised whether Crown property would be considered land in the occupation of the Sovereign, and the Commissioners, ever averse to litigation, wished to settle the matter by amicable negotiation with the Woods and Forests: the Woods and Forests, however, objected to the proposals of the Commissioners, and required them successively to abandon two lines which they had suggested for the temporary outlet of the sewer; the one in front of Richmond Terrace, which did not involve passing under any buildings at all; the next, through Whitehall Place, which would only have touched a single stable and cartshed; and they ultimately compelled the Commissioners, under very stringent conditions, to adopt the present line against their better judgment, and to tunnel under the very buildings, the damage to which, though much to be regretted, has been so absurdly exaggerated. The following letter sufficiently speaks for itself; I will not allow myself to add one word of comment to it, further than to say that none can more sincerely regret than do my Colleagues and I, that we should have been obliged by the Woods and Forests to put the occupants of the houses in question to so much inconvenience:—
(Copy.)
"Office of Woods, &c, June 15, 1850.
"Sir—I have, on behalf of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, &c, to acquaint you that they have had under consideration the subject of the proposed Main Sewer extending from Parliament-street to a temporary outfall at Scotland Yard Wharf, and in respect of which the Board requested (through Captain Vetch) that no proceedings might be taken in the matter until the working plans and sections had been laid before it, in consequence of the proposed Sewer running principally through Crown lands, and under Government buildings.
"Captain Vetch having submitted and explained the working plans and sections of the proposed Sewer to the Commissioners of Woods, &c., I am instructed to say that, as forming part of a general measure for the improvement and drainage of the Westminster district, this Board will not raise any obstacle to the execution of the work provided the following requirements be agreed to:—
"1. The Board, in permitting the sewage to pass through the Crown lands, cannot consent to its being discharged into the Thames, so immediately near to Whitehall Place as, according to these plans, it is proposed to be; but they must require that the line be prolonged in its proposed direction to a point near to the outfall of the Northumberland-street Sewer.
"2. That the Sewer be inserted by drift ways, and not by open cuttings, at the following sites, viz.:—The south-east corner of Mr. Alderman Thompson's house; through Lord Liverpool's garden,
1698
taking care not to injure the trees; under the offices of the Exchequer; and through the gardens of Gwydyr House, and the residence of the Duke of Buccleuch.
"3. That during the work a passage be left open to the door of Lord Liverpool's house, in Middle Scotland Yard.
"4. That the Sewer be made quite impervious to the admission or escape of water in its course, except by gully-holes and street or house drains.
"5. That all the drains and sewers intersected by the new Sewer be carefully connected with it, and that all cesspools and house drains near its course be received into the same.
"6. That the Sewer shall be commenced at the River end, and that, proceeding towards Parliament-street, it shall not pass through Whitehall Gardens until after the rising of Parliament.
"7. That the Commissioners of Woods, &c, and their tenants, notwithstanding the permission granted to pass through the property, shall be entitled, as the Sewer Act provides, to compensation for any loss, damage, or injury which the property of Her Majesty may sustain by the formation of this Sewer.
"8. That the Commissioners of Sewers shall provide all the necessary shoring, supports, or other works that may be required for upholding the buildings and fences above and near to the Sewer, and that all such works shall be done under the supervision, and to the satisfaction of the architect of the Commissioners of Woods, &c.
"The Commissioners of Woods, &c., consider the above requirements necessary for the protection of the interests of the Crown and the amenity of its tenants; but, these being complied with, the Board, as I have already stated, will not throw any impediment in the way of works deemed necessary by the Commissioners of Sewers for the improvement of the drainage of Westminster.—I am, &c. (Signed) "A. MILNE.
"The Secretary to the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, 1, Greek-street, Soho."
As a question has been raised as to the estimate of the second contract for the Victoria-street sewer, I will give the House what information I possess on the subject. The estimate was 8,212 l.; the contract price was 7,700 l. The actual cost of the works up to the present time is 12,306 l.; and the probable cost will be 13,556 l. I have already mentioned some of the special difficulties of the work, but I would further remind the House that this is not the only case in which engineering and architectural works have exceeded their estimates, for of such excess you have a striking example in the house in which we are now assembled.
I have already stated that drawings and specifications are ready for works to the extent of 150,000 l., which have not yet been commenced—and why? Because some technical defects in the Act prevented the Commissioners from raising money, as Parliament intended they should do,

1699
to execute such works, and diffuse the charge for them over a series of years. Up to a late period in last year the Commissioners expected that they would be able to raise the money required from some of the large insurance companies; on further investigation of their security, the insurance companies, without exception, refused. Immediately on discovering these technical defects, we applied to the Government, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had then a large surplus in hand, either to grant us an advance on the credit of the rates of the metropolis, as had been done for a variety of other less important purposes, such as the promotion of fisheries, the drainage of estates, the building of farmhouses, and so on; or else to bring in a short Bill merely to correct these technical defects, and to enable us to borrow the requisite funds, leaving the question of the constitution of the Commission completely open for the early consideration of Parliament. The only assistance the Commissioners got from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government was the advice to collect the rates as fast as they could, and to spend as little money as possible. The Commissioners then found themselves in a very painful dilemma. They were obliged either to abandon altogether works which they had publicly announced, and which had met with general approbation—to leave unredressed and unremoved nuisances and, evils which it was clear from the weekly report of the Registrar General were causing preventible diseases and death in many parts of the metropolis—or else to raise within the year, for the execution of permanent works, at the expense of the present ratepayers, sums which msut press very heavily and unjustly upon them, and inevitably bring great odium and unpopularity upon the Commission. This subject received the deliberate consideration of the Commissioners, and they ultimately determined to adopt a kind of middle course, resolutely to face any amount of unpopularity wherever they thought the expenditure of money was urgently called for to prevent the sacrifice of human life, yet at the same time to hold their hands with regard to every work which did not appear to them of the most immediate and pressing necessity. For delaying our works till we had satisfied ourselves as to the main lines of drainage, and for the heavy proportion which our staff salaries last year bore in consequence to the total of our
1700
expenditure, we were willing, as I told my noble Friend, to bear any reproaches, and to accept the full responsibility; but for the preventible sickness and mortality resulting from our forced postponement of much that we desired to do, and for the actual undue pressure of rates within this present year, not the Commission, but Parliament, or rather the Government, ought to be held responsible. But the inconvenience caused by the want of borrowing powers, is only one out of many difficulties arising from the complicated and multifarious provisions passed by Parliament with regard to this subject; even if money could have been obtained for them, no extensive recourse could have been had to works under "special" or "improvement" rates, on account of the number of forms and notices required for them. Indeed, I have been told by the engineers that though the legal technicalities come comparatively little within their department, the superintendence, and planning, and execution of engineering works, has been, even to them, a light matter, compared with the trouble occasioned by a compliance with the technicalities and forms required by law. But for these difficulties, long ere now, many of the most wretched blocks of buildings would have been put in order with perfect drainage, supply of water, and water closets. As it is, the evils of the separation of the administration of the sewerage and water supply (though I am bound to say that the Commissioners have met with great liberality and assistance from the different water companies) have caused several stoppages of drains, and have aggravated the already too numerous technicalities which interfere with the sanitary improvement of-blocks of buildings. I was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had at last arrived at the conviction that it was desirable the sewerage and water supply should be dealt with simultaneously as one concern under a combined body. But he could not have pronounced a more severe condemnation of that most unsatisfactory Water Bill, which I felt it my duty to warn the House, on its introduction, must prove a mischievous failure, and which, I rejoice to find, the Government have since most wisely abandoned.
Complaints have been made to-day by the hon. Members for Finsbury and Marylebone, as well as by others, not only in this House but elsewhere, of the manner in which the business of the

1701
Commission has been carried on; but the House, in fairness, should consider the nature and duties of the Commission, and the law under which we are acting, on which I had, on a former occasion, to trouble the House at some length. Perhaps the body to whoso constitution that of the Commission may be considered most analogous, is that of the Court of Quarter Sessions, which executes county works, such as the construction and repair of county bridges, jails, and lunatic asylums, and collects county rates for the discharge of county expenses, as well as administers justice in those cases which come within its jurisdiction. It should be recollected that the Commission is not merely a body for the execution of public works, and for collecting large sums of money from great masses of ratepayers, but that it is besides a court of record, having to exercise jurisdiction on many points of a most nice and complicated character under an Act of 146 clauses, the provisions of which being new, left them without any body of precedents for their information and guidance. But the difficulties thus at first inevitably attendant upon keeping the records of the Commission have now been overcome; a series of forms and precedents have been arranged; and no such delay in entering the minutes as did unfortunately take place need ever occur in future; the minutes of the last monthly court, held during the present month, have in fact been settled—I have seen them complete myself—and they are by this time fully entered, or nearly so, upon the final record. Before I quit this subject, however, I must, at the request of the Secretary of the Commission, altogether demur, on his behalf, to the correctness of the account which the hon. Member for Marylebone purported to give, on his authority, the other day, about the confusion prevailing in the office with regard to the records of the proceedings of the Commission. Minutes of all the business transacted by the Commissioners have been throughout most carefully and regularly kept. I altogether deny that they were in any confusion whatever; though, for the reasons I stated, the final entries on the formal record were at one time unfortunately much in arrear. My hon. Friend must have completely misapprehended the statements of the Secretary; but it is not surprising he should have done so, considering how little he is acquainted with the business or law relating to the sewers.
1702
But the Commissioners have been charged with extravagance. I will not condescend to give any answer to the gross charge which has been made against the Commissioners by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that they squandered their funds in corruption. All I would say is, that if the characters of the Commissioners themselves do not suffice to protect them against such an imputation, nothing I could find time now to say on their behalf could be satisfactory; further than this, that, so far from courting secrecy, we have always invited inquiry. I have, over and over again, both publicly and privately, challenged hon. Members who threw out such insinuations in indirect and intangible terms, to move for a Committee of this House, and have the whole matter sifted to the bottom; and they know best why they have not taken such a course. I may state that the old separate Commissions contracted a debt of 65,000 l., which has since continued in existence; but the present Commissioners have reduced the liabilities of the Commission by about 20,000 l., and the debt is now less than when we entered upon office, notwithstanding the many miles of drainage we have completed. It is also right I should mention that, under the previous separate Commissions, accounts were very irregularly settled, and very imperfectly kept; that many of these unsettled accounts have been sent in to the present Commissioners for payment; and that actually, not many weeks ago, some of 1839 were brought before us for payment. The accounts of the present Commissioners are kept closely made up, and they have been twice audited by the Government Auditor, who has, on each occasion, highly complimented the Commissioners on the manner in which the accounts are kept. That is very satisfactory; but far more so is the fact that though a long notice of the audit is always publicly given to the ratepayers, and every opportunity is afforded them of examining the books, and of objecting to any improper item before the auditor, when any tangible charge about the expenditure would be sure of a searching and impartial investigation; on no occasion has any objection been made, or indeed, has any ratepayer whatever, out of all our numerous accusers, ever presented himself at all at the audit.
Having thus answered all the charges which I can recollect to have been made against the Acts, I now come to the ques-

1703
tion of the composition of the Commission. To the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, that we have almost all of us, other heavy public or private business to attend to, I can only answer that, on principle, I am entirely agreed with him; but when I hear hon. Members talk of us as a dilettante Commission, I say that such a charge could only have emanated from the most presumptuous ignorance. For, with regard to the construction of the Commission, I may state that six of its members received an engineering education, as officers of the Army—Sir H. De la Beche, a name familiar to the scientific world; Sir John Burgoyne, and Captain Vetch, well known not only for their services in the Peninsular War, but since, for their useful labours in the arts of peace, the one as head of the Board of Public Works in Ireland, the other as member of the Harbour Commission; Captain Dawson, for years engaged in the superintendence of the business connected with Maps in the Tithe Office; Captain Harness of the Mint, and Colonel Alderson, who has since died. It is sufficient to name our two civil engineers—nowhere, except, it seems, in the Vestries of St. Marylebone and St. George's, unknown—the author of the Britannia Bridge, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Rendell. Mr. Hardwicke is not only the architect of some of the most admired buildings in the metropolis, but is also largely engaged in the management of house property in several parts of it. Mr. Peto is one of the most eminent contractors in Europe; while of the three Commissioners who have no professional qualification for the actual execution of the works—Mr. Lawes is a barrister, who has made himself master of the complicated law of sewers; and Mr. Hawes, to whose indefatigable attention is mainly owing the satisfactory state of the accounts of the Commission which I have already mentioned, is well known in the City as a man of business. The only remaining Commissioner is myself; and of myself I cannot speak without unfeigned reluctance. I may, however, be permitted to say thus much, that if there be one subject to which I have devoted more labour, time, and attention than another, it is the sanitary condition of the people, and the means for its amelioration. Since the time when I prepared the lecture on the subject, which I delivered in the winter of 1844, at Plymouth, down to the present moment, I have made it my business not only to read
1704
most of what has been written on this subject abroad as well as in this country, but also personally to visit some of the most wretched parts of this and other large towns; to examine works in progress; and to make myself practically acquainted with the most approved modes of effecting improved sanitary arrangements. So much for the trouble I have taken; others must judge whether it has been labour in vain. With regard, however, to the imputations thrown out against me by the hon. Member for Lewes, he must allow me to tell him that he cannot entertain a lower opinion of my qualifications, than I do of his fitness to pronounce any opinion upon them. It is some satisfaction to me, under these circumstances, to reflect that I have been three times elected the representative of one of the oldest and most important of our seaports—not, he will allow me to tell him, by the aid of thousands mysteriously expended on my behalf there, but—by the unbought suffrages of a numerous and incorruptible constituency. It is some satisfaction to me to reflect that on the last occasion I was placed at the head of the poll—not, I will inform the hon. Member for Marylebone, because I had acted as the organ of any select vestry there, for Plymouth, happily, posseses no such body, nor, if it did, would I ever consent to bind myself to act upon its instructions. The honourable position in which my constituents have placed me, is not the fruit of any sacrifice of my own conscientious opinions, or any truckling to popular clamour; it is the result of mutual confidence; and that confidence, I must confess to the hon. Member for Lewes, is of itself, if there were no other, an abundant consolation for the loss of his good opinion. I may be allowed to inform him, however, that I did not wait, before deciding on the course which I should adopt in the matter, for the expression of his opinion, or that of any other Member of the House, as to my fitness for the office of paid Chairman to he created by this Bill; still less for the amount of the salary to be fixed. Some time ago, indeed as soon as the general intentions of the Government on this point were communicated to me, I made known to the Government my determination to decline accepting that office—[Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!]—if it were offered me under present circumstances, which, in truth, I hardly expected it would be.
I have now stated to the House the

1705
labours and performances of the Commissioners, and I may be asked, as they had no sinecure, whether they have been highly paid? On the contrary, the whole of the services rendered by the Commissioners have been gratuitous. That those services are arduous, I venture to think I have shown; and that they are thankless, every thing that has passed during the Session, as well as on this occasion, has most abundantly proved. But arduous as have been our labours, and unremitting our attention, we could not have effected a tithe of what we have done without the most cordial harmony and co-operation among ourselves. Whatever dissatisfaction or discord raged outside the walls of our court room, peace reigned within: we have not, I believe, a division on our minutes, and I shall always look back with pleasure to the friendly intercourse into which the business of the. Commission has brought me with so many eminent men, and shall ever remember with gratitude the kindness and support I have invariably received at their hands. But, have we shrunk from inquiry? So far from it, I have over and over again challenged it, publicly and privately, on behalf of myself and my Colleagues; indeed, I may state that at a general Committee of the Commission, on the 27th of May last, at which all the body, with the exception of two only, attended, it was resolved that the unanimous opinion of all the ten Commissioners present should be conveyed to Sir G. Grey, that, "unless the Government see decided inconvenience in such a course, a Committee be moved for in the House of Commons to inquire into the proceedings of the present Commission since its constitution in October, 1849." That resolution I placed in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and it was only at his suggestion that the members of the Commission who had seats in this House have hitherto waived their intention of moving for a Committee of Inquiry, before which our accusers might have been compelled either to withdraw or to support their charges against us. With regard to the present Bill, I had not seen it at all until half an hour before it was read a second time; and my Colleagues have unanimously requested me to state, that as a Commission, they decline offering any observations whatever upon it, further than this, that it does not embody the suggestions which they had made to Her Majesty's Government.
It will be for us hereafter carefully to
1706
consider what course we shall think it our duty to take under the circumstances in which we are now placed.
In conclusion, I cannot help remarking that, since the Earl of Carlisle left the office which he formerly filled, the Commission has not received from the Government that co-operation and assistance upon which they had reasonably calculated, and without which I do not think that the present Commissioners would ever have consented to undertake their difficult, laborious and thankless office. I believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the noble Marquess who so ably leads the other House of Parliament, and, above all, my truly noble and excellent Friend the Earl of Carlisle, are sincere in their desire for the promotion of sanitary reform; but I must remind my noble Friend that it is impossible for him to claim with consistency the approval of the wise and good, and, as I think, rightly-judging persons whe desire the sanitary improvement of the population, and, at the same time, to obtain favour with those who may, with equal consistency, be opposed to it. I am sorry to say that I see indications in several departments of the Government of an intention to thwart, in detail, measures for which the Government, as a whole, takes credit in Queen's Speeches and on other public occasions. Such a course is neither consistent, nor creditable, nor satisfactory; and the sooner a distinct understanding is come to with them as to their real views and intentions with regard to sanitary subjects, the better it will be for all parties.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLthought a great deal of the noble Lord's statement wide of the question before the House; and much that related to the conduct of the Commissioners had been of a most unsatisfactory character. He should prove, from printed documents now in the hands of hon. Members, and from statements made by the noble Lord at the head of that Commission, that it was the most unsatisfactory and inefficient Commission that had ever existed in the metropolitan district. He had, on the 16th of May, made a statement which had never been contradicted, that although many meetings, both of the Commission and of Commissioners, had been held, yet no minutes of those meetings had been entered up from the 11th October last to the 13th May. It was not the business of those who had opposed

1707
the Commission of Sewers to move for a Committee of Inquiry into that Commission. What they had to do, and what they did, was to urge the Government to bring in their Bill, and then the noble Lord might have an opportunity of defending them. The noble Lord had referred to former Commissions, and had charged them with being inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt. Now they had nothing to do with the sins of former Commissions, which no doubt were guilty of great extravagance; but he (Sir B. Hall) knew that while the former Commission only levied 3d. in the pound, the present one levied 6d. The noble Lord had referred to the quantity of the correspondence transacted by the Commission; and there was no doubt that no other bodies in the kingdom carried on so voluminous a correpondence as the Commission of Sewers and the Board of Health; he wished, however, that they had confined themselves to practical purposes and objects, instead of writing letters and employing a whole staff of secretaries and clerks. The noble Lord had spoken also of the plans for the drainage of the north and south side of the metropolis, which were no doubt announced as stated by the noble Lord; and these announcements created the greatest consternation amongst the ratepayers, who feared that they should have a rate of 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. fastened upon them to carry out the plans of this inefficient Commission, and the rate would more likely be 7s. in the pound than 6d. When the noble Lord said they had executed their works at half the cost at which their predecessors did theirs, he would ask the House to refer to the only work to which the Commission could refer with any boasting—the Victoria-street sewer. It appeared that the original estimate of the first contract was 5,082 l., the contract price 4,600 l., and the actual cost 7,443 l. or 2,843 l., or 62 per cent above the contract price, and 45 per cent above the estimate. The Commissioners had adopted one curious plan; whenever they got into any scrape, and a return tending to throw any light upon it was ordered, they immediately directed somebody to make a report upon the same subject, excusing them, to be presented with the return. Now, amongst the costs of this part of the Victoria-treet sewer was an item of 450 l. for expenses incurred in preventing one of the towers of Westminster Abbey coming down. But what business had they to go so
1708
near Westminster Abbey? Why did they not carry their sewer at a proper distance from the towers? Then they said that it was necessary to have concrete; but could it be supposed that the engineer did not know the nature of the soil upon which he was working, until at the last moment he ordered concrete to be added to the original estimate at an extravagant expense? According to the noble Lord himself, the ultimate cost of the second length of the sewer would be 13,000 l., against an original estimate of 7,700 l. If, therefore, they might judge by what had taken place here, the costs of the new works which had been suspended, would have been, not 150,000 l., as the noble Lord estimated them, but about double that amount, or nearly 300,000 l.; and he thought that the inhabitants of the metropolis ought to be thankful for those technical defects in the "Act which, according to the noble Lord, were the only reasons why this sum was not levied upon them. The noble Lord had surprised him (Sir B. Hall) when he said that the debt and liabilities of the Commission had been reduced; for, by a return presented to that House, according to the 11th &c 12th Victoria, it appeared from the accounts of the Commission, to December 1850, that their liabilities were 58,195 l., while the liabilities of the present Commission, after an existence of only fourteen months, amounted to 135,342 l., and that during that time they had increased their expenditure no less than 77,147 l. Coming to the expense of works, surveys, and cost of management, he found that 57,665 l. had been expended upon works, and 8,618 l. on surveys, making a total of 66,283 l.; while the management of the Commission during that time cost 21,104 l., or about 30 per cent on the works and surveys put together. Something had been said of the non-attendance of the Commissioners at the meetings, and of their theoretical rather than practical mode of acting; and it was very remarkable that if a by-law embracing any of those theoretical notions in favour of sanitary reform which they were in the habit of putting forth was to be passed, there was a full attendance of Commissioners; but when meetings were to he held to hear the appeals of the ratepayers, a meeting could not be formed, and ratepayers who had come to attend it were obliged to go away again. As a specimen of the by-laws the Commissioners adopted, he might state, that on the 15th of Octo-

1709
ber, 1850, they passed an order, or bylaw, which was confirmed on the 6th of December, providing that no drain, water-closet, or cesspool should be constructed or used without their approval. There was a person whose name had been frequently before that House, Mr. Frank Forster, who was the superintendent or agent of one of the Commissioners of Sewers, who, not requiring his services any longer, got him a place under the Commission of Sewers instead of Mr. Phillips, who held it before, who could not be said to have either neglected his duty, or to have been incompetent to transact the whole business of the Commission, and who would have done it at a salary of 400 l. or 500 l. a year. But because this Commissioner had no longer any further occasion for Mr. Forster's services at the bridge constructed over the Menai, or some other place, he was foisted upon this Commission. That was the way their business had been transacted, and he undertook to prove that the Commissioners had exercised their power in placing persons in that office because their services were no longer required in other parts of the country. He (Sir B. Hall) had got an order of that House for a report upon the metropolitan sewers, by one of their best surveyors (Mr. Smith), to be appended to the estimate of the Victoria-street sewer. Immediately upon his doing so, the Commissioners, although they had previously lauded this man, censured him, and appointed Mr. Frank Forster to go into the sewer, and make a counter report, in order to cover the disgraceful manner in which the work had been carried on there. He wished to know whether a large part of that work, which had cost 80 per cent above the contract price, had not since fallen in? The sewer was now in such a disgraceful state, that when, the other day, he found the street in front of the Horse Guards covered with water and asked the cause, he was told, "It is owing to the Commissioners making the sewers so small that they won't carry the water away." He thought that all these things having been made public, they had a good right to complain that this Bill was not brought in at an earlier period of the Session. The right hon. Home Secretary knew very well that the Commission would expire at the end of this Session of Parliament, and yet almost at the very end of July they were to be called upon to consider this question in its various bearings, and to pass a Bill
1710
to perpetuate this excessive nuisance. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: For one year.] Yes; but when people were thoroughly dissatisfied with the Commission, they did not like to be called upon to pay the rates and taxes that might be levied upon them for even one year. He was sure there could be but one feeling in respect to this subject—that the Commission should cease and determine at the earliest period; and looking at the extravagant manner in which the Commission had exercised its powers, and the unsatisfactory condition in which its works were left, he thought they should at once prevent them, by a clause such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) from levying more than a certain amount of rates during the next year. They had already levied a rate sufficient for two or three years; but he understood they had run into debt—that they were now under great liabilities—and that out of the sum they had levied, they had only a small sum left to be expended upon works. Some of these works no doubt must be finished; but let not the House give more powers than were absolutely necessary. He was sure that unless the principle of representation was introduced into the management of this department, they would not give satisfaction, and the same extravagance would occur again. Compare with the expenditure under this irresponsible Commission, that of one of the best-managed and richest metropolitan parishes—St. George's, Hanoversquare—where the representative principle was in action, and where the police rate, poor-rate, and county rate, only amounted to 1s. 6d. in the pound. He believed, in the words which his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) had applied to the former Commissions of Sewers, that the present Commission was perfectly inefficient and incompetent, and that the sooner it was done away with, the better satisfied would be the inhabitants of the metropolis.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must object to the tone adopted by the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) towards the previous Commissions of Sewers, and also towards Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord had said that they were more heavily taxed under the former than under the present Commission of Sewers; but he (Mr. Henley) found that in the district where he resided, while the old Commissions only levied a rate of 3d. in the

1711
pound once in every two years, the present Commission, after receiving a rate of 3d. in August, 1849, had levied a rate of 6d. in April, 1851; thus taking 9d. in eighteen or nineteen months, instead of 3d. in two years, The noble Lord had spoken of the labours spent by the Commission in inquiring into the prices of the various works to be done; but it seemed as if these were not expended in a manner very profitable to the public, when the very first sewer that they made so much exceeded the estimate. It would have been much more satisfactory to the public if the Commission had been merely continued for a year, and restrained within some limits, and without an attempt to set up any new machinery. He considered that this Bill would virtually throw the management of the whole business into the hands of one man; for the 4th clause provided that two Commissioners, one of them being the Chairman, should be a quorum, and that the Chairman should have a casting vote, so that the Chairman might outvote his colleague and do what he pleased, the Board being still responsible for his acts.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that some time ago when it was proposed to renew the Commission of Sewers for one year, little objection was made to such a measure, but the main source of complaint against the Commissioners was, that they had very seldom met. The question was, therefore, whether, in renewing the Commission, endeavours should not be made to make it efficient, and to remove that ground of complaint. It was obvious that the Commissioners of Sewers, many of whom were gentlemen of eminence, and had to attend to important avocations, could not be called upon at any time to attend the Board. Now, the only way to secure the attendance of one or more Commissioners, was to give him or them a salary; and the only question before them seemed to be the very narrow one, whether, in renewing the Commission for one year, they should attempt for that year to remove some of the defects of the Commission. Those hon. Gentlemen who wished to remedy the inconvenience which had been pointed out, would adopt the plan of the Government; but those who wished to keep alive the grievance for another debate, and to turn out the fox again next year, would oppose it. With regard to the history which had been given by his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington), and by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B, Hall), it was very diffi-
1712
cult to decide between assertions which were so completely opposed. His noble Friend said the amount of rates expended had been very much less during the last two years than it had been in 1845 and 1846. The hon. Baronet, on the contrary, said that the expenses had been very much greater of late, and that the rates levied had been considerably augmented. He (Lord John Russell) did not pretend to say which of these two authorities was right with respect to the management of the Commission; but he thought his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) had some advantage, from his statement that he and the Commissioners had all along wished for an inquiry into this matter—that they had been ready to promote such an inquiry—that they had hoped some hon. Member would have moved for it—but that the opportunity of having all the facts investigated had been denied them. He (Lord John Russell) concurred in the views of his noble Friend with respect to sanitary measures. He was most anxious that sanitary reforms should be effected; but Gentlemen whose minds were bent upon such reforms, might sometimes, in the eagerness of the pursuit, commit errors in judgment, for he did not suppose that sanitary reformers were exempted from human infirmity in that respect. There seemed to be little dispute with regard to the Bill before the House. They were all agreed that the powers of the Commissioners should be extended for another year. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) had said that he knew perfectly well what the intentions of the Government had been, and that they always meant to bring in such a Bill as this, and not to propose any other plan. What mesmeric power enabled the noble Lord to see into the minds of Members of the Government, he (Lord John Russell) did not know; but he could assure the noble Lord that he was mistaken as to the intentions of the Government. His (Lord John Russell's) wish had been that they might have had a measure which might be made to agree with a plan for the supply of water; but as the water supply question stood, they were not able to do so, and the whole of this great question must be postponed for the present; and it was, therefore, necessary to renew the Commission for another year. He agreed that there was hardly any question of more importance than that of providing for the sanitary state of this metropolis, with its

1713
2,500,000 inhabitants, whether, with regard to sewerage, water supply, or other subjects; but the proposal to introduce a great representative body into the metropolis to manage these matters, was one which demanded very grave consideration. He did not suppose that any measure could be introduced on the subject in the present Session, and when the House came to consider the question, he thought they would find innumerable difficulties in the way of carrying out such a proposal.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbegged to explain: what he had said was, that he saw all along that it was the intention of the Government not to bring in this Bill till the end of the Session, when there could he no opportunity of fully debating the subject.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDhoped the Government would pay some attention to the expenditure of the Commission. The expenditure during the last year had been near 90,000 l., of which 21,000 l. was paid for the expenses of management alone.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to; House in Committee.
Clause 1 (Appointment of a Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Commissioners of Sewers),
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Marylebone, with reference to the records of the Commissioners' proceedings, that it was incorrect to say that minutes of their proceedings were not kept, though at the time to which the hon. Baronet alluded they might not have been finally entered in the formal record. He could not state exactly what the taxation under the present Commission of Sewers had been upon each of the districts, but he knew that from January, 1835, to November, 1847, under the old commission, rates to the amount of 240,000 l. had been collected. During the existing commission the rate collected had not been so high in amount, the rate collected in 1849 and 1850 being about 130,000 l., and there might have been some 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. collected in the course of this year; so that instead of the taxation being, as it was represented, to be more onerous now than before, notwithstanding the increased quantity of work done, there had actually been a smaller expenditure. It was not in consequence of the return to which the hon.
1714
Member for Marylebone had alluded, that the Commissioners were principally displeased with Mr. Smith, though he did not mean to say that he had acted wisely or judiciously about that. With regard to the charge brought against Mr. Stephenson, of providing for one of his friends, at the expense of the ratepayers, repelled with indignation such a charge upon his hon. Friend. He was quite incapable of such conduct. He could assure the House that so far from jobbing, the whole of the Commissioners were actuated by an anxious desire to make the best appointments, and Mr. Forster was unanimously recommended for it by a Committee of their body, composed of military as well as civil engineers, to whom the matter was referred.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLcould undertake to say, that up to the time he moved for the return to which he had alluded, not only was Mr. Smith not censured, but he was always praised by the Commissioners. Sir Henry de la Beche, one of the Commissioners, had spoken of Mr. Smith in high terms of praise; but he (Sir B. Hall) believed that Mr. Smith had been censured, solely because he had shown up the infamous manner in which the Victoria-street sewer had been constructed under the direction of an engineer who received 1,500 l. a year. He wished to know whether it was true that the workings of the tunnel for the Victoria-street sewer, having been commenced at each end, failed to meet in the middle?
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that there was a slight deviation of fifteen inches on the part of the contractor, not of the engineer, in one part of the tunnel, which had long since been repaired. Mr. Smith was, no doubt, an admirable surveyor, and for evidence his conduct must be always in every respect immaculate; but the fact was, that on one occasion he did something which the Commissioners considered decidedly blameable.
MR. WAKLEYmoved, that the Clause be omitted. It provided that Her Majesty should select a Chairman of the Commissioners of Sewers from the existing body of Commissioners, and, considering the incompetency displayed by that body, he thought it an insnlt to the public to make such a proposal.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 21: Majority 14.
Clause agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hodges, T. L.

Armstrong, R. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Lewis, G. C.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

Matheson, Col.

Bellew, R. M.

Parker, J.

Berkeley, Adm.

Rich, H.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Roche, E. B.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Romilly, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Russell, F. C. H.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Seymour, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Thompson, Col.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Thornely, T.

Evans, J.

Watkins, Col, L.

Forster, M.

Wilson, J.

Hall, Col.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Hayter, W. G.

Hindley, C.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Bell, J.

Greene, J.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Hall, Sir B.

Bramston, T. W.

Henley, J. W.

Butler, Sir J. Y.

Kershaw, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Osborne, R.

Copeland, Ald.

Spooner, R.

Duncan, G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Edwards, H.

Thompson, G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

TELLERS.

Fox, W. J.

Wakley, T.

Frewen, C. H.

Williams, W.

Clause 2 (Salary of Chairman),
SIR BENJAMIN HALLmoved the rejection of the Clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 22: Majority 13.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 3.
Clause 4 (that two Commissioners be a quorum).
MR. J. BELLsaid, he objected to the smallness of the number, and would suggest that it should be altered to three.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the object of the Clause was to secure the presence of two persons to transact the ordinary business of the Committee. The constant attendance of one would be secured by paying him a salary, and it was thought that the attendance of another might always be obtained. There were a great many things (such, for instance, as the jurisdiction of magistrates sitting in petty sessions) which were done by two persons.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that he would move that the Chairman should report progress. The Bill required further consideration, for it had only been recently
1716
introduced, and was not known to the metropolitan constituencies, from whom, when it was known, it would elicit a burst of indignation.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 50: Majority 43.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5 (Rates to be made, and Mortgages authorised by no less than six Commissioners, the Chairman being one),
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to move two Amendments, the one prohibiting the Commissioners from levying any higher rate than 3d. in the pound; and the other depriving them of the power of borrowing.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would assent to the first of these Amendments, but he objected to the second. It would be absurd to appoint Commissioners to attend to the sanitary condition of the metropolis, and to deprive them of the power to carry out the objects entrusted to them.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "Commissioners" to the word "than" in line 38.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 22: Majority 11.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses.
House resumed. Bill reported.

EXCISE DUTY ON HOPS.
MR. FREWENbegged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, that the Excise Duty on Hops was impolitic and unjust, and ought to be repealed. He brought forward this Motion, which he considered one of great importance, in compliance with the request of a large majority of his constituents. He had already brought forward a Motion on the subject, which was rejected; and the hon. Member for West Kent. (Mr. T. L. Hodges) had submitted a Motion to the House for the general reduction of the Excise Duty; but as the amount of the Hop Duty was not by any means large, the most practical course to pursue, and the course which his constituents desired to urge upon the House of Commons, was to take off the entire amount of that duty. For the last three years the average had been about 320,000 l.; the whole amount recovered in 1848 being 380,007 l.; in 1849, 145,693 l.; and

1717
in 1850, when there was a large crop, 424,702 l.; the average therefore for these three years was 319,467 l. It ought to he considered that the pressure of this tax was only felt in particular localities. Thus, for instance, the farmers in the eastern division of the county of Sussex paid considerably more than 100,000 l. in 1848, when the whole amount of the duty did not amount to 300,000 l. They complained of being called upon to pay a tax to that heavy amount. The operation of the tax was serious in the extreme. By it thousands of acres were thrown out of cultivation, and in some places it was not possible to get tenants on any terms whatever. He was authorised to say, that if the Excise Duty were wholly repealed, there would be no opposition made on the part of his constituents to the repeal of the customs duty, because in that case the hop growers believed they would be put in a more favourable position than they were at the present time. The amount of protection was not in their opinion sufficient to enable them to support the enormous war tax that they were called upon to pay. He held in his hand a return of the exports and imports of hops since the year 1845, and he found that there had been, on the whole, a larger amount of exports as compared with the imports. The following were the figures for three years:—

Exports.

Imports.

1846

448,497

228,800

1847

447,061

245,280

1848

357,029

560,000

In the last year the crop in England was a failure, and yet a larger quantity was exported to meet the demand, which, it must be remembered however, was always limited. There was a very large export of British hops to Belgium and Germany—countries in which hops were grown. There were hops exported to Antwerp, Hamburgh, Rotterdam, and St. Petersburgh. In fact, if the excise duty on hops were taken off, the British farmers did not believe they had much to fear from foreign competition. In considering this subject, it was to be remembered that in some years, owing to the peculiar nature of the crop, there was no crop at all in consequence of a blight, and in other years the produce was very abundant. The tax was a war tax—imposed in a time of high prices, and it had been maintained notwithstanding the change in the currency. He implored, then, of the House to consider the injustice of continuing this tax—a tax of
1718
which it had been said by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that he did not believe there was even in Turkey any tax similar to the hop tax. With these few observations, he begged to submit his Motion to the House.
MR. FULLERseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Excise Duty on Hops is impolitic and unjust, and ought to be repealed at an early period."
MR. LAW HODGESsaid, he was acquainted with the state of feeling upon this subject throughout all the most important hopgrowing districts of the country, and he believed that although there were many various opinions with respect to the proposition involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen), there would be no great diversity of opinion on the subject of the Amendment which he (Mr. Hodges) should have the honour to submit to the House. He believed that it was the proposal which would best meet the justice of the case, and which would afford the largest amount of satisfaction. If the original Motion succeeded, it could only be on the condition of the total repeal of the duty on foreign hops; and he believed there was not unanimity by any means even among the hon. Member's constituents upon that subject. The planters in Kent were by no means prepared to consent to the repeal of the duty on foreign hops; he (Mr. Hodges) believed very few of them would advocate it. From the year when the Hop Tax had been first imposed to the present time, there had been periodic visitations of the most dreadful distress in all the hopgrowing districts; and there prevailed at present, both in Kent and East Sussex, an amount of distress which was most alarming. These periodic seasons of severe depression brought great calamity in their train, and it was time for the Legislature to think of applying some remedial measure. He was aware that it was too late to expect relief this Session, but he hoped that some effort to remedy the evils of the present system would at least be made in the course of next year; and let the fate of the Motion which he now submitted be what it might, it was his determination to take the earliest opportunity of drawing the attention of Parliament to the question next Session. It was easy to say that the plantation might be reduced; but it must be remembered that the crop was very precarious, and the plantation must be large to secure a suffi-

1719
cient supply. He hoped, whoever might be in office next year, would take the subject into their serious consideration, and endeavour to put an end to the complaints of this interest.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'on any reduction of Excise Duty on Hops taking place, it is expedient to reduce the Excise Duty on British Hops, and the Customs Duty on Foreign Hops, by one penny per pound weight each, together with the 5 per cent additional Duty thereon granted by the Act 3 Vic, c. 17;' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BARROWwould support with his vote the proposal for reducing this duty. It appeared to him there were three classes whose interests were concerned in this question—the labourers who were employed in the cultivation of hops, the consumers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The actual cost of labour in the cultivation of this article was from 10 l. to 13 l. per acre, or about ten times as much as was expended for labour in the cultivation of ordinary agricultural produce, whilst a duty of 5l. per acre went to the Government in the shape of duty. He suspected that for the last ten years the hopgrowers would have been extremely happy to have gone halves with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, however, chiefly as the duty affected the labourers engaged in the cultivation of hops that he advocated its reduction.
MR. CURTEISwas sorry to be obliged to bear testimony to the truth of the statements that had been made with respect to the prevalence of severe distress amongst the hopgrowers of East Sussex. The crop of last year had been disposed of, and might be said to have been absorbed to pay the duties of 1848 and 1849. This year there was every probability of a blight occurring, and it was impossible to conceive from what source the growers were to pay the duty, which would become due in November next. He found that the greater part of the hopgrowers in East Sussex would be ruined. Of the Motion and Amendment before the House, he preferred the former, having been always favourable to the total repeal of the Hop Duty. He trusted that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would hold
1720
out some hope of relief being granted to this sadly depressed interest, if not in this Session, at all events in the next.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was opposed both to the Motion and to the Amendment. This being the fourth time, in the course of the present Session, that this question of the Hop Duties had been brought forward, he therefore did not think that he was under any obligation to enter into a minute discussion of the merits of the case. He had hoped that the present Session would have been permitted to expire without another effort to provoke a discussion upon a subject which had been so frequently deliberated. It must be evident, even to the Members who had brought the question again under notice, that it would be wholly out of the question to expect that at this period of the Session, when all the financial arrangements of the year had been already completed, the Government should undertake to introduce any alterations on the subject of the Hop Duties. What the circumstances of the country might be during the next Session, it was impossible to predict. He could not say what measures it might be found expedient to introduce with respect to taxation, and he certainly could not be so rash as to incur the responsibility of undertaking to pursue any particular course on the subject of the Hop Duties.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he must protest against the mode uniformly pursued by Her Majesty's Government to got rid of all questions which, like the one under discussion, were of importance to the agricultural interests, and involved the great principle of the burdens on land. On the last occasion that the question of the burdens on land was brought before that House, the majority in favour of Government was so small that the Government was shaken to its foundation; but he thought that from that period, aided, no doubt, in a great measure by the imbecility of the party behind him, they had treated the question more cavalierly than ever. The House had heard nothing of the remedial measures that had been shadowed forth in the Speech from the Throne, nor in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought forward his famous budget. True, something had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of the Session, about seeds and lunatics; but no sooner was any great question, such as hops or

1721
malt, mentioned, than up started the right hon. Gentleman with an appeal to the House on the ground of convenience, and with the plea that the maintenance of public credit depended on the continuance of that particular tax. He protested against this constant reference to the doctrine of convenience whenever the House was called upon to deal with a special case of grievance affecting the agricultural interest.
MR. COBDENwould vote for the repeal of the hop duty, and the House might rely upon it that if the Excise Duty on Hops were abolished, the protecting duty on the foreign article would not, with a free-trade Parliament, long remain on the Statute-book. If anything were wanting to show the impolicy and injustice of the tax, it would be supplied by the speeches of that evening, for the hon. Members for East Sussex and West Kent were opposed to each other on the question. And why? Because the tax operated unequally, and as a protection in one county, and not in the other. In East Sussex hops would sell for 3l. 10 s. per cwt., whereas in the neighbourhood of Maidstone they would sell for 6l. or 8l.; and as the same duty was paid in both counties, it was obvious that East Sussex suffered an injustice. The inequality was, in fact, so great, that it was enough to condemn the tax. He abhorred the very name of it, because" of its absurd and bungling contrivances. Every year excisemen had to be sent through eight or ten counties to assess it; and, in short, it was so bungling as to be quite unworthy of England in the present day. Then it was extremely uncertain in its amount. It might bring in 50,000 l. or it might bring in 400,000 l. a year. No one could reckon upon it exactly. It not only deranged the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculations, but every hanker in the neighbourhood of the hop districts was utterly at a loss to know what amount of wages would be required, and consequently suffered from these fluctuations. On the ground, therefore, of its uncertainty and unproductiveness, he would oppose it. He could not see why it should be maintained. He hoped it would be dealt with on an early day. Whether the hon. Mover divided the House or not, he (Mr. Cobden) went with him heartily in desiring to witness its abolition.
MR. BASSwas of opinion that the reduction of the duty on malt would afford far more efficient relief to the agricultural interest in Sussex and Kent.
MR. LAW HODGESsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. FREWENsaid, in reply, he did not ask the House to repeal the tax this year or next; he merely wished to stamp it as unjust and impolitic, and to suggest that it be repealed at the earliest possible period.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 59: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Lushington, C.

Alcock, T.

Mullings, J. R.

Anstey, T. C.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Barrow, W. H.

Salwey, Col.

Bass, M. T.

Seymour, H. D.

Bremridge, R.

Stanford, J. F.

Bright, J.

Thompson, G.

Child, S.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Cobden, R.

Verner, Sir W.

Curteis, H. M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Dick, Q.

Williams, T. P.

Fox, W. J.

Williams, H.

Goold, W.

Young, G. F.

Hallewell, E. G.

Hollond, R.

TELLERS.

Johnstone, J

Frewen, C. H.

Knox, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, R. B.

Grosvenor, Earl

Bagshaw, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Hawes, B.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

Heald, J.

Bell, J.

Heywood, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hindley, C.

Berkeley, Adm.

Hodges, T. L.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Hudson, G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Brotherton, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Bunbury, E. H.

Langston, J. H.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

M'Gregor, J.

Clay, J.

Matheson, Col.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Morris, D.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Parker, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Pusey, P.

Denison, E.

Reid, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Richards, R.

Duncan, G.

Sandars, G.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Seymour, Lord J.

Egerton, W. T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ellis, J.

Stuart, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Thompson, Col.

Evans, J.

Thornely, T.

Evelyn, W. J.

Wilson, J.

Ewart, W.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Forster, M.

TELLERS.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Lewis, G. C.

EXHIBITION OF 1851.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that in moving the Address to Her Majesty for the preservation of the Crystal Palace until the

1723
1st of next May, he was prompted do so by what he believed to be the general wish of all classes. Among the grounds on which the appropriation of the building raised in Hyde Park to the object indicated in his Motion seemed to be desirable, he thought that not the least important was suggested when it was considered how much larger London was than any other capital in Europe or America. The ordinary attractions of Hyde Park as a place of public resort had this year been immensely increased by the presence of the successful Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations. Originally the project for the building had been to erect an enormous brick edifice with a huge dome. Of course, there had been great alarm in the neigh-bourhood when that proposition was first heard of. While the prolonged and difficult discussion as to the character of the required edifice, was proceeding, a beautiful design appeared in the Illustrated News of a glass palace, which was proffered as a substitute for the brick building. This design was subsequently somewhat modified; but it was virtually adopted; and it was that design which they now saw carried out in the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. He was quite aware that while the building was in the course of erection the immense traffic which it called into operation occasioned considerable inconvenience to the immediate neighbourhood; but he did not consider, when the Exhibition was closed, that the glass palace would cause any inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity. He believed, with respect to the durability of the building, that it was very firm and solid. The iron work was remarkably good, and the timber, which was Canadian, would last several years. Some expense to keep it order would necessarily be required, if the building were converted into a winter garden; but the attainment of that object would be well worthy the expense. What he asked the House to do was, to give its sanction to the continuance of the Crystal Palace for such a length of time as would enable information to be gained with reference to its future use, partly for pleasure and partly for scientific purposes. He thought it was a matter well worthy of consideration whether or not it might be formed into a good winter garden for the inhabitants of the metropolis. There were Gentlemen in that House fond of riding, but they often found Rotten-row wet and sloppy. Might it not then be considered how far one part of the
1724
Crystal Palace could be converted into a riding-house? If such a thing were practicable, it would, unquestionably, be a great advantage to that part of the metropolis. With respect to one of the scientific uses to which the palace might be applied, they had an example of what he meant in the Botanical Gardens in the Regent's Park. The conservatory there was a model of what he thought might be established within the wide range of the Crystal Palace. But there was another view of the case. The British Museum was deficient in the room necessary for the reception of all the antiquities provided for it; and the greatest naturalists agreed that the specimens of natural history there would be exhibited to great advantage under glass. The British Museum would soon be far more than filled both in the library department and in that of antiquities; and he thought the third department, that of natural history, might be successfully transferred to the Crystal Palace. The way in which the Royal Commissioners had conducted the whole affairs of the Exhibition, reflected great credit upon them; and he must say that his Royal Highness Prince Albert, who was trained under the Astronomer Royal at Brussels, and made great proficiency in his mathematical studies, was admirably fitted to be at the head of such a body of Commissioners for the promotion of any scientific object whatever. The duties of his Royal Highness Prince Albert and his coadjutors were now coming to a close; and their present intention was to close the Crystal Palace on the 1st September. They were further bound by their contract to remove the building altogether by the 1st of June, 1852. What he (Mr. Hey wood) asked the House was, that the Commissioners should be granted a delay up to the 1st May next year, with a view to steps being taken whereby the Legislature could authorise the Commissioners to retain possession of the building altogether. He was authorised to state on the part of Messrs. Fox and Henderson, the contractors, that they would hold themselves in readiness to treat with the Commissioners as regarded the 1st May upon the same terms as had been agreed to as regarded the 1st September. The Commissioners would not, in a pecuniary point of view, be held responsible; and he must at the same time say, that he thought Mr. Paxton and Messrs. Fox and Henderson, who had distinguished themselves so much in the erection of the build-

1725
ing, deserved much from the Commissioners in the way of reward, and he should not be sorry to hear that a considerable sum came to them when the change took place. It had been stated by good judges that a very little change, at a moderate expense, would adapt the building to its new use, for the comfort, recreation, and instruction of the inhabitants. In that particular part of the metropolis there was a general absence of places of public resort and amusement. The only place of public resort he was aware of was Tattersall's; there was nothing analogous to the Zoological and Botanical Gardens in the Regent's Park. As to any nuisance being created of which the inhabitants could complain, he might observe that the arrangements of the police hitherto had been excellent; and the same order could be easily preserved under whatever character the Crystal Palace appeared. The particular style of architecture called crystal architecture was new to historians, and the magnificent specimen in Hyde Park would, no doubt, be spoken of in future history as one of the great features of the age in which we lived, and one not unworthy to be ranked with railways, the penny postage, and other inventions. There were, besides, associations connected with this building that ought to create a feeling favourable to its preservation; such, for example, as the magnificent scene at the opening of the Exhibition by Her Majesty. The Crystal Palace might be described as the nearest approach to a ladies' club that had ever been constructed, for there a lady might walk about with as much security and quiet as in her own drawing-room. As to the changes to be made in the building, a variety might be suggested for consideration, such as fitting up the lower sashes with glass, intersecting it with streets, and so on. The matter which he had brought to the notice of the House was not one in which the Commissioners themselves could move. They had only to abide by their contracts, explicit and implied. Neither was it a matter in which the Government could move. Hence it had fallen into his hands, as an independent Member; and it was for the House itself to decide. The interests of the parties who were residents and owners of house property in the neighbourhood of the palace, were to be fairly considered, and their claims to compensation might hereafter be weighed. The House was at present only appealed to to grant a little
1726
time; and he, for one, should deeply regret if they were carelessly to allow the destruction of a noble monument of the days in which they lived.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct, in such manner as to Her may seem fit, that the Crystal Palace be preserved until the 1st May next, with a view to determine if that novel Structure, or any portion of it, can be adapted to purposes of public utility and recreation."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he rose to oppose the Motion. He considered that, in so doing, he was at least acting consistently with the course he had hitherto pursued on this subject. He had, at the outset, looked upon the erection of this building as a gross attack on the rights of the people of this country; and he had been proud to find the opinion of a humble individual like himself borne out by the high authority of such eminent lawyers as Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Mr. Justice Cresswell. He had the highest respect for the Illustrious Prince at the head of the Commission, but be still entertained the same opinion he originally professed on this subject. Unfortunately, however, for the people of this country, the erection of this Crystal Palace took place; and what had been the result? The desecration of the Sabbath—the demoralisation of the people—a disunion of parties—and increasing poverty to a most serious extent; for he had heard, and with pain, that the poor of this country had been seduced to come up to this Exhibition. All that they had saved and all they could borrow had been in many cases spent in this foolish journey; and he knew he spoke facts when he stated that not only had they borrowed money but pawned their clothes to enable them to come up to this "World's Fair," as it was called; and now they were left without a penny in their pockets. One-half of the tradesmen in the metropolis and the provincial towns would tell them that their trade was lost—that they had no customers—all had gone to the Crystal Palace, not merely for amusement, but, what was worse, to make future orders for the goods of foreigners, who came here to undersell the honest, industrious, and heavily-taxed people of England. As for the building itself, it was, no doubt, a wonderful building externally; of its interior he knew nothing, for, curious as he was on the subject, he had, from principle, denied himself the gratification

1727
of his curiosity on that point. And they were now considering whether they should perpetuate this building. But a compact had been made with reference to it, that it should stand only for a certain time, and that it then should come down. Did the Government intend, or did they not, to adhere to that compact? Would they swerve from that compact, and adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood)? He believed that, morally, religiously, and socially speaking, this Exhibition was a great curse to the country; and, with the opinions he had ever entertained of it, and in which he was more than ever confirmed, he could not possibly subscribe to any such Motion. After the exhibition of meanness on the part of the Commissioners when they came to that House and asked for money for the payment of their clerks, he could expect nothing at their hands but trickery and manœuvring. He had given his mite to oppose the erection of the Crystal Palace, though in that they were thwarted by the late Attorney General. Would those who had already made 300,000 l. by it, spend some of that in keeping up the winter garden they wanted? Would they keep up this palace of tomfoolery at their own expense, or would they have the boldness to come to that House for a Parliamentary grant for it? If the latter, then that would of itself form a sufficient reason for his own opposition to any proposal tending that way, to say nothing of his general objections to everything connected with the whole scheme, and the manner in which it not only violated the rights of the people in general, but more especially the rights of those to whose property in the immediate neighbourhood of the Exhibition it was a serious injury. On all these grounds, then—pursuing the same course he had ever followed on this subject—guided by no selfish motives whatever, but acting in pursuance of what he felt to be his duty to the people of this country—he should say "No" to this Motion, and gave it his most determined opposition.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no intention of following the hon. and gallant Officer through the great variety of topics to which he had adverted in his discursive speech; but, as one of the Commissioners, he begged to offered a few observations on the Motion now before the House. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant Officer in the general estimate he had formed of the merits of the Exhibition. His belief
1728
was that it had not only ministered to the gratification of hundreds of thousands of persons of all ranks and conditions, but that its permanent effects on the trade of this country, as well as on the improvement of all the arts that ministered to the comfort and well-being of the people, would not be little. However, upon these points there was so wide a difference between the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln and himself, that he despaired of making any impression upon the mind of the gallant Colonel by any arguments he could use, and therefore would leave that question to the general sense of the House. The gallant Officer had talked of the general demoralisation of the country caused by this Exhibition. Now, he believed nothing could be more moral, in the highest sense of the word, more humanising, or civilising, than the great spectacle they had seen in this country. So different were his views from those of the gallant Colonel, that though he had seen with admiration the magnificent assemblage of works of industry collected within the marvellous structure which the genius of Mr. Paxton had raised, yet there was another spectacle he had seen with still greater delight, and that was the orderly demeanour of the hundreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen of all ranks and classes, from the hives of industry in the manufacturing towns, as well as from the agricultural districts, almost without a single case being brought before the police, and without the slightest disturbance of the public peace, in spite of those sinister observations they had heard so much of, that the metropolis would be a scene of disorder, if not actually burnt and pillaged. Nor could he omit to say how gratifying it was to find that, notwithstanding the great influx of foreigners to our shores, there had scarcely occurred among them, any more than among our own countrymen, a paltry police case, or the slightest breach of the public peace. He therefore formed a very different estimate of this Exhibition from that entertained by the hon. and gallant Officer; and he could not help referring to the circumstance, so gratifying to them as Englishmen, while it had excited the admiration of foreigners, that all this had taken place without any display of military; that the mere staff of the policeman, enforced by the love of order and of law which happily distinguished the people of this country, had crushed everything like disorder, notwithstanding that the streets of the metro-

1729
polis were crowded beyond all former precedent. He would now make a few remarks upon the question more immediately before the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood) had brought forward a Motion, not asking the House to pledge themselves to the eventual and permanent maintenance of the building, but to consent that a sort of reprieve should be given to it, so as to enable them next Session fully to consider the matter. On that question he, as a Commissioner, and as a Member of the Government, would express no opinion whatever. He held that it was a question for that House to decide. Both as a Commissioner and as a Member of the Government, he considered himself pledged to pull down the building, unless that House expressed a different opinion. For his part, not for all that was in the Crystal Palace would he be a party to the violation of that pledge, without the consent of the House of Commons. At the same time, it was right the House should be mindful of how the Commissioners stood in regard to this matter. The engagement which was entered into with Messrs. Fox and Henderson as to the taking down of the Palace, presented two alternatives. It was, in the first place, agreed to pay a certain sum for the use of the building for a certain time; and that it should then be taken down; but if it should be finally resolved to retain the building by the Commissioners, it was then agreed that they should purchase it by the payment of a further sum. At that moment they stood engaged to pay to the contractors, for the use of the building, about 120,000 l.; and, if the building were purchased, they engaged to pay 70,000 l. more, making altogether about 190,000 l. It was also agreed that unless the Commissioners gave notice to Messrs. Fox and Henderson for the removal of the Palace before a certain day, they should he bound to purchase it, so that even if the building were to stand, they would be obliged to give that notice, unless those gentlemen were ready to release them from that obligation.
MR. HEYWOODhad the authority of Mr. Paxton to say that Messrs. Fox and Henderson would consent to waive those terms of the contract.
MR. LABOUCHEREwould only say further, the Commissioners were, in fact, bound to pull down the Crystal Palace, unless the House interfered to prevent it. The whole question was before the House, and he would not give an opinion on the
1730
subject one way or the other. Every Member was perfectly competent to form a judgment upon it; and it was pre-eminently the duty of the House to decide the question. He should not vote on the Motion, but wait and see what decision the House came to.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that differing entirely as he did from the feelings expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) on this subject, he agreed with him in the conclusion to which he had come, and he was anxious to state the grounds on which he had come to that conclusion. He believed the House was not at liberty—he used that phrase deliberately—to alter the contract into which the Commissioners had entered with regard to the removal of the building from Hyde Park. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) in all that he had said as to the benefits which had already resulted from the Exhibition. And when they acknowledged those results, it behoved them not to be proud, but thankful that there had been communicated to a larger mass of their fellow-creatures than had ever before been congregated together, more rational, intelligent, and beneficial pleasure than had been ever before enjoyed. And when he compared the predictions of last year with the happy falsification which it had been their privilege, through God's good providence, to witness, he felt shame and humiliation when he remembered that he also was amongst those who prognosticated evil. He had indeed taken no public part in making those prognostications, but in his own secret mind he certainly anticipated almost all the evils which others had stated; and therefore he wished now all the more strongly to bear testimony, with his right hon. Friend, to the good conduct of the people of England, as well as to the good conduct of their friends and allies from the Continent, whom they had welcomed. He had every confidence in the efficiency of the police force; but he believed that if the great masses who had been congregated together had not been actuated by higher principles, ten times the amount of I police force would not have sufficed to preserve order. Further, he could not but acknowledge the great obligation the country owed to the prescient sagacity of the illustrious Prince who devised the plan, and who had successfully carried it out, notwithstanding the lukewarm support of many, and the ill-concealed aversion of

1731
others. That illustrious Prince foresaw, not only the immediate pleasure which his conception would contribute to his fellow-subjects, but also the great ultimate and lasting benefits which would result from it. Those benefits, he (Sir R. Inglis) apprehended would not be of a limited or of a temporary nature; but, if the building were destined to fall to-morrow, those benefits would be felt for many generations to come. It was, indeed, a peace congress, in which were brought together those who were formerly regarded as natural enemies, and who, without the sacrifice of principle, and without any differences of opinion, had drunk at the same spring; and all of whom, he hoped, were equally thankful for the pleasure they had been permitted to enjoy. No one could have visited the Exhibition without experiencing a joy he had never felt before at beholding so many happy faces brought together. If he differed from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) in any part of his address, it was that in which he withdrew himself from all responsibility as a Minister of the Crown. The Ministers of the Crown, from their position, ought to guide and govern the House. But he did not consider the question to be whether the preservation of the Crystal Palace, or the erection of a new one, would or would not be for the best interests of the country. He felt that he was not at liberty to take into consideration any benefit that might result from the continuance of the building. To him it was simply a question of contract, and more especially with those whose property had been already deteriorated to a great extent by the building, and would be much more deteriorated if the building should be made permanent. His right hon. Friend wished to have an expression of the opinion of the House on that point; but if that opinion were unanimous, it could not affect the contract. Nothing but an Act of the Legislature could possibly get rid of the contract. If, therefore, the question should come to a division, he must feel himself bound to vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, because he did not think they had the power, however much they might have the desire, to retain the building.
MR. EWARTsaid, he should support the Motion. He could not understand the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that the House was not at liberty to annul the contract. Messrs. Fox and Henderson did
1732
not insist on the precise conditions of the contract; and the House, therefore, could fully intervene to effect a delay and time for consideration. The people out of doors did not object to annulling the contract. The proprietors of houses adjoining the Exhibition were no parties to the compact. They were accidentally mixed up with the question, and had claims entitled to attention; but with these claims at present the House had nothing to do. There were three purposes to which the Crystal Palace might be converted, in the event of its being retained as a permanent building: first, it might be a place filled with scientific collections; second, a place of recreation; and, thirdly, a place for health. As a museum for scientific objects of all sorts, it would be invaluable; as a place of recreation, it would suit admirably; and in the winter season, as a place conducive to health, it would be attended with great advantages to many classes. On these grounds he was decidedly in favour of the retention of the building. He paid no attention whatever to the suggestion that it was not fitted for a permanent building. His answer was, that Mr. Paxton had explained in his pamphlet that even when forming the original design, he carefully kept in view the after use to which the building might be applied as a winter-garden. The question for the House was, whether they would let slip this splendid opportunity of conferring a vast benefit upon the public and the country. He hoped that they would not. He cordially concurred in all that had been so well said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) and by the hon. Baronet Sir R. H. Inglis) as to the spirit shown by the people, the conduct of the Government, and the forethought of the illustrious Prince; and, in now giving his vote in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend, he was convinced that he was expressing, as far he knew them, the opinions of his constituents and of the great body of his countrymen.
MR. M'GREGORsaid, as he lived opposite the Crystal Palace, he might be pardoned for saying a few words. He believed that few of the edifices built opposite Hyde Park would have been built in the way they are now if it had been contemplated that the view of the Park, and their intercourse with it, would be obstructed by the erection of a building so formidable in point of size. He had chosen that locality on account of its privacy; and he

1733
knew that his neighbours, and especially that enterprising builder, Mr. Elger, had been subjected to serious losses in consequence of that privacy being infringed. On the other hand, when he looked to the extraordinary scene presented in the Crystal Palace—to the gathering of all nations there—and to the wonderful collection of all the products of art and industry inside—he felt that he should be selfish indeed if he were to interpose his own domestic convenience against the retention of a building that he thought might be made a great agent in the civilisation of the world. He certainly thought they would be committing a rash act if they decided for its immediate demolition; and therefore he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, in order to give time for further inquiries. He had his doubts whether it could be converted into a winter garden; but he believed it might be made a museum more important than any that had ever been seen—that, in fact, it might be made a great European university of civilisation.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid: I desire to put in one or two reasons in favour of the Motion. The first is, the general impolicy of doing and undoing. After great expense has been incurred to raise a building, the odds appear to be that something better can be done with it than to destroy it. And the next is, that there is a large party in the country who are anxious to see the building preserved, not only till May next, but in perpetuity or as far towards it as is possible. The great end and object of the Exhibition in Hyde Park does not appear to have been ever stated in this House with as much distinctness as it admits. The place is a grand mart of all nations, where each in kindly and honest rivalry, may determine which of the necessaries or comforts of life can be obtained on better terms by exchanging the products of their country for them, than by making them at home. In all this, there is no fraud, no setting of nation against nation, no attempt at anything but the promotion of a common good. In every country, there is what may be designated as a commercial interest, whose immediate concern is in the furnishing or forwarding the goods to be exchanged with foreigners. In England, this interest is represented by nobody so well as my constituents at Bradford; it is therefore my manifest duty, to stand up for everything which may promote the extension of foreign
1734
commerce. We trust the question has been sufficiently sifted here and elsewhere, to prevent our being put down under the childish cry of Protection to Native Industry. Are we not native industry, and is not our industry as good as another's, or better, inasmuch as the result of it is to give the benefit of the difference of price to the consumers, with no balance of injury to the operatives in the aggregate? In this view, we should necessarily be glad to see the present building applied to the purpose of a similar Exhibition triennially, or if that be too often, septennially. And for such a purpose, it is clear we must vote for the preservation of the building now.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, if this were a question whether they were to pay a compliment to Mr. Paxton for his splendid design of the building which had been erected, or to Messrs. Fox and Henderson for the skill and ability with which they had carried out Mr. Paxton's design; or if the question were whether they were to pay a tribute of respect and admiration to the illustrious Prince who had originated the idea of the Exhibition, he certainly would have offered no opposition to the Motion; or if it were desired to mark their sense of the value of this Exhibition—if there was any doubt whether they were sufficiently sensible of the advantages which had been derived from the general good order of all classes—then he would not be found among the opponents of this Motion. But agreeing on all these points with the hon. Member for North Lancashire, he still felt that a great principle was involved in the question which they were called upon to discuss—the principle of the maintenance of perfect good faith with the parties concerned in these transactions, which was involved in the question they were then discussing; and he felt bound in consequence to oppose the proposition for an Address to the Crown on this subject. He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether this building would ever have been raised—whether the public consent would ever have been given to an encroachment of twenty acres on Hyde Park, if it had not been assured that when the purposes of the Exhibition were served, and the time fixed upon for its conclusion arrived, that then the building should be taken down, and the park be restored to its former condition, for the recreation and the health of the people? If they looked to the express terms of the contract, he thought they would see that nothing could warrant a departure from

1735
the original arrangement. He did not refer to the specific provisions of the contract entered into between the Government and the contractors, but he spoke of the general understanding in that House and the country, and he, for one, could not bring himself to he a party to its violation. While admired as much as any man the genius and the tact shown in this building, he thought it would be for the advantage of the designer himself that the building should be removed in the full bloom of its fame. It was not well, for instance, that a public man should remain at his post after his faculties were impaired and his vigour paralysed; it would be better that he should retire into private life; and so it was with regard to this building. No doubt it excited, at the present moment, general admiration; but he believed that when the Exhibition was removed—when it no longer contained the various products to which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Gregor) had referred—the public admiration would not be extended to it in the same degree. The lion. Mover of this Resolution stated that it might be retained as a place of recreation for Belgravia, and he also suggested that it should be retained as a ladies' club; but afterwards the hon. Member was constrained to admit, that, in consequence of the want of a free circulation of air, it would be necessary to alter the lower part of the building. Well, but if that were necessary, what was to become of the ladies' club? And even admitting all this, would not the people of Tyburnia demand a similar portion of the park for their recreation also? Another hon. Gentleman was averse to its being converted into a winter garden; but he suggested that it would form a magnificent museum for specimens of geology, and zoology, and all the other ologies. But there was one answer to all of these speculations—that a considerable expense would be incurred, whether the building was to be used as a winter garden, or ladies' club, or as a new Tattersall's; not that these expenses would be very heavy, or that they would be much felt at first, but as years rolled on, the expenses would begin to be severely felt, and there would be a different feeling with respect to it on the part of the people. A good deal had been said respecting the petitions presented on this subject; but he must say that he had examined these petitions with some care, and, instead of the majority of them coming from the metropolis, as might have been expected, he
1736
found that most of them came from Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Selkirk, and Stirling; and in England, the towns of Falmouth and Exeter were most conspicuous; but in London the petitions were in very limited number; and he believed that if the metropolis were polled, there would be a great majority for restoring Hyde Park to its pristine integrity. If this encroachment were permitted, he feared that other portions of the park would be used for kindred purposes, and thus the space allotted for health and recreation would be gradually encroached upon. For these reasons he must give his decided opposition to the Motion.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, the reason why no petitions had been presented from the metropolis was, that the mass of the population could not believe it would enter into the head of any man to destroy such a building. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) seemed to fear that the public would sustain a loss of twenty acres in Hyde Park by the retention of this building; but if the right hon. Gentleman would look into this question, he would find that the building would be a great gain to all classes. The building would not be confined to any particular class, it would be open to all at particular times gratis; and with respect to the cost of it, it never was intended to apply to the Government for the expense of its maintenance. Mr. Paxton himself stated that, in order to prove no public grant was necessary, responsible parties were willing to take the building on a lease for twenty-one years, and to submit their tariff of charges for admission to the control and supervision of Government. He was certainly surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), and the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis), who represented the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should manifest so much indifference to the interests of science. They talked of a contract. The contract was between the Commissioners and Messrs. Fox and Henderson, and he held in his hand a slip of paper, signed John Henderson, to this effect:—"I agree, on the part of Messrs. Fox and Henderson, to consent to an arrangement for notice of removal of the Crystal Palace, to be given for its removal on the 1st of May next, provided that they are not placed in a worse position than if notice were given on the 1st of December." That point was therefore disposed of. Who could contemplate the destruction of such

1737
an establishment otherwise than with feelings of pain? He (Mr. Wakley) declared that the Crystal Palace was connected with the noblest associations that could engage the mind of man. The conception originally was a grand one. It was marvellous in its capacity. It embraced the universe, and they had seen the effect of it manifested in every quarter of the globe, the concentration of interests being in that sacred spot in Hyde Park. Was it not an audacious step to presume to desecrate such hallowed ground? That was the conviction which he entertained. He might be wrong; but he declared, if it was proposed seriously to destroy that fabric, he should not be surprised at the labouring men refusing to undertake the demolition of what they believed was a temple of peace and industry. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University; of Oxford was one of the prophets of evil, but he had had the candour to admit he had been agreeably disappointed. The hon. Baronet seemed astonished that the English people should have been admitted in such numbers; and should have behaved so well. But what did he expect? Did he think the English people were wild beasts? He (Mr. Wakley) could assure him that the English people, into whatever place they were admitted, conducted themselves as rational and civilised beings; and their behaviour on this occasion, whilst it reflected honour on themselves, would tend to raise the national character in the opinion of foreign countries. Then, with regard to the foreigners; was it not delightful to witness harmony and concord amongst persons whom the hon. Member had had the misfortune to call natural enemies? But human beings were natural friends, and were only made enemies by bad government and vicious legislation. By inviting people to meet and reflect on works of art, they were humanised in the highest possible degree, and their minds were elevated to the highest point the human intellect could attain. Gentlemen had the means of enjoyment where ladies were not admitted. There would be no fear of the demolition of the Crystal Palace if it were put to the vote of the ladies of London or of England, whether or not they were in favour of its retention as a winter garden, where, instead of a shivering atmosphere and mountains of dirt and dust, they might enjoy a promenade protected from these sources of annoyance and ill health. It would be a place of universal resort; and for people
1738
in the neighbourhood to say their property would he deteriorated, was a most cunning trick. They would be setting up a claim by and by for compensation. But he would put this question to the owners of property in the neighbourhood—if it was resolved that the Crystal Palace should be retained, would they undertake to sell their property at the same price they would have taken before the Crystal Palace was erected? The same cry was made when railways were being rapidly extended; but he believed there was no instance in which property in the neighbourhood of a railway station had declined, whilst in many cases it had increased three and four fold in value. His conviction was, that no praise could be bestowed on Messrs. Fox and Henderson equal to their deserts. But it was the exclamation of every one—"After all, the structure is the crowning work." Was it possible any human being could say, "Sweep it away! Leave not a fragment of it behind?" He (Mr. Wakley) could not ask for an unanimous vote; as three persons had spoken against the Motion. They would be three great curiosities in a future day. He could not possibly understand how any one could contemplate the destruction of the Crystal Palace; and he firmly believed, if it was possible the votes of the people could be taken, forty-nine out of every fifty would be in favour of its permanent establishment.
MR. BANKESsaid, the remark of the hon. Gentleman who bad just resumed his seat, that only three Gentlemen had spoken against the Motion; so far from weighing with him to the same conclusion, satisfied him, on the other hand, that the arguments offered by those Gentlemen were so unanswerable that nothing more was needed in addition. He was perfectly satisfied with the argument of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), founded on the necessity of keeping faith with the parties concerned in the contract relating to the erection of the Crystal Palace. He was not for the destruction of the building, nor was he for its continuance on its present site, as that would be a violation of public faith. But if there was a great desire for the establishment of a winter garden in the metropolis, the hon. Member (Mr. Wakley) was the proposer of a new park in Finsbury, and thither the Crystal Palace might be transferred. [Mr. WAKLEY: I should be delighted.] He would be most happy to vote with the hon. Member if, such was the proposition. The hon. Gen-

1739
tleman was the advocate of the interests of the labouring classes, and if the Crystal Palace was removed from Hyde Park to Finsbury Park, the labouring classes would be employed, the experiment of a winter garden would be tried, and public faith would be kept. It was not a question of Fox and Henderson—it was a question of those residing opposite that part of the park. He (Mr. Bankes) cared not whether it was my Lord Campbell on one side of the Serpentine, or Mrs. Hicks on the other; he was opposed to every sacrifice of faith with any individual. He asked the hon. Member for Finsbury, whether he believed the consent of the two Houses of Parliament could have been obtained for this great project, if it had not been understood that the interference with Hyde Park would be only for a limited period? If the hon. Member could not answer that question, as he (Mr. Bankes) believed he could not answer it, negatively, whatever might be the wish for the retention of the building, it ought to be removed at the stipulated time.
LORD SEYMOURwished to state why he should vote against the Motion; it was because it appeared to him to be of far more importance to keep public faith, than to preserve the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. When the subject of building the Palace was first under consideration in that House, the very first minute which the Crown laid on the table was a memorandum of the Commissioners, in which they stated that, with regard to the building, they could only repeat to the House the assurance which had been already given, that it was not intended to be a permanent building, but that it would be entirely removed within seven months after the closing of the Exhibition: that an agreement to that effect had been entered into with the Lords of the Treasury, and that the building must be removed in accordance with that agreement. It was owing chiefly, if not wholly, to the understanding that the building was to be a temporary one, that the inhabitants of the metropolis so readily gave their support to the plan; and, such having been the agreement, he did not think it fair to call upon the Commissioners to violate their pledge. It had been said that the people did not expect that the building would be removed. That was not a very complimentary opinion to express towards either the Commissioners or the Government. The Commissioners gave a solemn assurance that the
1740
building should be removed, and the Government also gave a like assurance. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had said that the inhabitants of the metropolis never would believe that any one would remove the Crystal Palace; he (Lord Seymour), however, hoped that time would show to those persons that the words of public men, and of the Government, were not so lightly spoken, and so easily disregarded.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that when it was stipulated that the building was only to be temporary, it was in consequence of the opinion then entertained by many persons that it could not succeed, and must fail. He, in common with the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), had grave apprehensions of the propriety of assembling millions on a site on one of the greatest thoroughfares of the metropolis, and had, with him, been happily disappointed. That feeling was pretty general at the time, and that made them less anxious as to retaining the building. With regard to the feeling of the inhabitants in the neighbourhood, he could say, having resided there for some time, and knowing the sentiments of the residents, that they regarded this Motion, which was only for the retention of the building for four or five months, in order to try how it would succeed as a winter garden, in a different light from what they would if it was now proposed to perpetuate the building. He believed they would consider it much more disagreeable if the building were to be taken down in winter immediately when the agreement expired.
MR. CLAYsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury with regard to the petitions from the metropolis. He believed the people could not bring themselves to think that the building was to be pulled down. The people did not know the precise pledge which had been given; but they knew that Mr. Paxton had constructed the foundations so strongly that the building might be made permanent if it was thought necessary. All that was now asked was to preserve the building till the 1st of May. By that time the opinions of the public could be made manifest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had made use of a curiously eccentric argument, for he said, "If the winter garden would give an advantage to Belgravia, Tyburnia would put in her claim for the same thing." There might

1741
be a question whether, according to the old adage, they might not have too ranch of a good thing; but if the right hon. Gentleman thought Tyburnia would be so desirous to have a winter garden, how could he in the same breath tell them it would be a bad thing for Belgravia? He believed that the Exhibition had promoted good-will and peace amongst men, and that more than a mere remembrance of it should be retained as its record.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the object of the Motion was to express the well-deserved credit he thought they owed to the illustrious Person who bad conceived the design of the Palace, of the Commissioners who had erected it, of the architect who had designed, and of the energetic contractors who had carried it out, there was nothing that had fallen from any hon. Member, except from his hon. and gallant relative (Colonel Sibthorp), in which he did not most cordially concur. If, again, the object of the Motion was to express their admiration at the conduct of the people and of those who had visited them, in that, too, he most willingly concurred; but he thought the House, in considering such matters, was apt to lose sight of the real question before them. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had indulged in a warm eulogium on the Temple of Peace, in which had been united all the nations of the earth. No one could admire more than himself the Exhibition, and the good it had done in promoting good-fellowship between the nations of the world, and in displaying the wonders of art from various countries to which hon. Members had alluded. That was what had been effected by the Exhibition, but that was what would not be effected by the proposed plan. A certain purpose had been accomplished by the existence of the building for a definite time, and it was utterly impossible to obtain that purpose by the devotion of the building to another object. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) said, let them try the experiment of a winter garden. Before they came to any conclusion on the subject of the garden, they must give some little attention to the kind of expense to which they would be subject, and to the source whence it would come should they sanction that plan. One of the Commissioners had stated the terms of the contract, which were that they (the Commissioners) were to become
1742
possessors of the building on the payment of 70,000 l. in addition to the contract price for the erection and use of the building. If the nation were to perpetuate the building, they must be prepared to take on themselves, in the first place, the payment of this 70,000 l., for those were the terms on which the Commissioners might take up the building from the contractors, and if they put themselves in the position of the Commissioners, they must be called on to pay the same amount. Nor should they shut their eyes to that fact. If the Commissioners thought fit to purchase the building for the nation out of the funds they had received, that was another matter; but it appeared from what had been stated, they could do no such thing. Therefore they must consider they were authorising the expenditure of 70,000 l. in the purchase of the building. An hon. Member told them it was the intention of Mr. Paxton from the first that the building should become permanent; but no one would say, taking it altogether, that it was in such a state as would render it capable of being maintained as a permanent building without expense. He would not state any probable sum, but he was quite sure no one would contradict him when he said that to put it in a condition for a winter garden would require a considerable outlay; and he apprehended no one imagined that it could be maintained permanently without a considerable annual cost. This only referred to the building as it stood. As a winter garden considerable expense must be incurred to put it in a state to afford the country the slightest opportunity of judging whether they would like it or not. He did not suppose his hon. Friend (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought that empty walls would enable the public to judge whether they would like it or not as a winter garden. But if it was put into the state of a winter garden, he did not think the object which the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) had indicated of a ladies' club would be quite in unison with the scientific purpose described by others. The building was built for a temporary purpose; the most solemn pledges were given that it should be so; and the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had stated to them he thought the Government were bound to take it down, unless there was a national expression of public opinion which should interfere between them and its removal. It must, he thought, be something more than

1743
a mere majority of the House that could convey the certain expression of that opinion; and, for himself, he would not pretend to express any opinion, nor did he, as a Member of the Government, feel called upon to take the initiative at all. He had stated what they had to expect if they proposed to continue the building; and, as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, he would give no opinion on the question, and in that capacity he would give no vote upon the question.
MR. HEADLAMthought the arguments urged that evening against retaining the building, were such as ought not to influence the decision. He denied that the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests was justified in entering into any contract which could fetter the public as to what should be clone with the building. In point of fact, there were no parties capable of entering into the supposed contract; and even if there had been, he should still deny that any such contract had been entered into. The utmost that could be said was, that an expectation had been held out that the building would be removed; but he claimed for that House the power of saying in what manner, in their opinion, it was best that the parks should be used. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had not furnished the House with any distinct information as to the expense of maintaining the building. He (Mr. Headlam) did not think any great expense would be incurred. The funds derived from the opening of the Exhibition would be considerable; and, considering that the Zoological and Botanical Gardens maintained themselves, he could not doubt that the Exhibition also might be supported without the slightest difficulty by the subscriptions of visitors. He believed it was a great mistake to suppose that the public were indifferent on the subject. If there had not been many petitions presented, it was simply because no one had any idea that the building would be removed. At all events, the public would be greatly disappointed if it were not retained till the 1st of May; and under the contract with Messrs. Fox and Henderson it might be retained until then without any extra expense.
MR. GEACHcould state, from the most credible sources of information, that the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the perishable nature of the materials was not correct. The building had been so constructed that there was scarcely any part which they would not
1744
have to put up in a permanent building, or any expense gone to which would not be incurred in putting up such a building at present. With the exception of painting, the expense of keeping it in repair, would not be considerable. He could not admit that the persons who had residences in the neighbourhood of the Crystal Palace were the public; and, if any violation had been committed towards them, it had been committed when Her Majesty, by Her warrant, granted the site, and when the Parliament sanctioned the building by an address to the Crown. He considered the consent of the general public was to a great degree involved in the consent of the Parliament to that Act. It would be found, too, that the metropolitan districts had petitioned in favour of retaining the Palace.
The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 47: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Henry, A.

Alcock, T.

Hindley, C.

Anstey, T. C.

Hollond, R.

Bagshaw, J.

Hudson, G.

Barrow, W. H.

Johnstone, J.

Bass, M. T.

Kershaw, J.

Bell, J.

Knight, F. W.

Bellew, R. M.

Knox, hon. W S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Langston, J. H.

Booth, Sir R. G.

M'Gregor, J.

Bright, J.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Brocklehurst, J.

Matheson, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Bunbury, E. H.

Moffatt, G.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Morris, D.

Carter, J. B.

O'Brien, J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Pilkington, J.

Child, S.

Pinney, W.

Clay, J.

Rich, H.

Clay, Sir W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Salwey, Col.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Sandars, G.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Scobell, Capt.

Dawes, E.

Scrope, G. P.

Duncan, G.

Smith, J. B.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanford, J. F.

Egerton, W. T.

Tennent, R. J.

Ellis, J.

Thompson, Col.

Evans, J.

Thompson, G.

Evelyn, W. J.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Forstor, M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Fox, W. J.

Watkins, Col. L.

Fuller, A. E.

Willcox, B. M.

Geach, C.

Williams, W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Wilson, J.

Hallewell, E. G.

TELLERS.

Headlam, T. E.

Heywood, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, R. B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Bankes, G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

1745

Bramston, T. W.

Lennard, T. B.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Lewis, G. C.

Cocks, T. S.

Lushington, C.

Coles, H. B.

Martin, J.

Cubitt, W.

Masterman, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Melgund, Visct.

Denison, J. E.

Mullings, J. R.

Dick, Q.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Douro, Marq. of

Parker, J.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Reid, Col.

Edwards, H.

Richards, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Seymour, Lord

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, S. W. L.

Spooner, R.

French, F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stuart, J.

Greene, J.

Wigram, L. T.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Wynn, R. W. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Young, G. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Baring, H. B.

Knox, Col.

Grey, R. W.

TRANSPORTATION TO VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYbegged, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the petition from the native-born colonists of Van Diemen's Land, presented on Monday, the 16th of June last. It was admitted that the people of Van Diemen's Land were desirous that transportation to that colony should cease, and that its moral, social, and commercial condition had been entirely ruined by the continuance of transportation. The recent speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) on that subject, had removed the necessity for his going into the question at any length. That speech was unanswerable, and would be read with deep interest in all the Australian colonies. It was not denied that Sir William Denison had promised that transportation should cease in the space of two years, but that pledge had been broken. Since the last debate on this subject, upwards of 200 persons in Van Diemen's Land had requested him to take charge of their petition, and to call attention to its contents. At that period of the night and of the Session, and in the present temper of the House, he should, he thought, be betraying, instead of discharging, the trust reposed in him, if he entered into the causes of the complaints from Van Diemen's Land, or the colonies in general. He thought he should best redeem his pledge by calling attention to the allegation in this petition. Having done so, he would resume his seat, and take an opportunity in the ensuing Session to do more justice than he could then do to the complaints of
1746
those persons whose representative he felt himself to be. The petition was from colonists who were all natives of Van Diemen's Land. They referred to petitions on the table which had been reprinted by-order of the House, and they said that those petitions, and the correspondence to which they had given rise, established the fact, that the deplorable condition of Van Diemen's Land, in a moral, social, commercial, and political point of view, was solely attributable, and attributed by the officers of the Government themselves, to the present system of transportation. The petitioners said theirs was a peculiar case, and unlike the case of those who emigrated. They were born in the country, received their education there, and derived their opinions from local experience alone; and they argued that the evils they complained of were of a peculiar character, because they had no personal experience to appeal to on behalf of the Imperial Government, whose protection they never felt, and only knew as an oppressor. They said they had suffered in their worldly circumstances from the acts of perfidy of the Government in a manner that other colonists had not suffered, for other colonists had the option of leaving the island and getting employment elsewhere; but when the petitioners left it to seek in another colony what was denied them in the country of their birth, their hopes were extinguished—their applications for employment were rejected, and they had been obliged, in despite of themselves, to return to the country of their birth, because they found every other place barred against them. They said they claimed but justice from Parliament, and prayed that transportation to Australia and Van Diemen's Land might cease for ever.
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter before Eleven of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Medical Charities (Ireland); Lands Clauses Consolidation (Ireland).
2a Ecclesiastical Property Valuation (Ireland); Poor Relief Act Continuance; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Reported.—United Church of England and Ireland; Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland)Act Amendment; Militia Pay; Soap Duties.
3a Local Acts (Preliminary Inquiries); Charitable Institutions Notices; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commissions; Episcopal and Capitular Estates Managements (No. 2); Smithfield Market Removal; Civil Bills, & (Ireland); Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act Amendment; Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved that the Bill be now read 3a.
The EARL of ABERDEEN said: My Lords, having already occupied a considerable portion of your Lordships' time on a former stage of this measure, I certainly have no desire to claim your attention on the present occasion for more than a few
1638
minutes. But I cannot refrain from availing myself of this the last opportunity afforded me by the forms of the House to protest against the passing of this ill-omened measure. And, my Lords, the discussion which has already taken place, has certainly not removed the apprehensions which I entertain of its mischievous consequences, nor shaken my deep conviction of its radical injustice and intolerance. My Lords, during a long political life, I have never affected singularity of sentiment, nor am I conscious of having ever been deficient in deference and respect for the opinions of others. If, therefore, I find myself now almost alone in opposition to the sentiments of the House, at least your Lordships must believe that it is in consequence of the most deliberate and dispassionate consideration of what is due to right and to justice. My Lords, I make no complaint and no accusation; but something tells me that many of the noble Lords opposite are not strangers to the feelings which I have expressed at a former sitting. My Lords, what is the situation of this Bill at the present moment? Nothing could be more singular than the opinions entertained of this measure. Carried as it has been hitherto by overwhelming majorities, every Amendment strenuously and successfully resisted, nevertheless no single individual has professed an entire approbation of its provisions. Neither in this House, nor I believe in the other House of Parliament, has any one professed an entire satisfaction with it. Even the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has declared that he wishes parts of it had been otherwise. With some it does too much; with others too little; but none are satisfied with it as it stands; and the only thing in which the supporters of this measure agree, is in the opinion that something must be done. Now, my Lords, I think that this is a most unsatisfactory and irrational proceeding. The notion of doing "a something" is sure to lead to legislation from passion and prejudice, and not from a calm or an intelligent conviction of the real necessity of the case. My Lords, the noble Baron on the cross-bench (Lord Monteagle) who the other night moved for the omission of Ireland from this Bill, I thought made out the strongest case for the Motion he submitted—a case, indeed, triumphant in argument; but I was compelled not to accede to his proposition in order to avoid mischiefs of a still greater

1639
magnitude than those which the noble Lord wishes to avert. In fact, the noble Lord's argument, however strong it was against including Ireland in this Bill, appeared to me to afford still stronger reasons against any legislation whatever on this subject; for it is the effect, the necessary effect, which will be produced in Ireland by this measure, that in my mind furnishes the most cogent argument against all legislation, without a much stronger necessity than any that has yet been alleged for this Bill. My Lords, when we hold out the effect that may possibly he produced from the sudden introduction of such a penal statute as this into Ireland, it has been insinuated, if not asserted, that this course tends to encourage resistance in that country to the law, and to promote a spirit of disobedience, which it ought to be the sincere desire of all of us to check. But, my Lords, what are we to do? Here is a Bill proposed by Her Majesty's Government, which some of your Lordships think pregnant with mischief of every description, and calculated to lead to the most disastrous consequences. Is it not our right—is it not our duty—our imperative duty—to denounce a measure of this character, and to point out, in so far as we are able, the evils which we think are likely to result from it? If we are only to accept a Ministerial proposition, unquestioned, as law, then I am quite sure, in that case, that we had better leave our seats in this House, and make way for others who are more compliant and more docile. But I must say, that until this measure shall have been placed upon the Statute-book, we are perfectly free to deal with it according to our deliberate judgment and consciences, and to denounce what we think the evils of it in any way that may seem fit to us. Now, I admit that when once it becomes law, and has been inserted in the Statute-book, then, although unquestionably that which I think so bad will never change its character by becoming law, yet still the tone in which I shall speak of it will necessarily be modified. I do not say that I shall not be glad at any time to see a constitutional mode adopted for repealing such a law; but, undoubtedly, while it exists, it should be received with the respect and obedience due to all other laws. My Lords, I remember many years ago, a learned friend of mine, well known to the noble Marquess opposite, brought to me the manuscript of a work, and he said—"Now, find as many faults as you
1640
can in it before publication, and as few as you can after." That is something of the way in which we ought to treat proposals of law brought forward for our consideration. It is our business to criticise and expose such faults as we think belong to them; and when we have done so, if we fail to make any amendment in the measure, when, not having yet become law, it is still open to be canvassed by your Lordships as freely as on its first introduction, then the decision of your Lordships, as finally pronounced, is entitled to obedience and respect. My Lords, having already alluded to the effects which may be produced by this Bill, I will not enter into a repetition of arguments or of statements to show the evils which must flow from it; but I shall only call the attention of the noble Marquess to a single other point. The noble Marquess very emphatically declared the other night that nothing should have induced him to consent to the second clause of this Bill had it stood as it was originally proposed, and without the security of the consent of the Attorney General being necessary to the filing of any information by the common informer. [Lord BEAUMONT here made a remark.] The noble Lord reminds me that the clause was not originally proposed by the Government, but by those persons who had undertaken to amend the Government Bill. The noble Marquess said, he would not consent to a clause which gave power to a common informer to sue. Now, my Lords, I can only say that, according to the best of my judgment, an indictment may be filed under the first clause of this Bill without the consent of the Attorney General, and liable to be enforced against not only the assumption of titles, but against any exercise of "jurisdiction, authority, and pre-eminence," spiritual or otherwise. My Lords, that is my belief, from the opinions I have received. The noble Marquess must admit that at least this is doubtful, and if doubtful, what a prospect does it open up to your Lordships of consequence, that must ensue? If this be correct, is it possible to exaggerate the mischief you incur by the revival of these ancient statutes—for the first section of this Bill is a declaration of the law? If by the revival of these ancient laws you permit the possibility of an indictment being laid against any act of "jurisdiction, authority, and pre-eminence," struck at by those obsolete enactments, I say then you open up a scene of difficulty, and danger,

1641
and wrong, which I shudder to contemplate. Therefore it seems to me that our legislation is likely to lead to dangerous results—for the persons of ability and experience to whom I refer would not have entertained and declared such an opinion, if the question at least did not admit of doubt. With all the respect which I owe to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, this, it must be remembered, is a question which will go before the Courts of Common Law, and will have to be decided by a jury. I refer to this alone as a reason for anticipating, especially in Ireland, the evils to which I have alluded. I take it for granted, however, that as all amendments have been rejected hitherto, so, even to remove a doubt on this subject, an amendment will be impossible. I take it for granted that, as all the amendments which have yet been proposed on this Bill have been negatived by great majorities, any amendment which I might propose on the first clause would be negatived likewise. My Lords, I have now only to say that I shall avail myself of what I consider to be one of the most valuable privileges which your Lordships possess, that of recording on the Journals of the House your reasons for dissenting from any measure which you may think inexpedient. It will be for those who come afterwards to decide whether the reasons for the dissent which I intend to enter upon the Journals are consistent with good policy and good government; whether the apprehensions which I have expressed are well-founded, or whether they are only vain and imaginary. My Lords, I shall say, "Not content" to the third reading.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, there were circumstances—and those not unknown to many of their Lordships—which rendered it very painful for him to approach this subject; and he therefore hoped that their Lordships would give their kindest attention to an individual so circumstanced. If he had not the fullest belief that if he gave a silent vote on this subject, it would lead to the misconstruction or misconception of his motives, he would have been well content to remain silent; but there were high grounds on which it was incumbent that he, as possessing a prominent office in the Church of England, should come forward on this occasion, and explain the reasons why he gave his full, heart, and rational assent to the second reading of this Bill. It had been argued in the course of the debate, with great
1642
skill and singular ability, that this Bill was a civil and political measure, and that it did not touch at all upon matters of religion. If it were meant to say that this Bill only alluded to civil and political considerations, he had no hesitation in declaring that on such considerations he could not and would not give his assent to it. But he believed that the Bill affected the religious character of the country, and on that ground he should certainly give his vote in its favour. He did not mean to say thereby that it was the province of their Lordships to establish by legislation religious truth. He thought that it was not so. But to him it appeared that there were two entirely different lines of duty belonging to the right rev. Bench of Bishops and to their Lordships and the Legislature of the country on such points. "As we are," said the right rev. Prelate, "the authorities of the Church in this land, to whom has been committed by the law of the land and the people of the land the spiritual superintendence of the education of the poor, we are bound, on two distinct grounds, to protest against this aggression of the Bishop of Rome: first, because it is an introduction of false and fallacious religious doctrine into the land; and, secondly, because it is a systematic intrusion of a rival Church into the ground already occupied by the Protestant Church of England as by law established. We have a right to protest, and the clergy of one diocess of the country in synod assembled has already protested, and I will justify its proceedings in all its details—we have a right to protest against the aggression of the Bishop of Rome. I do not think, my Lords, that this is so much your duty, for you cannot hold the scales in which are to he weighed the differences in doctrine between the Church of England and the Church of Rome." Since their Lordships had given to the Roman Catholics seats in both branches of the Legislature, they had placed themselves in a position in which they were not competent to interfere between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He had, therefore, never argued against the tenets of the Church of Rome in that House, because it was not fitting to introduce controversial arguments into it after they had given to the Roman Catholic Peers a status within it. He therefore did not vote for this Bill on any grounds of sect; still less did he vote for it on the grounds that we were entitled to enter on a course of persecution against our Roman

1643
Catholic fellow-subjects. Such a course was as futile in practice as it was improper, unwise, and unchristian in principle, and therefore he would never lend himself to aid anything which favoured of persecution for religious opinions. It was only in virtue of our being a Christian people that we could protest against this Rescript of the See of Rome as an aggression. They had heard this Bill described as a repulsion of that aggression, and of the insult cast upon the Crown and sovereignty and nationality of England, the insult being the appointment of bishops within this realm. Now, how could their Lordships distinguish that act of the Bishop of Rome from certain acts which had been done of old time, when all Christian authority emanated from Jerusalem as a common centre? Churches were founded at Antioch, at Laodicea, and certain other places, of which we did not catch the names, and to the superintendents of those Churches apostolical authority was given from Jerusalem. Now, if this act of the Bishop of Rome—quoad nationality—was an act of aggression upon us, so too were the acts to which he had just alluded; and it was as much an aggression against the nationality of the countries in which the sees of Antioch, &c, were situated, to set up bishoprics there, as it was for the Bishop of Rome to set up bishoprics here. This, however, was the difference between the two cases. This country was a Christian country—a point which he hoped that it was not necessary for him to prove, and, as it was a Christian country, with a Christian Church Government, hence the aggression; for the whole pith of the Rescript of the Bishop of Rome was couched in the declaration that we were not a Christian country, but that we had lapsed into an unchristian state. It was therefore legitimate and right for all the Christian sects of every denomination in this land to say that this language was an insult—that it was a denial of our being Christians—that it was an assertion that our forefathers and ourselves, in casting off the shackles imposed by the See of Rome on all who believed in it, had all lapsed into downright infidelity. We were therefore only claiming our own indisputable international rights, as part of the great Christian community, in denouncing the conduct of the Bishop of Rome as an unwarrantable insult and aggression. Not to have so repelled his conduct would have been an act of unprecedented baseness on our part. We had a
1644
right, an unquestioned right, to tell the Bishop of Rome to his teeth—"We and our forefathers before us have shaken off all allegiance to your see, and we repel with the utmost scorn, indignation, and disgust any attempt on your part to usurp jurisdiction over us—an usurpation which neither the laws of God nor of nations entitle you to assume; no, not for an hour." As we had a Church of a certain character, that Church had a right to assist in repelling the aggression. We were only doing what our fathers did at the Reformation, when they separated from the Church of Rome. We declared, at the Reformation, that we belonged to the Church of Christ, and that that Church maintained certain rites and tenets of the Church of Rome, and rejected others. To this day the Church then founded, is part of your national Church and of your constitution. Why else was it that, on the solemn day of the Sovereign's coronation, the Sovereign was surrounded not only by his lay nobility, but also by their reverences the bishops? Why else was it that the diadem which now graced the fair brow of Her Majesty was placed there, not by the most ancient and dignified of Her nobles, but by the hand of the archbishop, Primate of all England? Why, but because you looked on Her Majesty as the head of your Church, and therefore surrounded Her by the chief dignitaries of the Church? Why, but because it was a national acknowledgment that the Protestant faith was entwined with the most cherished of our ceremonies and the most sacred of our institutions. Again, another reason for this protest and for this measure was, that the Bishop of Rome did not confine himself to sending persons into this realm merely for the purpose of attending to the spiritual wants of persons belonging to his communion. If he had, this Bill would not have been introduced, and he (the Bishop of Oxford) would not have supported it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) had said, that nobody was satisfied with the Bill. He (the Bishop of Oxford) admitted that it was not everything he could have wished it to be; but when he could not get what was the best measure in his opinion, he must take that which was next to it. That suggestion led him to another, namely, that we must take men on their own grounds and their own professions. Now, what were the grounds and professions of the Bishop of Rome? His Rescript had not only sent to this country new bishops, but

1645
had also abolished all the ancient bishops' sees which it contained. Now if, after you have established a scheme of Church government, founded, as you believe, on the truth, a foreigner sends in his agents to abolish it, and establishes a new scheme of Church government in its stead, and you do not repel his pretensions, you are admitting an interference of a foreigner with your institutions, which must speedily terminate in their subversion and destruction. Look at what might be the consequences of such a Rescript. Suppose—which may God avert!—that a Roman Catholic revolution were to take place in England, and that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were to take possession of our cathedrals and churches. What process must the Bishop of Rome have followed before that Rescript was published? He must have recognised our sees—he must, therefore, have recognised our bishops. He would, therefore, have had to summon them for heresy into his courts. He would then have had to find them guilty of heresy, and would have had to put them out of their sees before he could appoint other ecclesiastics to fill them. But what would he the process now that this Rescript was published? If to-morrow a pro-Roman Catholic revolution should take place, the Bishop of Rome would find all the ancient sees of England swept away—he would have no need to try the existing bishops for heresy—his new bishops would be in full power, and his work would be done to his hands. Thus the Bishop of Rome has interfered with our institutions, and particularly with those religious institutions which England has established for the instruction of her people. He would give his support to the Bill, because it resisted an invasion of the rights of a Christian people—because it protested against the unjust assumption of a foreign ruler to interfere in the concerns of a Christian Church—and because, upon religious grounds, Parliament, as a Christian assembly, and as the professors and supporters of the Established Church, was bound to interfere. Well, then, they came from the discussion of the principle of interference in itself, to the particular form of interference which ought to be resorted to. Without any great liking for this particular measure, he must say he did not at all agree in the reasoning and conclusion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen). He did not think the noble Earl was justified in saying that their Lordships gave an irrational and im-
1646
politic consent to this Bill. In all legislation, men must be often governed in their choice, not by aiming at the obtainment of a perfect measure, but in selecting the least objectionable, for the choice was a choice of difficulties—they must adopt that which, under all the circumstances, it was wisest and most expedient to adopt. The question was not whether the measure was the best that could be devised, but whether it was the best under the circumstances. He must, in the first instance, express his regret that the Bill had been delayed so long—that it was so late a period of the Session before it reached their Lordships' House; it certainly betokened feebleness somewhere. If something ought to be clone, and that this measure was the only thing that could be done, though it was net the best, if it were not in itself unlawful, he felt bound to support it. He said unlawful, for if it could be shown that the Bill would deprive the Roman Catholics of the means of practising their faith, he would deem it unlawful, and would not give to it his support. But the arguments used on this point had, he must say, failed to carry conviction to his mind. All experience went against the argument; for the religious wants of the Roman Catholic population of England had heretofore for a very long period been abundantly satisfied by vicars-apostolic—by bishops, in fact, holding nominal sees in distant countries. It was a mistake to designate them as merely vicars-apostolic and no more—they were quite as much bishops as any others of their Church. It had been urged that the reason why Roman Catholic Episcopacy had not sooner been established in England, was a certain jealousy on the part of the regular clergy, and certain differences amongst the Roman Catholic body. But he believed the cause was really a very different one; for the Pope himself had hitherto been the person who most resisted the desire of having diocesan bishops in England; for up to this moment, as he was informed, and he had every reason to believe correctly informed, the Pope did not wish to come to an absolute breach with the people of this country. He believed he could show undoubted evidence, that in past times the appointment of diocesan bishops was held to be so offensive to the people of England, that Popes were not prepared to take this step. He believed the argument of the unlawfulness of the Bill, founded on the supposition that Roman Catholics would not be able fully

1647
to practice their faith, to be wholly groundless and futile, and that bishops could not do more in the administration of the requisite spirituality of the Church, than vicars-apostolic had been able to perform. He believed the real desire for the creation of a Romish hierarchy in this country, was not for the administration of spiritual affairs, but to increase and encourage conversions; those conversions which had saddened and made mournful the face of the Church of England. The creation of an hierarchy, such as that contemplated, would set up before the eyes of those wavering members of the Church of England a visible and immediate communication with the See of Rome; it would be an outward manifestation of its power, and it would facilitate aggressions upon the faith and doctrines of those who did not belong to the Bishop of Rome—so that there was ground for the national movement, ground for the interference of the Legislature, and ground for their sanctioning a measure which, though not the best in the abstract that could be devised, was much better than to leave everything undone, He would again say, that by passing this Bill they were not acting irrationally, nor upon passion, nor influenced by any lower motive; but they were acting rightly and wisely, and as prudent men, not mere optimists, ought to act. But having said this much in justification of the course which he, in common with the majority of their Lordships, would pursue by supporting this Bill, he felt bound to say that neither the mode of proceeding, nor the Bill itself, were what they ought to have been. That it was not the best mode of proceeding, he would attempt to prove. For a long period after the Reformation, attempts had been made by penal laws to enforce the truth and to extirpate error. They trusted more or less to persecution. That was one conceivable mode of dealing with the question. He thought it an irrational, unfaithful, unchristian, but a distinctly appreciable mode. The next course was to ignore the existence of the Bishop of Rome. The oath of supremacy was constructed upon that idea. They affected not to know any Roman Catholic clergymen; they affected not to know, as a fact, that bulls, briefs, and rescripts, were received from the Pope. They ignored the creed, they shut their eyes, they winked and connived at the facts which they well knew in every capacity but as legislators. That, too, was an intelligible,
1648
though he must say he did not think it was a good mode of proceeding—for it was not good for nations any more than for individuals to lend their sanction to an untruth. But, lastly, the time arrived when their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects were allowed to take seats in Parliament—when an acknowledged status was given to their bishops and archbishops, and, in short, when it was no, longer possible to ignore the existence of a creed whose privileges and pretensions were continually forced upon their notice. But as it was no longer possible to persecute nor proper to ignore the existence of the Romish Church, he yet thought there was another line of procedure which might have been adopted by the Government, and which he regretted had not been adopted. He thought the Government might have attempted through Parliament to regulate intercourse with that Church whose existence could no longer be denied. He did not mean to regulate it by anything in the nature of a concordat, or by any other step which would involve any participation in, or national recognition of, the doctrines of the Romish Church, nor by taking any step which would make the State in any way a party in enforcing the dogmas or the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or conferring upon him any special jurisdiction; but he meant a course by which the highest possible penalties would be imposed upon any person bringing into this country any brief, bull, or rescript which contained anything hostile to the institutions of this land, unless it had first been subjected to the supervision of the Government. Had such a law been in existence recently, the Pope would never have made such an attempt, and all this agitation and strife would have been avoided—all this perplexity and delay and confusion have been prevented. He thought we ought closely to examine into the relations of this country with the Bishop of Rome—we ought to allow that Church such privileges as were necessary to her for the exercise and practice of her faith; but anything which was not so necessary—which was merely meant to confer undue authority and power for its propagation, and to which they could show no just right, he would altogether withhold. That was a line of demarcation upon which the Government could firmly stand; but upon the ground occupied by this Bill, it was impossible to stand. There was the fact—a most lamentable fact, doubtless, but still a fact—

1649
that among us there were persons who I believed that, for their souls' safety, they must have direct intercourse with the Bishop of Rome. To these persons it might be well to say, "You shall, then, have intercourse with the Bishop of Rome for your souls' safety, but for nothing else. We will not seek to dictate how that spiritual intercourse shall be regulated; we will make no narrow bargain in the matter, but we say, and the nation re-echoes, that the only terms on which such a communication can be recognised is, that it shall not in the least militate against that which, as its own inherent right as a member of the free commonwealth of Christian nations, this Protestant realm of England vindicates for itself." I think the whole provisions of this Bill are doubtful. There were two parties—one said it went too far, and another that it did not go far enough. Now, he would say that it went too far, and yet that it did not go far enough. If the Bill was capable of effecting good, it did not go far enough. He owned that had the noble Duke pressed his Amendment, he would have given to it his support, for he did not think it was ever meant to enforce those money fines. The Amendment of the noble Duke would have made the measure self-executing. An Amendment had also been proposed elsewhere, which he considered ought to have been adopted, in order to render the Bill a thoroughly honest and self-consistent and effective measure: the provision, namely, which declared that the Sovereign of England being the sole fountain of honour within her dominions, any Ministers of the Crown who should, without the express sign-manual, assign rank and precedence to any Roman Catholic prelate within the dominions of the Crown, in respect of titles merely derived from the Bishop of Rome, should be deemed guilty of a grave penal offence. It implied a contradiction in terms of the most absurd and mischievous kind, that while there was all this excitement in Great Britain and Ireland against the pretensions of the prelates of the Church of Rome, those prelates should, in our colonial possessions, have, under the direct sanction and authority of Her Majesty's Ministers, all honour, rank, and precedence assigned them. Let their Lordships suppose the instance of a disputed succession to the Throne, a Pretender, who created nobility as well as the lawful Monarch—would not the assumption of titles under such an appointment, be held a mis-
1650
demeanour—and those titles be null and void, and utterly worthless. But, suppose this Pretender had conferred titles upon other persons in our colonies—an integral portion of our empire—what would be said to a Government which recognised those titles there? He need not tell their Lordships. Such conduct would not be tolerated. It would be considered too absurd and ridiculous to be for a moment entertained. But this was the case of the Bishop of Rome; for no sound reason could be shown why his nominees on whom he had conferred titles in our dependencies, should not be treated exactly in the same way there as here. He looked upon the Bill as unsatisfactory in another respect, namely, that it left Roman Catholic religious houses unvisited. He did not affect to have any fears for the result of the division to which their Lordships were this night about to come. He knew they were going to pass the Bill; but he would venture most respectfully to entreat of their Lordships not to consider this question as settled by the passing of this measure. Let not your Lordships (continued the right rev. Prelate) be satisfied with the transfer of this Act to the Statute-hook, nor suppose that the Protestant feeling of this country will be satisfied by this step. I have heard many sentiments drop in this debate which have given me pain. It was here stated that it is not the intention of the Government to enforce this law, and that it is meant simply as a declaration of Parliament. With old and obsolete statutes, passed in times very different from the present, and with an entirely altered state of circumstances, I grant it may not be wise to carry out the penal provisions of those old statutes. Everything changes but the eternal principle of truth. But I would say that it is useless and mischievous to pass a measure which you do not intend to enforce. I know there must be much difficulty in putting into operation the provisions of an Act such as this, and I know you will have much to contend with. But do not. I conjure you, lay the unction to your souls that the mere passing of this Bill, as a sort of protest, will be sufficient. To pass it and not to enforce it, would be an insult to those by whose strength it was carried, and a direct encourgement to renewed acts of aggression. The Bishop of Rome said, "You talk, but I act; you go on passing Resolutions, but I go on founding sees; you go on getting a law passed, I proceed with the ordination of my bishops,"

1651
What can be more weak, more unworthy of a great nation, than to carry a Bill, and yet, when carried, to shrink from its enforcement. What can so effectually throw ridicule upon your proceedings? You obtain machinery to work out the wish of the Legislature, and the will of the nation, but you decline putting that machinery into operation. Take care, my Lords, of such a course. The mere passing of this Bill may produce calm and quiet; but it may be a deceitful calm, and we may repose in fancied security till all is lost. I cannot look upon this as a light or trivial matter. I believe that, with the maintenance of our faith, the interests of humanity are at stake. I believe the dearest rights of the human race are involved in the reformed faith of the Church of England. I believe that Church is the battle-field upon which the conflict has been and must be fought. Do not pride yourselves too much on your strength. I warn you of your danger. You have a subtle enemy and powerful foe to contend against—a Church which has existed for 1,300 years, through forty generations, of men—a Church which is wary and incessantly watchful—most able in carrying on this struggle—a Church full of the tradition of her victories, and of the successes of her councils—which has had in her communion many of the noblest and ablest men—a Church which spares no pains in the training of her priests to fit them not only for her ministry, but for the making of converts. I know that we have little human strength, little human ability, to compete with this great depositary of accumulated experience and traditional learning; and knowing these things, I tremble lest you might be betrayed into inactivity. Your foe is sleepless at this moment. The Church of Rome understands the value of our Church, and the resistance of our people to her pretensions. She fears our Church, because she knows it is the true and apostolic Church; and it is because she entertains those ideas that she is incessant in her endeavours to supplant or overthrow the Church of England—that some of the dearest ties of domestic life have been most mercilessly sacrificed. Knowing as I do it is for this she has sent out a new order of friars to preach a holy crusade against the Church of England—that she has newly instituted and sent out praetorians to harangue, and Jesuits to intrigue; and, being aware of all this, I say that if you pass a measure which is to leave us weaker in the conflict, because it
1652
is to be a measure promising much and performing little, you will have done evil service to the reformed faith of this land. On these grounds I venture to say that, without being able wholly to approve of that which is proposed to you, I act rationally and wisely in supporting the third reading of the Bill.
LORD STUART DE DECIESsaid, the measure before their Lordships appeared to him so utterly at variance with the principles of civil and religious liberty that he felt constrained to express his dissent from it. In the opinion of the most able professional men in both England and Ireland, that Bill involved no less than a prohibition of any legal form of episcopal Church government in the Roman Catholic Church. When the Roman Catholics sought for the superintendence of a spiritual hierarchy, they were met by imputations of designs upon the property of the Church of England. He would ask where was the policy, the consistency, or honesty in refusing to the Roman Catholics those institutions which they deemed so great a blessing when enjoyed by themselves? That was his answer to the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down. He said, that as members of a Christian Church they were bound by that great rule, "Do unto others as you would be done by them." By that rule they could not support that Bill. But he would ask them how were they to deal with the Church in Ireland? The right rev. Prelate, in the course of his speech, had made no allusion to that country. Was Ireland, however, to suffer for the aggression alleged to have been committed in England upon the Royal supremacy, by substituting a Roman Catholic hierarchy in place of vicars-apostolic? But who could seriously believe that that Rescript could possibly affect the episcopacy of England, or indeed, any Church whatever, but the Roman Catholic body? It was evident that there must be some temporal head of every Church; and what more natural or proper than that when this country became Protestant, that headship should be vested by Roman Catholics in the Pope? In fact, for more than 300 years the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland had been governed by archbishops and bishops, appointed under the authority of Papal Bulls and Rescripts; yet they were now called upon to cut off all communication between the Roman Catholic Church and its spiritual head. Their Lordships could not well understand what the effect of that measure

1653
would be in Ireland. The Roman Catholics would have the alternative of obeying their Church or the law, and it was easy to see that the Church would succeed in obtaining the obedience of the people; and that recourse would be had to every species of political agitation, to procure the repeal of that obnoxious Bill, which subjected them to such cruel oppression. They would have Catholic associations, as they already had, on the one hand; and Orange lodges, Protestant societies, and Brunswick clubs on the other, until the entire of Ireland was reduced to that state of anarchy and confusion from which it had been rescued by the passing of the enactment of 1829. There were some who doubted whether this country had derived any advantage from the Emancipation Act. But he thought the events of the year 1848 would show the wisdom of the Legislature in passing that Act. Their Lordships might think that the insurrectionary movement of that period in Ireland had been put down by the military and naval force engaged; but any one who had been in that country at the time could tell them that, excellent as had been the conduct of the forces employed, it was less to their exertions than to those of the Roman Catholic priesthood the empire was indebted for having escaped the waste of an unknown amount of blood and treasure. Was it wise, then, to alienate from them that priesthood, or prevent them from doing the same thing again under similar circumstances? They could only meet the increased spiritual action of the Roman Catholic Church by increased spiritual action on the part of their own Church; but they never could expect to put it down by a temporal Bill of pains and penalties, like that then before their Lordships. It was chiefly because he believed the Bill would be extremely injurious in Ireland that he should say "Not content" to the Motion for the third reading.
The DUKE of ARGYLLwished to explain some remarks of his which had been misunderstood, and commented on by the Bishop of Oxford. He considered that the Church of England, being an establishment and a national institution, any insult to it by a foreign Power was a legitimate ground for legislation by the Imperial Parliament; and though not a member of that Church, he would be always willing to vindicate her claims against foreign aggression of any kind. He did not at all agree with the right rev. Prelate that this Bill would be useless if its penalties were not
1654
enforced; for the declaration of Parliament by a solemn Act, that those titles could be no longer assumed with impunity was itself a most valuable national declaration, and it would no longer by possible to argue that these sees had been recognised by the silence of the law. The right rev. Prelate had dwelt at much length on the many dangers from which the 100 l. penalty clause would save the Church of England. On the probable efficacy of that part of the Bill, the right rev. Prelate had spoken most feelingly. Well, if such was his real feeling, the right rev. Prelate ought, as soon as this Bill should receive the Royal assent, to wait upon the Attorney General, and instruct him to commence a prosecution against the new Roman Catholic bishops. Some objection was taken the other evening to the language which he (the Duke of Argyll) had used, in referring to the protest of the bishop and clergy of the diocese of Oxford, against the creation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country. He had undoubtedly described that protest to be as offensive to large bodies of Christians in this country, as was the pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman, inasmuch as that both documents claimed undivided sway over all baptised persons within the respective districts of Oxford and Westminster. This doctrine he considered utterly fallacious, and he would always protest against it; but in making use of the word "offensive," he did not wish to be understood as applying it personally. The right rev. Prelate had described the Church of England as the great bulwark of the Protestant faith. It might be so; that it had been so, he fully admitted, and he trusted in God that it might long continue to be so; all he could say was this, that it was an indiputable fact that, at this moment, the Church of England was the only Church, as far as he knew, in the Protestant world, which was sending forth day after day perverts to the Roman Catholic faith.
The BISHOP of OXFORDrend extracts from the protest of himself and his clergy, for the purpose of showing that they did not, as was alleged by the Duke of Argyll, claim jurisdiction over all baptised Christians within the diocese of Oxford, as did Cardinal Wiseman with respect to his pretended arch-diocese of Westminster. The protest simply claimed jurisdiction over "all Christian people committed to their charge."
EARL FORTESCUEhaving been prevented from taking part in former discus-

1655
sions on this Bill, was anxious, especially after which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), to express his cordial approval of it. He approved of it alike for what it did, and what it left undone; for whilst it went directly to repress the aggression which had been made under the authority of the Pope on the prerogative of the Crown and the rights of the Church of England, it left to the Roman Catholics the fullest enjoyment of their civil rights, the most entire freedom in their religious worship. One of his first votes in Parliament had been given forty-five years ago, for a Motion made by the late Mr. Fox, in favour of the Catholic claims; and from that time to this he had constantly supported every Motion for the extension of religious liberty. But the grant of that liberty to other Churches, must not allow them to insult or invade our own. His noble Friend (Lord Stuart) had expressed his fears, that the good feeling and tranquillity produced in Ireland by the Catholic Emancipation Act, would be destroyed by this measure. Now, he (Earl Fortescue) had cordially supported the Emancipation Act, as a great act of justice and policy; but he could not altogether agree with his noble Friend as to the good feeling and tranquillity which had resulted from it, though he was glad to hear from him, as a contrary impression had gone forth, that the Roman Catholic clergy had generally done their best to discourage and prevent the disturbances of 1848. In the the present instance, he did not believe that the hostility of the Irish bishops and priests would be shared to any extent by the great body of the people. He had been told more than once in the course of these debates, that this measure would become a dead letter on the Statute-book. He seriously hoped it might be so, from the necessity that after it became law, all parties would feel of obeying it. But if the contrary should be the case, and attempts should be made to evade or defy it, he was sure that whatever party might be in power, the indignant voice of the British nation, would force upon them the adoption of more stringent measures, and that none would be more earnest in calling for such measures than the old and tried friends of religious liberty.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Stuart de Decies) had given the Romish priests credit for putting down the insurrection of 1848, but he had forgotten to give them credit for getting it
1656
up; the fact being this—they, at least many of them, had supported it, but when they found the fight at Ballingarry a failure, then they exerted themselves gallantly to prevent the populace turning out. If a Select Committee was appointed, the truth would come out. Mr. Smith O'Brien had stated in Dublin, previous to his going to the south, that unless he knew he had the support of the priests, he never would be insane enough to attempt an insurrection. The trials at Clonmel proved that the Government did all they could to suppress the part which the priests had enacted. Again, one great proof was Lord Clarendon's letter, detailing their astounding conduct, the whole of which was capable of proof before a Select Committee. Regarding the extension of the Bill to Ireland, after the conduct of the Romish bishops at the Synod of Thurles, was it surprising the Bill was extended to Ireland? Had they not denounced the foundation of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, agreed to by the Crown, the Government, and the Imperial Legislature? Had this occurred in a Romanist State on the Continent, probably the Romanist bishops would have been escorted over the frontier by gendarmes. Again, the Synod had put themselves at the head of the tenant league—the fixiture of tenure system—the confiscation of the lands of Ireland—the ruling of the transactions between landlord and tenant. Regarding the population, quoad the relative numbers of Protestants and Catholics, two noble Lords had stated the Catholics were overwhelming. The fact was the contrary. In 1821, the Protestants numbered 1,900,000, in a population of 8,000,000; now, in 1851, the Romanists have decreased 1,700,000, consequently, with this reduction, it remains that on the basis of the population, being now 6,500,000, the Protestants are in a greatly diminished minority. The Protestants did not die of famine and disease, and but few have emigrated. The conversions to Protestantism have been numerous; and this huge fallacy of the numerical majority of the Romanists in Ireland will soon evaporate when the real truth becomes known to the English public. Romanism is on the decrease in Ireland, although among a particular class in England it may have made some converts.
EARL NELSON: My Lords, I have not yet had the opportunity of giving my reasons for a determined opposition to this Bill. The insult and aggression is twofold—one unmistakeable, determined,

1657
and intentional against the Church of England; the other—for the sake of my argument, I will allow—as strong as you like, against the Crown. No one can be more energetically opposed to the insult to our Church than myself; it was a determined declaration of war against her, sweeping away, as far as Rome could, her bishops—taking a stronger step than had ever yet been taken for unchurching us altogether. As far, too, as there has been any insult to the Crown, I should be the first to desire to resist it, and do consider that the course taken by Rome is likely to be fraught with danger, and to be made a means of political aggrandisement, which is especially dangerous at a time when Rome is at the mercy of any foreign Power that may volunteer to support her temporal sovereignty. We have heard much of the great steps which this Bill takes against this aggression, but we have had but little proof of it. The Church question it absolutely ignores—the real danger likely to ensue to the State from any political aggressions of Rome it passes by—and while it leaves untouched and unguarded the great danger to be feared, it deals by pains and penalties with the question of the assumption of titles, which has never been contended in itself to have any special danger, and is only looked on in the light of an insult, and could have been equally met by a solemn protest, expressing our determination to oppose all attempts at the assumption of any political power; and though, my Lords, in cases where the spirituals of religious bodies can be shown to endanger the temporal of the Crown, penal measures may be justified, any wanton interference in spirituals must be looked on as a gross breach of the principles of civil and religious liberty. I say wanton, because I am convinced that a protest would have been stronger than the present Bill, while it would have avoided all the dangers and animosities which must be excited. In the first place, my Lords, what does this Bill do? It denies, under penalties, the assumption of titles, but it does not thereby stop synodical action, as some have talked, or prevent the introduction of the canon law. The bishops have been consecrated, and no temporal law can annul their consecration in the eyes of those who never were bound to them but in conscience. They will be still looked on as possessing all the powers of territorial bishops; and what risk do you run? If you do not carry out the Bill, it will be a triumph to
1658
Rome. If you dare to do so, they either oppose or succumb. If they oppose, you run the risk of irritation on the one hand, sympathy for the persecuted on the other, and encourage a taste for persecutions with a third party. If they succumb, you send them again in the background, ignore their existence, and allow them to work away unheeded, but as effectually as before, thus destroying the only advantage of the aggression—the exposure it occasions of the vast strides which Rome has made. How, then, should this aggression really be met? The Church receives her own punishment—bishops are appointed in places which she ought to have occupied, and would have occupied, if not hindered by the State. Is she therefore to go back to penal measures? If she did, she must on the same grounds pray for measures against the Mormonites and others that oppose her. But has the cause of religion prospered by penal laws? No, my Lords. If you fear an increase of Rome's episcopate, increase your own. If you fear Rome's synodical action, allow your own, and counteract it. And, as regards the State question, only one statesmanlike view has been proposed—a solemn protest witnessing to our determination to resist all attempt at political aggression, which, without irritating, would have given a warning to Rome, followed by a Committee of Inquiry, which would, I doubt not, have devised effectual measures for checking political aggression, whilst it secured religious liberty more fully than this crude, inefficient, ex post facto legislation. But, it has been asked, why not accept this Bill as a protest? Because I believe it a disgrace to our Statute-book, when a protest gives all the security we require, that we should wantonly irritate by persecution, with the avowed object of satisfying the injured feelings of the people. When I heard this defence from the Lord Chancellor, I was, my Lords, surprised. I had long, as a matter of faith, believed that in these latter days we might be actually subjected to bodily persecutions again for religion, with such a Bill and such a defence for it. I see it no longer by faith, but close at hand. Yes, Rome may persecute, gaining power among the masses. My Lords, I believe the spirit of the meetings of December has blinded your eyes with righteous indignation. They protested against any transgression of religious liberty, but belied their protest by their language and their burning bonfires. They showed a spirit

1659
of the worst intoleration, which, under the cry of toleration, tolerates all that does tolerate—persecutes all fixed forms of faith, as transgressing their supposed principles of freedom. I fear some such spirit has led you blindly on to vote for a Bill which leaves the real danger untouched, and will create fifty new ones, rendering effectual legislation well nigh impossible. I have a great suspicion about this Bill. It has come from a suspicious source—from the hands of that great Protestant champion, in thanks to whom many may have voted for this Bill—that man who, if report says true, one short week before his letter, refused to interfere, then put forth his letter to remove indignation from his own shoulders-—sent a firebrand into our Church to create disunion, when she required all her strength, and in the first Bill legislated against all episcopacy—shackling the Scottish episcopate, though a bulwark against Rome, and unoffending. Your; Bill is full of inconsistencies; it professes to meet the special case, but goes beyond it, while it leaves untouched the real danger; and through all the conflicting arguments put forth in its favour, none have been so strong as the truism that this Bill will sound the death knell of the present Ministry.
The MARQUESS of SLIGO(who was totally inaudible), entered his protest against the Bill, which was founded on popular clamour, and would like to know if the Government were prepared to see the whole of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland included in one monster indictment?
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he deeply regretted the absence of his noble Friend the Earl of Derby, who, as the representative of a great body, would have been the most fitting exponent of the opinions of a great number of their Lordships. At the commencement of the Session, when some measure was promised in the Speech from the Throne, his noble Friend expressed his doubts of the policy of proceeding in this manner, but said he would give his fair consideration to any measure that might be proposed by the Government; and if it was not likely to be a dead letter, and was framed so as to protect Her Majesty's prerogative in every part of the kingdom, such measure would meet with his approbation. The course pursued by his noble Friend on a subsequent occasion—that of recommending an inquiry into the condition of the Roman Catholic clergy and the Roman
1660
body, to ascertain if any legislation was necessary—appeared to him (Lord Redesdale) a most reasonable and prudent mode of proceeding; but still he was in a position which enabled him, if he saw no particular objection to the measure, to assent to it. It was said by some of those who thought a protest on the part of the Legislature sufficient, that this was only a spiritual aggression; but, if it were a spiritual aggression merely, what was there to protest against? Those who were ready to enter a protest must admit that there was something more to protest against, than a mere spiritual aggression. This aggression was not a movement on the part of the laity of the Roman Catholic faith, but had been directed solely and exclusively by the Ultramontane party, whose object had been to gain the sanction of the respectable laity of that persuasion to their proceedings; but he trusted they would not be drawn into the trap that had been laid for them. There had recently been established a "Catholic Defence Association," which, however, had nothing against which to make a defence, and was aggressive rather than defensive. He believed that the hierarchy had originated where this association had originated, in Ireland—where an Italian monk had recently been appointed Primate by the Pope, in violation of the accustomed order of election, in consequence of the efforts of the Ultramontane party. He considered that the Government had acted wisely in acceding to the advice given them at the commencement of the Session, to insist on including Ireland in the measure, especially considering the manner in which the priests and prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in that country assailed the Established Church, and spoke against its abuses, and used their influence at elections. This Bill would become law, and, he hoped, would be obeyed. He was aware that the organs of the Roman Catholic community urged that there was a spiritual allegiance owing to the Pope superior and paramount to that which was due to a temporal sovereign; but he did not doubt that the majority of the laity of that Church knew how to draw a just distinction herein, and would not be led away by such a doctrine. He was persuaded that Ultramontane opinions could not be countenanced with safety, and that those, too many of whom had, he feared, during the recent agitation, been irritated into an adoption of those principles, would be so led away as altogether

1661
to lose that distinction. He was convinced that Ultramontane opinions were incompatible with civil government; and he warned those who were inclined to form such principles to beware how they increased that irritation which he hoped the measure now under consideration was calculated to allay among their Protestant fellow-countrymen.
VISCOUNT GAGEsaid, he was sorry he had been unable to address their Lordships on the second reading, when he would have wished to explain his vote against the Bill. He would then have shown them, by a review of what had passed with respect to Roman Catholics in this country since 1829, that the heads of that community in England (with whom he was persuaded the creation of the hierarchy had really originated, as Dr. Wiseman had himself admitted, and that the Pope had no more to do with it than giving his formal assent to what they petitioned for) had no ground for supposing that the hierarchy would he opposed by the Government; and, on the contrary, had every reason for supposing that the boon which had been conceded to their Church in Ireland and in the Colonies would be extended to them in this country, and that they might establish that regular Church government which they had long desired. He believed that this was really the case, and that they had been deceived, and had no idea of their conduct being considered an "aggression" or an "insult." It was most natural, seeing what had been conceded to them unsolicited in Ireland and the Colonies, that, giving credit to the Crown, to the Government, and to the people of this country for charity, and for sincerity, and for common sense, they should suppose the same concession would be made in this country. Upon the contrary, however, an anti-Popery agitation had been got up, and a measure carried through Parliament: to prevent the spread of Popery? No such thing—for everything that could conduce to that end had been excluded from the Bill—but simply to prevent Roman Catholic priests from signing their names in a certain manner. This was all it would do, and all that it was calculated to do. It was quite the farce of Much Ado about Nothing. He believed, however, that there had been a real Papal aggression, and that the object of this Bill was to merge the substance in the shadow, and draw off the attention of the people from it. The noble and learned
1662
Lord on the woolsack had congratulated their Lordships upon the fact that no one had proposed to make the measure more stringent; but he (Viscount Gage) believed this the reverse of complimentary or creditable to their Lordships, and regretted that no one had arisen to propose legislation in respect to the establishment of convents and monasteries in the country. The increase of convents and monasteries was the real Papal aggression; and, if their Lordships were in earnest, and wished to check the mischievous advances of that Church, why did they ignore the real insult and the real danger? Popery laughed at their Ecclesiastical Titles Bill while Parliament left its convents and monasteries untouched. The case was different in the United States of America. The people there cared not one cent for the appointment of an Archbishop of New York or New Orleans, although they would not present them to the President under those titles; but they were keenly alive to the danger of permitting monasteries and convents to inherit property, or to sanction the unlimited absorption of wealth by such religious bodies. In France, too, this danger was perceived and guarded against. It was because he thought that the Government were withdrawing attention from realities to fix it upon trifles, that his name appeared in the minority upon the second reading. The present Bill would offend many and would please none, and he should be glad to see the Government abandon a Bill, and boldly meet the real danger to which he had adverted. He was not intolerant; but things had happened in these establishments which might very well happen again, and which, if the Government permitted such establishments to exist, they were bound to guard against, so far as they could.
EARL GREYbegged to make an observation or two upon an allusion in the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The right rev. Prelat, in pointing out the defects by which the Bill was characterised, had stated the course which he would have recommended, and, amongst other things, had said that no rank or title ought to be given to any Roman Catholic prelates, without some distinct and formal instrument on the subject. The right rev. Prelate had referred especially to instructions which had been transmitted by him (Earl Grey), about four years ago, to the Governors of the Colonies, to the effect that they should give titles of honour to

1663
the Roman Catholic prelates, and the precedence consequent thereon. Here he would observe that in the majority of the Colonies the Roman Catholic Church stood upon a footing of equality with the Protestant Church. In Australia, where this question was first raised, the Church of Rome was the sharer of the endowments on precisely the same principles as our own Church there. In some other colonies the case was still stronger for the Roman Catholic Church, because these colonies having been acquired by cession from Roman Catholic countries, had been originally Roman Catholic. Under these circumstances it had been represented to the Government, by the Roman Catholic prelates, that they ought not to be denied the social distinctions accorded to our own prelates; and the request had seemed so reasonable that Government could not deny it, and consequently instructions had been been given that the Roman Catholic prelates should receive the same social distinctions, such as "My Lord," and "Your Grace," in the Colonies which were given to the Prelates of the Protestant Church. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had said this ought to have been done, if done at all, by some formal instrument. He must, however, remind the right rev. Prelate, that there had been no formal instrument used in conferring the titles bestowed on the English colonial bishops—that they had been conferred in the case of the Catholic bishops and in that of the Protestant bishops in precisely the same manner. He had no hesitation in saying that in some cases it was a misfortune rather than otherwise to the prelates both of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches in the Colonies to possess titles at all; and had he (Earl Grey) the power to go back, he should establish equality not by giving titles to both, but by taking them altogether away. It was an anomaly that parties should possess titles while their income was scarcely sufficient to maintain them decently; and this was the case with respect to many of the colonial bishops of both Churches. He believed, however, that whatever social privileges or rank in the Colonies were given to the prelates of the one Church, could not injustice or fairness be withheld from the other. It appeared curiously enough that in the correspondence on this subject, he had—without being able to foresee the extraordinary storm that had arisen—observed precisely that distinction
1664
the adhesion to which by the Roman Catholic hierarchy would have prevented all the commotion which had taken place. If their Lordships had read the papers which had been laid on the table, they would have found that he (Earl Grey) had distinctly refused to recognise territorial titles, as belonging to the Roman Catholic prelates in the Colonies. He had said that all the Government could recognise was their rank as Roman Catholic prelates within a certain district. He had agreed, for instance, that Archbishop Halden should be designated as "Roman Catholic Archbishop in Sidney," and not "Archbishop of Sidney," and that Bishop Wilson should be called "Roman Catholic Bishop in Hobart's Town," and not "Bishop of Hobart's Town." Before he sat down he had to remark, in reference to an observation made the other night by the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), that he (Earl Grey) remained a determined supporter of the principles of religious equality. He was strongly of opinion that the policy of this country towards Roman Catholic Ireland had not been what it ought to have been; but at the same time he thought that the law should be maintained against any denomination, and that the authority of the Crown and Parliament of this country should be strictly and firmly supported.
On Question, Resolved in Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he rose to propose a clause, a conclusive argument in favour of which had been afforded by the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Grey)—a clause which he proposed as a last effort to relieve their Lordships, the Government, the Legislature, and the country, from what he believed to be an imminent danger; a clause to permit the use of the very ecclesiastical titles which the noble Earl had alluded to as being wholly unobjectionable—"Roman Catholic Archbishop in such a district." He proposed to free from all civil penalties, and all criminal proceedings, prelates who limited themselves to these titles. He attached peculiar importance to this exemption from indictment. It had been argued, and not denied, that as the Bill declared bulls, &c., to be unlawful and void, and then imposed a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the clause, the effect was to impose the penalty as a cumulative punishment; because, as the act prohibited was also de-

1665
clared to be unlawful as well as penal, the doing of the unlawful act would subject the perpetrator to an indictment for misdemeanour, as well as to the penalty of 100 l. Over the criminal proceedings, the Bill gave the Attorney General no controlling check. This argument had not been at all answered. Opinions had since been obtained (of which he had seen three) from eminent counsel at the English common-law Bar, which were all in conformity with this view. Counsel had been asked, first, what would be the effect of Section 1; and, in particular, whether an indictment could be framed upon it? The answer was, that, considering the section as declaratory of the law, an indictment upon it for a misdemeanour would be maintainable. Counsel were asked, secondly, whether a prosecution could be commenced upon such an indictment without the assent of the Attorney General? The answer was in the affirmative. They were asked, thirdly, whether the words of the Bill, "jurisdiction, authority," &c., would include spiritual jurisdiction or authority? The answer was again in the affirmative—that the words, being general, would include and render void and unlawful every jurisdiction or authority. They were asked, fourthly, whether an indictment would be sustainable for an act of spiritual jurisdiction or authority, even without the use of the prohibited title? The answer was, that this would raise a question of fact for the jury, whether the act were done in pursuance of the illegal authority, and if found that it was so done, this would sustain the indictment. Such were the opinions of three eminent counsel of the English Bar; and one of them added that, if three or more persons were concerned or connected together in concoction or committing this act, they might be indicted for a conspiracy, and, if convicted, subject to the punishment affixed by law to that offence. Now surely, if there was any doubt as to whether the Act would bear such a construction, if their Lordships did not remove that doubt (as they easily could) by explaining their meaning, they would be responsible for the very serious evils that must ensue. Another and an absurd incident of the measure was, the inequality of its operation. The reason given for its extension to Ireland was, that it was necessary that the two countries should be treated on an equality. Nothing, however, could be more fallacious than the supposition that this equality was attained.
1666
The Bill would act in a totally different manner in different districts of Ireland. It would also act differently in England and in Ireland. To make the whole still more absurd and unjust, the measure would operate more severely on the unoffending bishops of Ireland who were in possession of ancient sees, and no way connected with the present movement, than on the new bishops of England newly appointed under this bull of Cardinal Wiseman. Surely this was not a state of the law which could be defended. It should be at least made clear and intelligible. The object of the Bill was said to be to prevent the assumption of territorial titles by Roman Catholic bishops without the sanction of the Crown. In many instances, but in none more strikingly than the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, and in the correspondence of the Committee on Education, it had been admitted that if these titles had been taken in a mode which did not imply this territorial aggression, as it was called, the proceeding would not have been considered by the Government as objectionable, neither would it have excited any popular opposition. It was not the assumption of the title of bishop that was objected to—it was his assumption of power as connected with a diocese that constituted the offence. The value of the words "in" and "of" were held to make all the difference. If, instead of calling themselves bishops "of" so and so, they had styled themselves bishops exercising spiritual functions "in" such and such a place, no objection would have been taken. It had been also thought a matter of offence, to advance a claim to universal dominion, which, under a construction that might be given to the Papal Rescript, would lead persons to imagine that dominion was sought to be exercised over all the Queen's subjects. He objected to such pretensions; and just with the same earnestness that the Roman Catholic would reject the supremacy of the Queen over them, or the jurisdiction of our bishops, did he (Lord Monteagle), as a member of the Protestant Church, deny that the Pope of Rome, or any Cardinal or Bishop had or ought to have, any claim over his conscience or his actions. He did not deny the right of the Roman Catholic prelates to bear episcopal titles; but he did deny the assumption of superiority over all Christians asserted by the Roman Catholic Church. That also was the opinion of the most enlightened

1667
and rational of Roman Catholics, Then, if he (Lord Monteagle) could suggest to their Lordships titles which would imply all that was fitting and just, giving to the Roman Catholic his title of bishop or archbishop, his power of fixing that title in reference to a special district, and only asserting that the authority claimed was over his own flock and people, there could be no positive objection taken to the use of such titles. In fact, all that he could urge upon the subject was to adopt the principle already laid down in the Charitable Bequests Act. Sir Robert Peel's Government had drawn up that Act with a studious care, attended with entire success, to give to the Roman Catholic hierarchy everything that could be required in the fullest and most respectful recognition of their position, without conceding any one thing of which the Protestant could complain. His suggestion therefore was, that the Roman Catholics should adopt the titles set forth in that Act, to which he never heard an objection on the part of a Roman Catholic; that the bishops should take the designations used in the Bequests Act, and be thereby protected from all the penalties imposed by the present Bill. What he proposed ought not to give the least offence to the most sensitive mind. Their Lordships should not forget that they were dealing with a class which, of all others, had the most wide dominion—a class of all others upon any portion of which a slight or an attack would be felt as an injury by the whole body. He offered the House the means of avoiding the mischief and danger he anticipated; he suggested a mode of averting a renewal of that religious agitation in Ireland which had always been the curse of that country. He could not help again objecting to the extension of this Bill to Ireland, as being likely to raise up the worst passions of the people of that country. It was asserted as a general principle that the legislation for one part of the country should be extended to the other; but he would ask whether, if this unfortunate rescript had issued for England only, and before the Union, any Government would have recommended the Irish Parliament to adopt such a Bill as the present, because of the Pope's aggression in England? Certainly not; or, if it had been so recommended, he asked whether Lord Cornwallis or Lord Castle-reagh would have returned the Bill, as one incapable of being carried, or, if carried, of being, executed; and the Irish Parliament
1668
would have laughed to scorn the English Government for presuming to recommend such legislation. Therefore, he felt justified in stating that the present Bill would never have been brought forward except for the existence of the Union. Would this recommend the Union to the Irish people? Then, again, suppose there had been at present in existence, any powerful Irish leader, such as O'Connell; if Ireland were now, as it had been, in a state of agitation, would it be believed that any statesman living could have been rash enough to propose a measure like the present? No one would hate ventured—he had almost said, dared—to do it. No one would have been insane enough to do so. Then, was it to be said that the absence of political excitement—that the tranquillity which now existed in Ireland—had brought upon the people the visitation of the present measure? These were most dangerous arguments to suggest to the Irish people; You force them to deplore the Union and to regret agitation. Was this wise? There had latterly been most severe afflictions felt in Ireland, hundreds of thousands of the people bad been swept from the face of the earth; whole classes had been swept away; but these calamities had been attended with one countervailing blessing—during the last three Or four years there had fortunately been an almost total cessation of religious animosity and.political agitation. The adoption of this Bill would at once revive agitation, religious and political, and would reproduce those evils from which we were so thankful that we had been relieved. If they wanted a proof of what this measure would do, let them look to the late Limerick election. At Limerick, a noble Friend of his (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey), whose name he could never mention without paying a tribute to his amiable and pure character, was opposed, in an election contest, by an excellent gentleman, locally Connected and much respected. What were the characteristics of the election? On one side the election committee was organised by the Roman Catholic clergy, and the excellent and pious Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, who had hitherto abstained front mixing in political matters, had been the first to sign the requisition. The Roman Catholic priests and Roman Catholic laity had viewed the contest as one to protect the Roman Catholic faith; while their opponents had been driven to raise the irrational party cry of "Ireland for the

1669
Irish." He did not ask the Government to adopt any new principle by his Amendment. He only asked them to do the same by England and Ireland as it was admitted they did by the Colonies, and, by adopting his clause, enable the Roman Catholic bishops to extricate themselves from the penalties imposed on them by this Bill; to extricate the Legislature and the Government from a fearful responsibility; to extricate Ireland from civil and religious contention, and the empire from incalculable dangers. This could be done by adopting the proposed clause, and enabling the prelates to assume such titles as, while they would satisfy their own claims, had been admitted not to be open to the slightest objection. The noble Lord concluded by proposing the following Clause:—
"And be it further enacted, that neither this Act nor the hereinbefore recited enactment of the tenth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Fourth, shall apply or be held to apply, or in any way to affect any act done by any archbishop, bishop, or dean, by virtue of his appointment by the See of Rome, or to create any penalty, disability, or offence by reason of an instrument of appointment, or the assumption or use of an ecclesiastical title conferred, or purporting to be conferred, by the authority of the See of Rome; provided that the ecclesiastical name, style, designation, or title assumed, used by any such archbishop, bishop, or dean in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic archbishop, Roman Catholic bishop, or Roman Catholic dean, as the case may be, officiating or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorised to officiate, in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I did not expect to have had to trouble your Lordships twice in the course of this debate; nor should I have done so had it not been for the Amendment, or rather the addition, to the Bill which has been proposed by my noble Friend, and which I felt it my duty to oppose. This addition is, I think, suggested by the anticipation of dangers of the same nature as those which were anticipated by the noble Earl who commenced this discussion (the Earl of Aberdeen), and who said he saw reason to apprehend that indictments might be instituted under this Bill, the effect of which might be to debar Roman Catholics from the exercise of their religion, under that protection from the law to which I admit they are entitled, and of which this Bill is not intended to, nor does it, in point of fact, deprive them. He coupled with
1670
this the argument, that the best course to adopt under this aggression would have been to abstain from any legislation at all; but I differ in that respect from the noble Earl; and if he had been in a situation to advise Her Majesty at the time these acts—which he himself condemns as most improper—had been committed by a foreign Power, I think he would not have advised that acquiescence in them by silence, which he now says was the safest course that Her Majesty's Ministers could have adopted. He would then have found that the public feeling and indignation which has been excited by these acts, would have been still further excited by the abstinence that he recommends, and would have assumed a form which must have commanded attention. If a course had been adopted of making no protest against such a proceeding, and making no provision against these acts of violence, by means of which the Papal power, advancing step by step, sometimes by an act, and sometimes by a word, making the word tell upon the act—would not that have had the effect of encouraging these acts? Before six months had passed, I am satisfied, we should have seen other acts committed of this objectionable character, calculated to produce an impression upon the people of this country, and upon the other nations of Europe, that there was no act and no aggression which the Pope could make which must not be submitted to by the people and the Governments; and by such abstinence, we should, in fact, have rendered the Protestant religion of this country incapable of opposing that resistance to these encroachments which the public voice has demanded, and which Her Majesty's Ministers have found it to be their duty to recommend. This question is undoubtedly one of great difficulty, involving nice distinctions between the spiritual and the temporal power. Charles X., at one period, Louis XIV. at another, the Emperor Napoleon, and the greatest sovereigns and legislators, were, for years, unable satisfactorily to adjust this very question of the encroachments of spiritual upon temporal power; and I am not prepared to say that the way we have proposed is the only way to settle the difficulty. But the course Her Majesty's Ministers have proposed is plain, intelligible, and capable of execution; it is more capable of execution than that which my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) has suggested with a view to the same object by placing greater re

1671
strictions upon the introuduction of bulls into this country. There would be great danger in not striking home to resist any attempt to introduce into this country the system which this Papal bull was intended to introduce. I need not again state that there is a portion of this Bill which I would rather see omitted—I mean the clause relating to the common informer. For as such persons are commonly actuated by motives and objects which are not likely to actuate Government, and as the power from its very nature requires to be exercised with discretion, that is a sufficient reason why the interposition of informers should not have been recognised; but as in order to check abuse we have introduced the most effectual remedy we can, by requiring the consent of the law officers of the Crown before any proceedings can be taken; and if the law officers exercise their authority and do their duty, I have no great apprehension as to the result of this portion of the Bill. The arguments I use are founded on legal opinions, and I only state my own opinion as far as it is corroborated by the highest legal authorities, with respect to the operation of this portion of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is that it should apply only to such cases as would have been objectionable as the law before stood; and a jury will have to determine the nature of the jurisdiction which the party prosecuted under it has attempted to exercise. If that jurisdiction be shown to be of a spiritual nature only, I am sure that no illegality will be permitted to attach to it. I listened with satisfaction to the speech of my noble Friend who introduced the Amendment, not only because I was sure that my noble Friend in moving that Amendment was actuated by a sincere desire to relieve the operation of the Act from any mischief with which it might be supposed to be attended, but also because I found that the noble Lord, in detailing and explaining the grounds of his Amendment, clearly showed how all the proceedings which were complained of might have been taken by the Pope in an unobjectionable manner, if he had chosen to have had recourse to it. For I will say at once and without hesitation, that if the Pope had desired to secure, as it was a lawful object for him to secure, the benefit of episcopal administration to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen; if he had informed the Government that such was his intention, and if he had confined himself, both in his Brief,
1672
and in the mandate announcing the Brief, to the designations which were contained in my noble Friend's Amendment, there would not have been the least objection to his proceeding. I will go further and say, that even now, although the Pope has not taken that course, there is not one of the spiritual functions of the Roman Catholic Church which, stripped of all connexion with the assumption of territorial titles, cannot be sufficiently exercised under the Bill as it now stands without the addition proposed by my noble Friend. But look to what these assumptions are, as stated in the Amendment, and see if they clash with the prohibition contained in the Bill. The terms of my noble Friend's Amendment are—
"That the ecclesiastical name, style, designation, or title assumed, used by any such archbishop, bishop, or dean in the holy orders of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be the style or title of Roman Catholic archbishop, Roman Catholic bishop, or Roman Catholic dean, as the case may be, officiating or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorised to officiate, in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."
I agree with my noble Friend as to the great importance of the change of a monosyllable. There may be the greatest difference between "in" and "of." But this Amendment includes the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops officiating within the diocese or district in which they are authorised to officiate, and with respect to all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the same diocese. This neither assumes a territorial power derived from the possession of a see, diocese, or district; nor does it assume any power over the inhabitants of that see, diocese, or district. It admits a power over certain Roman Catholic inhabitants of the diocese, but confines it to them alone, proclaiming that it is a spiritual jurisdiction only, and not claimed by virtue of any territorial power or authority. I think this Bill can be adapted with the greatest security to those persons who are described in the Amendment, which is drawn up in terms to which the Legislature has already given its sanction in the Charitable Trusts Bill. There is, therefore, no necessity for this Amendment. I have stated my opinion in the presence of some of the greatest legal authorities; but I shall be surprised if it is disputed. The ancient law is not altered by this Bill. The Roman Catholics are in

1673
no way prevented from doing that which it ought to be the object of the Legislature to encourage them in doing; and it affords them that protection which it is the object of the Legislature to afford to all religions, especially to one that is professed by so large a portion of Her Majesty's subjects. On these grounds, I think it my duty to oppose the addition to the Bill proposed by my noble Friend.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSthought the noble Marquess had made a conclusive speech in favour of the Amendment which had been moved by his noble Friend. It had been distinctly stated the other evening by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), that after the passing of this Act, the assumption of the title of even Roman Catholic bishop in any district would expose the party assuming such title to a penalty, and that every act of jurisdiction performed by a Roman Catholic bishop would make him liable to a penalty. So that, unless the present Amendment was adopted, it would be impossible for any Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland to appoint priests, or collate to any benefice, or perform any other act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He claimed the support of the noble Marquess for the Amendment of his noble Friend, not only on the ground stated by the noble Marquess himself, that it was unobjectionable, but also on the ground that his noble Friend had only adopted words for the description of Roman Catholic bishops which the noble Marquess had used himself for that purpose. In the correspondence between the Committee of Privy Council on Education and the Hon. Mr. Langdale, in 1850, a letter written by the noble Marquess stated that, with regard to the appointment of the committees of management for Roman Catholic schools, a certain mode of selection should be practised, "until the Roman Catholic bishop of the district or other ecclesiastical division shall signify "—not in such district, he would beg their Lordships to remark. This, he apprehended, was a stronger recognition of the status of the Roman Catholic bishops on the part of the noble Marquess himself, than that contained in this Amendment, which copied exactly the words of the Charitable Bequests Act. Yet the language of that letter of the noble Marquess applied even to the vicars-apostolic in England, who were merely bishops in partibus; and how much more did, it apply to the bishops of the ancient sees in Ireland,
1674
who had held their episcopal functions in unbroken succession? Their Lordships had often in Committees asked these bishops the question, how long they had been Roman Catholic bishops; and in 1847, when the present Lord Lieutenant went to Dublin Castle, he received an address from the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland, who signed themselves "John, Archbishop of Tuam," "John Derry, Bishop of Clonfert," &c; and the Lord Lieutenant replied to that address in the most courteous terms, styling them "My Lords," and stating that he should always be glad to consult them on matters affecting the interests of Ireland. Before concluding, he could not help noticing an argument which had been urged more than once by the right rev. Bench, namely, that all the spiritual advantages which the Roman Catholics could desire had been enjoyed under the régime of vicars-apostolic, and that therefore there was no necessity for their having a territorial hierarchy in this country. Now, from the earliest times the practice of the Church was, that a bishop was invariably appointed to a particular portion of territory, which was called his see; and, strictly speaking, these bishops in partibus had a territorial title assigned to them, such as "Bishop of Chalcedon," whose portion of territory was the See of Chalcedon, and it was altogether an accident that they were vicars-apostolic. Again, it was quite undeniable that such a title as vicar-apostolic was never heard of in the early ages of the Church, the first vicar-apostolic ever appointed having been appointed in England in the seventeenth century, by Gregory XV. It was said the Pope had once refused to create a hierarchy in England; but that was because he wished to maintain a system which would leave his own power in this country unimpaired. Under that system the Pope was undoubtedly Roman Catholic Bishop of England, and he appointed his vicars-apostolic, who were removable at his will and pleasure; and the Pope, by the creation of the new hierarchy, had therefore clearly divested himself of a portion of his power. In his opinion the Amendment of his noble Friend would very materially lessen the apprehensions entertained as to the effect of this measure in Ireland. As the Bill stood at present, three eminent lawyers believed an indictment would lie, under the first clause, against any Roman Catholic bishop exorcising episcopal jurisdiction; and therefore

1675
he trusted their Lordships would agree to the Amendment, in order to prevent such a result.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the noble Earl had totally misconceived what he had stated the other evening. He had no doubt stated that if a person was prohibited from calling himself Archbishop of Westminster, he would not get out of the prohibition he calling himself Archbishop in Westminster; but he entertained no doubt whatever that there was nothing in this Act to prevent a person calling himself "Roman Catholic archhishop, or Roman Catholic bishop, or Roman Catholic dean, officiating, or having episcopal functions within the diocese or district in which he is authorised to officiate in respect to all persons and congregations of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion within the said diocese or district."
The BISHOP of OXFORDwished also to explain, after what the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans) had said regarding his having repeated a false argument. It was perfectly true that the doctrine of the primitive Church was that every bishop must have a diocese; but it was a peculiar doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope, in virtue of his universal bishopric, could appoint bishops in partibus, who could perform every function that a local bishop could do, although not in the place of which he bore the title. The noble Earl had himself fallen into an error in stating that the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland were the lineal descendants of the ancient Christian bishops of Ireland. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Ossary) had on a former occasion refuted that assertion with great learning, and had shown that almost a century had intervened, during which the line of the so-called Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland had been altogether broken, and that it was the bishops of the United Church of- England and Ireland who were the real lineal descendants of the ancient bishops of Ireland.
LORD MONTEAGLE, in reply, stated, that as the principle of his clause had been admitted rather than controverted, and as the objection raised against him was solely that the clause was unnecessary, and that the acts which he proposed to legalise were not prohibited under the Bill, he would not expose the public to the erroneous impression that would arise, if the clause he proposed were negatived. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw it; reserving to himself the power of proposing it, in another shape, at a more convenient time.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn; and
Bill passed.

PROTESTS
Against the Passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.
"DISSENTIENT.—1. Because, while ready to uphold and to defend the rights and prerogative of our Most Gracious Sovereign and the honour and the independence of our country against all aggression, we do not feel ourselves justified in supporting a Bill which trenches, on that religious freedom which Her Majesty has been pleased to assure us 'it is Her desire and firm determination, under God's blessing, to maintain unimpaired; 'which it has been the object of the Legislature, during the last 60 years, to extend and to secure; and which now happily forms a fundamental part of our constitution, and is inseparably bound up with our civil liberties.
"2. Because it is irreconcileable with the spirit and with the letter of the Roman Catholic Relief Act to impose new and to increase existing penalties, falling exclusively on the members of one religious communion; and our objection to this fatal course is augmented when it is announced that this Bill may lead to other measures of a similar character, in case the stringency of its provisions is not found sufficient to answer the purposes of its framers.
"3. Because we view with alarm the declaratory enactments of this Bill, undefined, as they are, in their legal consequences, rendering solemn antecedent acts and public instruments unlawful and void, and rendering unlawful and void like wise all the 'jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence, or title,' derived from such acts and instruments.
"4. Because these alarms are increased from the want of any clear definition in this Bill fixing the incidence and the limits of its penalties, thus creating all the dangers which must ever attend vague and uncertain laws, exposing the Roman Catholic laity to wrong and privation, interfering with the jurisdiction and ecclesiastical functions of the Roman Catholic clergy, and leaving it a matter of grave doubt whether both parties may not be exposed to criminal prosecution as well as to civil penalty.
"5. Because it is irreconcileable with the wise policy of late years, shown in the repeal of barbarous penalties contained in ancient and intolerant laws, to revive and give robustness and energy to a severe penal statute, passed nearly 500 years back, enforced only once since its enactment, and that in the year 1607, in a case which we are informed is of doubtful authority.
"6. Because we cannot reconcile the Charitable Bequests Act, which recognises the status and existence of Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops and their successors, officiating and exercising episcopal functions in Ireland, with this Bill, which interferes directly with the appointment of such archbishops and bishops, and declares the official instruments and official acts required for such appointments, as well as 'all jurisdiction, authority, pre-eminence, or title,' derived therefrom, to be unlawful and void. Nor is this difficulty removed by the saving clause,

1677
which leaves it doubtful whether the 4th section may not defeat other portions of the Bill, or whether the general import of the Bill may not deprive that saving clause of its efficacy.
"Because it seems illogical, inexpedient, and unjust, when the Rescript or Letters Apostolical of the Pope, of the 29th of September, 1850, are relied on as the cause and justification of this Bill, that we should extend its restraints to a part of Her Majesty's dominions to which that Rescript has not any possible application.
"8. Because it has been admitted in debate, on high legal authority, that the penalties of this Bill are limited to what are described as being 'pretended sees,' while other sees or districts are subjected only to the less severe provisions of the 10th George IV., chap. 7. It therefore follows that a different state of law will exist in England and in Ireland, as well as in different parts of Ireland, producing anomalies and contradictions incompatible with sound legislation; the severity of the law and its penalties not varying according to the nature of the imputed offence, but according to the geographical limits within which such imputed offence may have been committed.
"9. Because, if it should be true, as has been stated in debate by the supporters of this Bill, that if it becomes a law it cannot be carried into effect, but must remain 'a dead letter,' we consider that it is still more inconsistent with sound legislation to pass a Bill which, without giving any security whatever, tampers with all the principles of religious freedom, creates discontent and alarm, and by bringing the law into contempt lessens its force and rightful authority.
"10. Because a determined resistance has been offered to all suggestions made during the progress of the Bill for the correction even of obvious and verbal errors, as we as for the amendment of certain provisions of which no justification has been attempted; and because the reason assigned for taking this course, arising from the possible inconvenience and delay apprehended if this Bill were returned to the House of Commons, is inconsistent with the free deliberations of this House, and derogatory to its just rights and authority as a branch of the Legislature.
"11. Because, upon these grounds, we cannot but consider the passing of this Bill to be most inexpedient and most unjust. We consider it ill-adapted to protect either the prerogative of the Crown or the independence of our country, while calculated to revive civil strife and sectarian dissensions; we protest against it likewise as a departure from those high principles of religious liberty to which our greatest statesmen have devoted their intellect, their genius, and their noblest exertions.

"MONTEAGLE of Brandon.

"VAUX of Harrowden.

"LOVAT.

"CAMOYS.

"MONT EAGLE (M. of Sligo).

"ROSSIE (Kinnaird).

"FINGALL.

"CHARLEMONT.

"LEITRIM.

"PETRE.

"STOURTON.

"DORMER.

"ARUNDEL of Wardour."

"DISSENTIENT,—1. Because no such measure as the present is consistent either with justice or expediency.
"2. Because the Bill appears to have been mainly dictated by the excitement which has recently prevailed—an excitement which it was the duty of the Government and the Legislature rather to allay than to encourage. Any attempt to interfere with doctrines by Act of Parliament is not only likely to fail, but may even promote what it is intended to repress.
"3. Because it is most unreasonable and inconsistent to profess to grant full toleration to the Roman Catholic religion, and at the same time to prohibit that species of communication with the See of Rome which is indispensable for its perfect discipline and government,
"4. Because the undue assumption of power involved in the terms of the Papal Rescript of the 29th of September, 1850, and of other documents connected therewith, however justly open to exception, can supply no reason for depriving Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of a regular and ordinary part of their ecclesiastical organization.
"5. Because the appointment of ecclesiastical officers is essentially a matter of religious concern; and although it may be expedient in particular cases that such appointment should be under the control or influence of the civil power—and although it is the undoubted duty of the Legislature to provide that no temporal powers are exercised and no temporal rights impaired, under the pretext of ecclesiastical regulations, yet to restrain a religious community not established by law in the management of its religious concerns, otherwise than by confining them within the sphere of religion, is inconsistent with the spirit of all our recent legislation. Such restraint involves the principle, and may lead to the practice, pf religious persecution.
"6. Because the Act of the 10th George IV., chap. 7, which for the first time since the Reformation secured to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown an equality of political rights, constituted a solemn expression of the intention of the Legislature, and a pledge to the Roman Catholic community that they should thenceforward enjoy a full religious toleration.
"7. Because the 24th section of the 10th George IV., which prohibits all persons other than those thereunto authorised by law, from assuming the titles of archbishops, bishops, and deans of the National Church, affords no precedent for this Bill, inasmuch as the former simply defends from invasion certain known legal titles already appropriated, and importing high dignities and valuable rights; whereas the latter amounts to the total prohibition of a diocesan episcopate.
"8. Because the penal provisions of this Bill not only differ in the above-named respect from those of the 10th of George IV., but they differ further to the prejudice of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, inasmuch as they are preceded by recitals and declarations of law, concerning which the 10th George IV was silent, whereby a new and extended construction may be given both to the penal provisions of this measure, and likewise retroactively to those of the 10th George IV.
"9. Because the ancient statutes against the exercise of a foreign jurisdiction, or restrictive of the importation of Bulls, Brief's, and Rescripts, which are cited in justification of the present Bill, are unavailable for such a purpose. Those sta-

1679
tutes have long been suffered to remain in desuetude. If now revived, they may be found to assert powers for the Crown which would be destructive of the religious liberties secured to Protestant Dissenters as well as Roman Catholics. They have no special reference to the establishment of provinces or sees, or to the assumption of titles, but are equally and indifferently directed against all exercise of jurisdiction, whether by diocesan bishops or by vicars-apostolic, and are therefore incompatible with our recognised principles of toleration and religious freedom.
"10. Because there is a peculiarly harsh and ungracious character in the present prohibition of diocesan government of the Roman Catholic community; as it is not disputed that at various periods, from the Reformation down to a recent date, the secular clergy, and more especially the Roman Catholic laity, have sought for the introduction among themselves of a diocesan episcopacy, with the approval and encouragement of the British Government.
"11. Because there are presumptive grounds for believing that the late measures of the Pope have been adopted under the persuasion that, if he should do what in his judgment was requisite for the spiritual wants and interests of his own communion, the advisers of the Crown not only would have no desire, but had, in fact, publicly disclaimed all intention and all title to interfere.
"12. Because this Bill, while it professes to refer to Roman Catholic titles, enacts a further and wholly gratuitous interference with religious freedom, by forbidding the assumption of episcopal titles on the part of any other persons than the prelates of the Established Church and the prelates of the Scottish Episcopal Communion. By the exception from its provisions of the last-named prelates, who are appointed independently of the Royal authority, the Bill plainly admits that the appointment of bishops is in its essence a spiritual matter, and thereby condemns its own principal provisions.
"13. Because it is inexpedient to protect the rights of the episcopate established by law, by needless and unjust restraints upon the religious freedom of others. Such protection is likely to weaken rather than to strengthen the National Church in its proper office of maintaining and enlarging its influence over the people by moral and spiritual means.
"14. Because the Bill, besides being unjust in principle, greatly endangers the peace and harmony of the various classes of Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland. Should the measure be carried into actual operation, it may engender the most serious political and social evils; while, if it should not be put in force against the use of the titles openly assumed, its introduction into the Statute-book will have tended to disparage the dignity of Parliament and the authority of the law.

"GORDON (Aberdeen).

"NEWCASTLE.

"CANNING.

"ST. GERMANS.

"WHARNCLIFFE.

"LYTTELTON.

"MONXEAOLE (of Brandon)."

For all but the 4th and 13th reasons.

"VAUX of Harrowden.

"PETRE.

"STUART DE DECIES.

"LEEDS."

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive, agreed to.
On Clause 20,
The DUKE of CLEVELANDmoved that the three Royal London hospitals should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He was, he said, connected with only one of those hospitals—Christ Church—the pecuniary affairs of which were managed with the strictest propriety, and no abuse had ever been alleged against it. If the hospitals should be placed under the commission established by this Bill, persons would not be anxious to become governors, and the interests of the charity would thereby suffer. The noble Duke eulogised the system of education at Christ's Hospital, and instanced the recent case of a boy educated there who had taken high honours at Cambridge, and was now Regius Professor of Civil Law at that University, Mr. Sumner Mayne.
After a few words from the Earl of Warwick, which were inaudible in the gallery,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Duke had quite mistaken the operation of the Bill. There would not be the slightest interference with the details of the management of these institutions. There were many other charities which had desired to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and he did not see on what grounds they could exempt one without granting a similar exemption to others. There was no interference proposed by the Bill that any person could reasonably object to.
After a few words from the Earl of CHICHESTER and the Marquess of SALISBURY,
Amendment Negatived.
House adjourned till To-morrow.