Sitting of 16 May 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Gunpowder Stores (Liverpool) Exemption Repeal. 2° Coalwhippers (Port of London).

ILL-TREATMENT OF A NATIVE AT CAPE COAST.
SIR EDWARD BUXTONsaid, that he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, with respect to an occurrence at Cape Coast Castle, on the coast of Africa. In 1847, a native named Robert Erskine (aged 21 or 22), who was in the service of Captain Murray, an officer stationed there, was suspected of having stolen from him some golden ornaments, and he was in consequence most cruelly and inhumanly tortured by Captain Murray and by another officer named Captain Stewart, for eleven days, so that, according to the statement of the acting Governor his life was in danger, and he had been in the hospital for six weeks in consequence of the treatment he had received. After all, the stolen articles were found in the great coat-pocket of a soldier, who pleaded guilty to the theft, and Robert Erskine was acquitted. He wished to know whether any, and if so what, proceedings had been taken against Messrs. Murray and Stewart; and, secondly, what compensation, if any, the Government were prepared to give to Robert Erskine, for the sufferings he had undergone?
MR. HAWESsaid, that as a statement of the facts of this case had been for some time on the table of the House, he was sorry that the hon. Member should have gone into this matter so imperfectly; of course it was out of his (Mr. Hawes's) power to go into a detailed explanation of an affair that occurred so long ago. The main facts of the case, however, were these: the alleged offence against the boy, Robert Erskine, was committed in 1847, while he was in the service of an officer serving then. As he was at the time in private service, he had of course his remedy, if he chose to take it, before one of the courts of law; but no indictment was preferred, and the officer charged left the
1046
colony. Nearly two years afterwards, the case was brought before the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who ordered an inquiry on the spot; and in consequence of the opinions transmitted from Cape Coast Castle, the papers relating to the conduct of these officers were laid before the Commander-in-Chief. Upon consulting the law officers of the Crown and the Judge Advocate, it was found that they could not be indicted in this country for any offences they might have committed, but that they must be indicted before the courts in the colony. In the meantime the officers had gone to other parts of the world, and the case having occurred nearly four years ago, so that, under these circumstances, the question of the punishment of these officers rested entirely in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, as it was not a matter in which the Secretary for the Colonies had any control. As to compensation, it was quite clear that, inasmuch as the boy was in private service when the offence was committed, by an individual not holding office under the Colonial Government, compensation could not be awarded by Government, but must be sought by legal proceedings instituted by the party injured, in the courts of the colony.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH NIGHT).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th May],—Debate resumed.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, I beg to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday.
MR. SPEAKER: The Order of the Day must be disposed of before that Motion can be put.
MR. REYNOLDS: Then, Sir, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move that, he having already spoken.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 35: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Bass, M. T.

Ashley, Lord

Benbow, J.

Bailey, J.

Bernard, Visct.

Bankes, G.

Booth, Sir R. G.

1047

Bremridge, R.

Hornby, J.

Brockman, E. D,

Hotham, Lord

Brooke, Lord

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Brotherton, J.

Hudson, G.

Brown, W.

Inglis, Sir H. H.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bunbury, W. M.

Jones, Capt.

Carew, W. H. P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Chandos, Marq. of

Lacy, H. C.

Chaplin, W. J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T.F.

Christopher, R. A.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Christy, S.

Mackie, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Clive, H. B.

Martin, J.

Cobbold, J. C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Conolly, T.

Mullings, J. R.

Dalrymple, J.

Mundy, W.

Dick, Q.

Napier, J.

Disraeli, B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Divett, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Packe, C. W.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Duncan, Visct.

Pakington, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Peto, S. M.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Duncuft, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Repton, G. W. J.

Du Pre, C. G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ricardo, O.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Sandars, G.

Evans, J.

Smollett, A.

Ewart, W.

Spooner, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Fergus, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Fenguson, Sir R. A.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Stuart, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Thompson, Col.

Forster, M.

Thornely, T.

Fuller, A. E.

Traill, G.

Gilpin, Col.

Tyler, Sir G.

Glyn, G. C.

Verney, Sir H.

Gordon, Adm.

Tesey, hon. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Waddington H. S.

Grogan, E.

Walpole, S. H.

Guest, Sir J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Gwyn, H.

Williams, J.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Wodehouse, E.

Harris, R.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hayes, Sir E.

Wrightson, W. B.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Wyvill, M.

Heneage, E.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Hayter, W. G.

Heywood, J.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Hume, J.

Keogh, W.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Kildare, Marq. of

Bright, J.

Lawless, hon. C.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Lushington, C.

Cobden, R.

Magan, W. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Meagher, T.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Devereux, J. T.

O'Connor, F.

Duncombe, T.

O'Flaherty, A.

Ellis, J.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Fagan, J.

Power, Dr.

Fortescue, C.

Power, N.

French, F.

Sadleir, J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Scully, F.

1048

Somers, J. P.

Wall, C. B.

Sullivan, M.

Walmsley, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Reynolds, J.

Moore, G. H.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
On the Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
MR. KEOGHsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the preamble of the Bill be taken first. He trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, or of discussing this question. He had put a question to the noble Lord on the previous day as to whether there was any understanding or agreement existing between him and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), in reference to the Amendments proposed to be made by the latter hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee upon the Bill; and, if so, whether, in consequence of any such agreement or understanding, the Government, or the hon. and learned Member, had in any respect altered their views in reference to those clauses of which the hon. and learned Member had given notice. The noble Lord had then answered his question by saying that he would explain his views upon going into Committee. The House would recollect that the Bill upon which the House had agreed to go into Committee was not the Bill, nor like the Bill, nor anything approaching to the Bill, which the noble Lord meant to stand or fall by; nor was it one which any party or section there would venture to propose to become the law of the land. The noble Lord had had, no doubt, overwhelming majorities upon this Bill, which had, however, decreased upon the present occasion: whereas the noble Lord had on former occasions boasted of his majority of 400, it was now reduced to 80. The noble Lord knew very well that these majorities were not composed of persons who entirely assented to the propriety of the Bill which he had laid upon the table of the House, nor were they prepared to support the Bill as the noble Lord proposed to alter it in Committee. Therefore, at that moment, there was a Bill before the House which the Government had themselves withdrawn, for there was scarcely one line in it which the Government were prepared to stand by. He therefore put it to the noble Lord whether it would not be just and proper to reprint the Bill in that particular form in which he wished it to stand for

1049
discussion. He did not make the proposition for the purpose of creating any unnecessary delay; but he thought it but fair and just that the Members of that House and their constituents should know what the actual proposition of the Government was by which they intended to abide. It was quite impossible that they could go on discussing this Bill until it was reprinted; and he therefore asked the noble Lord to state what alterations he meant to propose, in order that the Bill might be reprinted, and that no discussion should be taken until the measure was placed before them in a proper form for their consideration.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think it is impossible for me to accede to the proposion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a very long time ago since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained the alterations we proposed to make in the Bill. It is now about six weeks or two months since the House was made fully aware of the nature of those alterations. With respect to any other alteration that may be proposed, the opinion of the Government will, in some degree, depend on what takes place on the discussion of this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be informed as to whether any agreement or understanding has been come to by the Government with the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and I have no hesitation in telling the hon. and learned Gentleman that I desired my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who has a personal acquaintance with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst, to endeavour to ascertain from him what course he would take with regard to the Amendments he meant to propose, and to state to him the objections which either he or the Government entertain to those clauses. I think I was pursuing a course not only perfectly justifiable, but which is pursued by persons who agree in the main objects of a Bill, and the consequence of which might be that we should agree as to the provisions of that Bill. I should be very glad if the result of that direction of mine to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been an agreement or understanding with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst. I cannot say it is so. The hon. and learned Attorney General had stated the objections we entertain to several of the Amendments the hon and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) intends to move; but anything that
1050
may result from the agreement, must he a matter for discussion in the Committee on the Bill. The views the hon. and learned Gentleman entertains, and the views we entertain, with respect to the provisions of the Bill, will appear in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) says that we propose to abandon the whole of the Bill. The first question to entertain is the first clause in the Bill; we shall propose to go on in the ordinary course—to postpone the preamble, and go on with that first clause. There is no alteration—there is no material alteration proposed in that first clause; and that is the clause which we consider is the main clause of the Bill.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I came down to the House this evening for the purpose of supporting Ministers in going into Committee upon this Bill, because I have no wish to see any unnecessary delay in the progress of the measure. I have hitherto avoided making any observations upon the Amendments to be proposed, as I wished to see them first placed upon the paper of the House. With the permission of the Committee, I will now, however, make one or two remarks which I think will facilitate our progress upon the present occasion. I cannot but feel that the position of the House with respect to the proposition of the Government is very much changed by some recent declarations of the Ministry. Very recently the noble Lord told us that he had no hesitation in saying that the rescript of the Pope and the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman were part and parcel of a great conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of this country—
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Of Europe.
MR. DISRAELI: That is a still larger description of the evil. I make this observation in reference to the Amendment we are called upon to consider, and I am bound to say that I take that statement of the Government as an authentic statement. I cannot believe that a Minister would make such a declaration without well weighing his words.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman says that what I stated was that it was part and parcel of a general conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of this country. Now, what I said was that it was part of a conspiracy with a view to prevent the extension of civil and religious liberty in Europe, and that the influence of this country might be conceived to be fa-

1051
vourable to the cause of civil and religious liberty. I certainly do not recollect saying, at least I did not intend to say, that it was a conspiracy against the civil and religious liberty of this country.
MR. DISRAELI: I am willing to take the noble Lord's recollection as more accurate than my own. I repeat that I think on such a topic he would not have used an exaggerated phrase, and that he knows more of the subject than he feels authorised to communicate to the House; but I doubt whether, in this century, in England, a Minister has made a more important communication to the House of Commons. I am hound to ask the noble Lord whether the Bill, as it appears before us—for I understand two clauses to be virtually withdrawn—will meet such dangerous circumstances. In the first place, there is this remarkable characteristic in the Bill as it now, for the first time, formally appears before us—it bears no reference to the circumstances which have occasioned it. That is the remarkable characteristic of the Bill now before us; it does not allude to the grievance that it proposes to remedy. If, indeed, the re-script of the Pope, and the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman, are part of a conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of England or of Europe, I would say the first thing we should have done was to have dealt with the arch-conspirator himself. It was the duty of the Government to secure the removal of one whom they believed to be an arch-conspirator. I would say that, when we came to legislate, we should have legislated upon some principle that would have settled the difficulties we had to contend with, or at least have aspired to settle them. We might have laid down a principle to which I referred before, and which appears to me to be a principle adequate to deal with those circumstances, namely, that the assumption of any title, civil or ecclesiastical, by any subject of Her Majesty, that title being granted by a foreign prince, should be an illegal assumption; and if the accounts we have received in the course of the debate be correct, the declaration that such an assumption was illegal would have entailed consequences upon those who, in an unauthorised manner, have adopted those titles which they would have found it most inconvenient to cope with. If we had declared that, without the consent of Her Majesty, no one of her subjects should take civil or ecclesiastical titles
1052
from foreign princes, we should have laid down a principle competent to deal with the circumstances we are called upon to encounter. This would be a political remedy for a political evil; and this conspiracy against the civil and religious liberties of England or of Europe, would have been encountered in a manner which would show that this country was determined to baffle the conspirators, and lay down a principle of legislation that might prevent any recurrence of those manœuvres. But, instead of that, Her Majesty's Government have, I think, unfortunately adopted a course quite the reverse. In the first place, they have called upon us to legislate without the slightest reference to the circumstances and causes which called for that legislation, and, still more unfortunately, the only legislation that they recommend assumes at least the unhappy semblance of something like a petty religious persecution. Now, Sir, if Parliament, by the advice of the Minister, had secured the removal of that Cardinal Popish prince, whose presence in this country has been declared by a high authority to be a part of the great conspiracy against civil and religious liberty, and if Parliament had laid down I a principle of legislation which would I have brought under the constitutional control of the Sovereign all those who assumed titles, civil or ecclesiastical, at the bidding of a foreign prince, we should (without having recourse to this petty penal legislation) have vindicated the honour of the country, have baffled the conspiracy, and laid down a principle of legislation that would not have encouraged its recurrence. I am obliged to consider the various Amendments before us with reference to those circumstances. Those Amendments are considerable in number, and are about to be proposed by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; but though considerable in number, they divide themselves under two heads. There are those Amendments which take, I think, the right course—which seek to connect our legislation with the causes which really have produced it, and which in the Government scheme are studiously concealed— which recognise what has occurred as a political evil, and seek to apply to it a political remedy. There are, on the other hand, Amendments of a different kind, which attempt to make efficient legislation that which is essentially ineffective—which do not seek to connect our legislation with

1053
the circumstances that have occasioned it—I which do not seek to offer or afford political remedies for political evils; but, on the contrary, following up what I think is a fatal error of the Government Bill, only aggravate the dangers and inconvenience of that petty penal legislation to which I have referred. Now, Sir, all those Amendments which in a frank and undaunted manner declare to Europe, and to the country, the reasons why we are undertaking this legislation—which show that this Bill is what it ought to be, a retaliatory Bill, intended to resent a gross insult, and to prevent the recurrence of outrages of that description—are Amendments which I think so far greatly improve the Bill; and they are Amendments which, though they may not do all I require in that respect, greatly improve the legislative proposition of. The Government—and they are Amendments that I trust will obtain the concurrence of large majorities of this House, for they offer a political remedy for a political evil; and with a political evil we must remember we are alone dealing. The other class of Amendments are of a different kind. There is a clause called the informer's clause, for example, that is extremely popular with those who advocate the non-application of this Bill to Ireland. They say, "It is impossible that this clause can work in Ireland; and therefore we are in favour of this clause for England, and that is our argument for not applying the proposed legislation to Ireland." I do not presume to answer for any person but myself; but I say this for myself—that under no circumstances will I consent to apply legislation to England on this subject that is not applied to Ireland. The question before us is, how can we maintain the supremacy of our Sovereign? That is the only and the real question before us; and to say that we will maintain the supremacy of our Sovereign in England, and that we will evade the assertion of that authority in the sister kingdom, is to take a course the most impolitic and injurious that could he taken. I think, therefore, that this clause, called the "informer's clause," takes its class under the second division of the legislative proposition to which I have referred. It is in harmony with the Government Bill; but the Government Bill I think is essentially erroneous. Instead of asserting a principle, and making those who violate that principle take the consequences of their illegal conduct, the Government, without
1054
any reference to the circumstances that occasioned this Bill, and with which you have to deal, propose solely a clause which I shall still call petty penal legislation. It no doubt may be perfectly consonant to those who approve of legislation that is essentially ineffective to propose something whose efficacy may make it more efficient. In my opinion it will not, and therefore, on going into Committee, I shall feel it to be my duty to support any Amendment from whatever side it comes—whether from the Government or from Gentlemen at this side of the House—which will frankly and truly attempt to cope with the difficulties and with the circumstances which have really occasioned our legislation. I shall support all those Amendments which, in a manner becoming a great nation, declare the reason why we take the step we are now about to consummate. I shall support all those Amendments which will make this Bill a retaliatory Act—an Act passed to vindicate our honour—to baffle a conspiracy—to assert and maintain really the cause of civil and religious liberty; but I shall not feel it expedient to support Amendments, the only object of which is to render that efficient which is essentially ineffective, namely, a scheme of legislation which shrinks from avowing the causes for the proposed law; which dares not to tell the reasons why the Government of this great country assumes the position it now occupies in this respect; and, as it were, compensates for such want of frankness and manly dealing by a scheme of penal legislation, vexatious, insufficient, and calculated, I think, to produce general disgust, and not to vindicate the honour of this country—not to baffle the conspiracy, in which I believe, and which has been denounced by the Minister—and not tending to vindicate the honour and dignity of England.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly in what he has stated, there are some points on which I can agree with him. The hon. Gentleman stated that he wished the Government to have placed in this Bill an account of the cause why this Bill was introduced, and what was the nature of the offences which it proposes to meet. In the preamble of the Bill, as it was originally introduced, there was a recital that any attempt to establish, under colour and authority of the See of Rome, archbishops and bishops in this country, was illegal and void. To make that more definite, my

1055
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, proposes to introduce these words:—
"Divers of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects have assumed to themselves the titles of archbishops and bishops of a pretended province, and pretended sees or dioceses within the United Kingdom, under colour of an alleged authority given to them for that purpose by a rescript or letter from the See of Rome."
I don't know that what has taken place can be described more fully than they have been described in these words. If the hon. Gentleman finds that other words describe them more fully, or, if he has other words to suggest that are superior to the words proposed to be used, he can propose them. With regard to another point of great importance, I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to one of the Amendments, by which it is proposed that a person can be sued in a court of law for the recovery of those penalties. That is the clause he calls the informer's clause; and the hon. Gentleman does not think these words would add to the efficiency of the Bill, but, on the contrary, would be a source of great vexation. If I understood him exactly, I quite agree with him in that objection, and I have already stated to the House before going into Committee, that it was one of the clauses I meant to withdraw. I made another statement to the House before going into Committee, to which I wish to refer. I stated generally that, with regard to the Amendments proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), the Government were not prepared to accede to those Amendments; but I stated there was one Amendment on which we were so entirely agreed in principle, that we certainly wish him to consider whether or not it was better carried into effect by the words of the preamble, than by the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon considering the clause, we shall have the advantage of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), that this assumption of titles by authority from the See of Rome, was by no means void or illegal. But considering that the part of the Act of Parliament, which would be generally consulted as a declaration of the intentions of Parliament would be the first clause of the Act, we have come to the opinion that it would be better to adopt the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) as a clause, instead of inserting them in the
1056
preamble of the Bill. With regard to the other proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he gives his reasons for proposing them, and I shall then have the opportunity to state the objections I entertain to them. With regard to the proposal having reference to the allowing persons to bring actions under the Act, I consider it will not only be vexatious in practice, and give rise to great inconvenience, but it will be objectionable in principle, because the offence that will be committed will be an offence against Her Majesty's Crown; and it should be a competent authority, and not a private authority, that should attempt the vindication of the law. With respect to that vindication, I certainly think, if this Bill should pass, it will be the duty of the Government, if any person assume those titles, to put the law into force, of course always exercising a discretion on that subject as to the evidence in support of the offence, and the likelihood of obtaining a conviction. It would be another question, if it was not thought possible to obtain a conviction in any of those cases; but, generally speaking, it I will be the duty of the Government to decide what course shall be taken in all such cases.
MR. KEOGHconsidered that the preamble should be first taken in order. The noble Lord had said that he had abandoned his own preamble to the Bill. [Lord JOHN Russell: No!] Then the noble Lord adopted the preamble of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst—was not that so?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that there were certain words proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Walpole) which he intended to adopt, but it was a distinct clause.
MR. KEOGHhad understood the noble Lord to say that he intended to introduce a further recital into the preamble. Was not that true? Then the noble Lord said that he preferred the adoption of words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. It was little matter whether these words were in the preamble or in a clause. The noble Lord declared that he intended to make serious alterations in his own Bill; that he intended to leave out the second, third, and fourth clauses, and that the Government would have a Bill with one clause, and that there were other words to be introduced either as a preamble or as a clause. Now, he put it to the Committee, whether they (the Irish Mem-

1057
bers) were called upon to take any one step with respect to this Bill in its present shape, and that, too, without being informed what was precisely the Bill which the noble Lord intended to stand by. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles) who had voted for the Bill, had informed him that if there were no other person, in that House to make the Motion, he would move that the Bill should be reprinted. Before they went one step further, he said the Bill ought to be reprinted. Again, he put it to the noble Lord whether it was fair to the Roman Catholics to persist in such a course as this? They were bound not to allow the noble Lord to go forward with this Bill in its present shape and form. The objections here were made for no purpose of delay: the object was, on the contrary, to secure a fair and legitimate progress with the measure before them—to have that measure put in a clear and intelligible manner before them. It was not, he said, fair to that House, it was not fair to the Roman Catholics, it was not fair to the country, to attempt forcing on a discussion upon a Bill which was not before them in a clear and intelligible form.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg to make a proposal, which, if the hon. and learned Gentleman adopts, and the Committee should consent to, I should be willing to abide by. What I am willing to do is, to leave out the clauses which we now propose to leave out; to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, which I stated the Government were willing to accept; to put the preamble in the form my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes; to have the Bill printed, and then to go into Committee on Monday, on the understanding there would be no debate on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst will consent to go into Committee with the Bill, as the Government proposes, I shall then be willing to take that course.
MR. KEOGHsaid, the noble Lord had made a proposition which he was not prepared to say was not a very fair proposition, as he understood the noble Lord merely proposed that the Bill should be reprinted; but that when before them it would be open to them to offer any opposition which they thought was called for.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and learned ' Gentleman had entirely ex-
1058
plained his (Lord John Russell's) meaning. When the Bill was reprinted, the whole question would be open for discussion.
MR. GRATTANdesired to know, first, what was held to be included in the Bill. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that he gave up his preamble. The noble Lord made an offer, if hon. Members would not object to Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair on Monday; but it would be impossible, after what had taken place in Ireland, for any Irish Member to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair to go into Committee on this Bill. The Irish had liberty to fight for it, and they would fight for it, but they would fight for it against that House. They would not suffer their peace to be disturbed any longer by paltry legislation. The present Bill was the commencement of a course of war in Ireland. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), was carried, no Roman Catholic priest could exist in Ireland. Roman Catholic ecclesiastics could only exist, in the first instance, by the authority of the Pope, and that authority was denied in the preamble. [Cries of "Order!"] There was no order in his country. The proposition now was, whether the preamble be postponed. ["No, no!"] Yes, it was. He wished to know whether the preamble was withdrawn or not? [An Hon. Member: Yes.] Then, if the Motion was withdrawn, what were they now discussing? [An Hon. MEMBER: Nothing.] Well, as we were discussing nothing, the Committee will perhaps allow me to say a word or two upon that point. The preamble was to be altered, and three clauses out of four were to be withdrawn. Was it then worth the noble Lord's while to drag the House and the country into that
"Serbonian bog, where armies whole have sunk? "
Let the noble Lord make another omission, and leave out Ireland. Let him take warning by the ominous bell they had heard tolling from Enniskillen on the former evening, and not resuscitate the fell spirit of party in Ireland. The Orange party, there, was again raising its head, an instance of whose intolerance had lately occurred in his own neighbourhood. An English clergyman having been buried there, a cross was placed over his grave, but the Orange party broke into the churchyard in the night, broke the cross, and wrote "No Popery" on it. They

1059
afterwards spent the remainder of the night drinking—To "Hell with the Pope and all the cardinals." They should consider the state of Ireland, instead of such trumpery measures as this, In the north every man who asked for his rent was shot, while the south was a desert. A man had lately ridden twenty miles in Ireland without meeting a human being. Talk of bullies! the bullies were the men who had kept down his country with 40,000 armed men. They had driven the people to the grave or to America, but they should remember Saratoga, General Cornwallis, and Lord Burgoyne. [Loud laughter.] Well, General Burgoyne. He hoped that the noble Lord would reject the Bill.
MR. WALPOLEthought the hon. Member (Mr. Grattan) had certainly mistaken what both the noble Lord at the head of the Government and himself intended to do. The proposition which had been made by the noble Lord appeared to him (Mr. Walpole) so reasonable that if hon. Members exactly understood it they would scarcely object to it. That proposition really amounted to this, that the House should consider itself in Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of enabling Government to reprint the Bill according to the form in which they intended to lay it before the House. According to the statement of the noble Lord, the Bill would then simply contain the recital of which the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary had given notice as the preamble, and would go on to declare, not, as had been supposed by some hon. Members, that
—"this kingdom is and has been at all times so free and independent that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority within the same or any part thereof; and whereas the Bishop of Rome, by a certain brief, rescript, or letters apostolical, purporting to have been given at Rome on the 29th day of September, 1850, hath recently pretended to constitute within the kingdom of England, according to the common rules of the Church of Rome, a hierarchy of bishops, named from sees and with titles derived from places he-longing to the Crown of England," &c.
but would contain as the first clause these words only:—
"The said brief, rescript, or letters apostolical and all and every the jurisdiction, authority, preeminence, or title conferred, or pretended to be conferred thereby, as aforesaid, are and shall be and be deemed unlawful and void."
The Bill would then contain as the second clause that which was now the first, and
1060
the clauses which were now second, third, and fourth, would be struck out. It would thus come before the House in a form which would leave it open to him, if he thought, as he certainly did, that the Bill was defective, particularly in the preamble, to move any Amendment he thought proper; and he reserved to himself the power of moving any of the Amendments he had placed on the paper. He would not say he did not see great difficulty with respect to the portion of the Bill which related to what had been called the informers' clause, as well as the difficulty in the way of Government, and that of acceding to his own Amendment without some qualification. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan) thought he wished no Roman Catholic to exist in Ireland, or desired to interfere with any spiritual function of the Roman Catholic bishops or ministers, all he could say was, that if the hon. Member could prove to him any of his Amendments would have such an effect, he would immediately withdraw it; and that he would not propose anything whatever which, in his conscience, he believed could interfere with any such function, or prove injurious to religious liberty.
MR. MOOREsaid, after what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Moore) would think it a breach of honourable feeling to oppose Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair on Monday.
MR. M. GIBSONquestioned whether, after all, it was worth while to amend the preamble. He thought it would be shown that the preamble was not at all necessary for any practical purpose, and that it would be quite sufficient merely to enact what they wished to be done by their enacting clause. He could not understand what object there could he in taking so much pains to amend the preamble, for the enacting clause would be that which would guide courts and juries.
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to ask Government if they were prepared to allow the temporal aggression of the Pope to pass unnoticed? There had been an intrusion on this country of a Cardinal priest and legate from his Holiness, which was contrary to the law and ancient custom of the realm. No legate à latere could come here without the express permission of the Sovereign, and on the promise that he would do nothing contrary to the rights and privileges of the kingdom. By that step the system under which the Roman Catholics had hitherto lived would be

1061
broken up by Cardinal Wiseman and Legate Cullen. With regard to these legates, their presence was not essential to the discharge of episcopal functions, but superseded them, and they were not required for the administration of the sacraments, or for the cause of charitable funds. This part of the aggression was purely political, and was directed against the authority of the Crown and the temporal liberty of the subject. Was the noble Lord prepared to take no step in this matter?
SIR FREDERICK THESIGERsaid, as the Committee had agreed to the fair proposition of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), he thought it would be infinitely better that they should not enter into a discussion of that kind. His hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), when the Bill was reprinted, would have an opportunity of seeing whether there were any provisions to meet the difficulties or inconveniences which he had stated; and if there were none, it would be open to him to propose Amendments of his own. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone would permit him (Sir Frederick Thesiger) to make an observation as to the preamble. The course in Committee had been to postpone the preamble until after the clauses were settled; and he thought it would be desirable to follow that course on the present occasion, which would not be attended with any inconvenience in discussing the clauses.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthought, with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), that it would be advisable to reserve till Monday the discussion of the points referred to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, and hon. Gentlemen opposite. All he asked was that they should on Monday be placed in the same position as they were now, and that no opposition should be made to the Motion for going into Committee.
MR. KEOGH,in answer to the appeal which had been made to him, merely wished to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Frederick Thesiger) that it was not the invariable custom to postpone the preambles of all Bills, and that he would be prepared to quote precedents to show that such was the case.
House resumed.
Bill reported, to be printed as amended.

MORTMAIN.
MR. J. O'CONNELL MR. J. O'CONNELL moved that the Select Committee on Mortmain do consist of eighteen Members, and that Mr. Mon-
1062
sell, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Keogh be added to the Committee.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the Committee on Mortmain was not intended by him to be directed against any religion. He thought a Roman Catholic Member ought to be on it, and he had nominated the Earl of Arundel and Surrey. There was a general rule of the House this Session that Committees should only consist of fifteen Members. He had not the slightest personal objection to extend the Committee by the appointment of the three distinguished Gentlemen who had been named.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the House had made a rule that Select Committees should only consist of fifteen Members, in order that the business might be more effectually done. Great convenience was found to to arise from the working of the rule, and it had been adhered to, unless where special circumstances rendered it advisable to depart from it. Now, in the present case he saw no special circumstances demanding a departure from the rule. He would therefore oppose the Motion.
The EARL OF ARUNDEL AND SURREYsaid, that there were special circumstances which did require another Roman Catholic Member or two upon the Committee. He, since he had been appointed, but had not been able to attend the Committee once, in consequence of his labours upon a Railway Committee. It was very necessary that a Roman Catholic should be on the Committee, as the law of Mortmain was very much connected with the Roman Catholic religion. Moreover, the law of Mortmain in England was different from that of Ireland, which was an additional reason in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick City (Mr. J. O'Connell). He trusted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam) would not object to the Motion.
MR. KEOGH: He does not object to it—it is the Government who oppose it.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) had expressed opinions extremely adverse to the Roman Catholic party, he was not considered as representing their interest in the Committee. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) proposed two legal gentlemen on account of the difference in the law on this subject between the two countries. One was a Roman Catholic,

1063
and the other a Protestant, and the third was a member to whom no one could object. He hoped that a mere formality, under the very special circumstances of the case, would not interfere with justice.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad no objection to insert the name of Mr. Keogh instead of that of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid that, before the Committee was appointed, his learned Colleague (Mr. Napier) was consulted upon it, and he left the House under the impression that he was to have been nominated upon it. Certainly, it would be most desirable that an Irish legal Gentleman should he a Member of the Committee.
MR. KEOGHwould prefer not serving upon the Committee, and that Mr. Napier and Mr. Monsell should be appointed. As to the hon. and learned Member for Yougbal, he was not an Irish, he was an English barrister. He would be very glad to see Mr. Napier nominated. There were some cavalry officers upon a Committee appointed to inquire into the law of Mortmain. Now, he thought the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) would have been a more eligible person than cavalry officers
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Select Committee on Mortmain do consist of eighteen Members."
The House divided:—Ayes 38, Noes 94: Majority 56.

METROPOLITAN COMMISSION OF SEWERS.
On the Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday,
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Sewers to some extraordinary facts with which he bad just been made acquainted. When he had asked the noble Lord some evenings ago for certain information respecting the expenditure of the Commissioners, the noble Lord recommended him to go to their office, and he had done so. The result was, he had to make some charges of a serious nature against those Commissioners, who were perfectly irresponsible, who had levied heavy rates, had control over more than 8,000,000 l. of property, and whose liabilities were enormous. He found in the Metropolitan Sewers' Act, 11 and 12 Vict. c. 112, the following provisions:—
1064
"Sect. 24. And be it enacted, that the clerk of the Commissioners shall keep the record of their proceedings at their courts and minutes of proceedings of committees in proper books.
"Sect. 25. They shall cause a seal to be made, and shall cause to be stamped therewith decrees, orders, and records of proceedings; and ratepayers may inspect,"
As a ratepayer he went to inspect accordingly, and—would the House believe it?—this Court of Record had kept no record whatever from the 11th of October, 1850, to the present time. He then desired to see a manuscript minute of proceedings of the Court when the last rate of 6d. in the pound was ordered to be prepared, and was shown a rough paper sent to each member of the court, showing the business to be transacted on the 6th of December, 1850; and the 28th order of the day was the following:—No. 28, "As to ordering preparation of sewers' rate in the undermentioned districts; namely, western division of Westminster sewers, and the Greenwich district." He then desired to see the order, and was shown a piece of paper with an order, no date, no signature; and, as regarded the order for such rate for the Westminster district, such order has never to this day been entered in any book whatever. He asked whether the order was passed by the Committee or by the Court of Record. The Secretary said he did not know to whom the paper belonged, but he concluded that it belonged to the Court, because it contained some allusion to its proceedings: On the 11th of April the Court met and made a vote for 6d. in the pound, on 4,000,000 l. of property. That order had never been entered in the minute book. He asked the Secretary how it was possible that the business of the office could be conducted in this way; and he received from him the extraordinary statement that rough minutes, or rather heads of minutes, were taken, and that he (the Secretary) was obliged to trust to his memory to draw them out for the Book of Record. Now, he begged the House to remember that not one of those minutes had been entered in the books since the 11th of October, 1850. His noble Friend the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) and himself were no less than two hours and thirty-five minutes engaged in examining the papers, which it required the solicitor or lawyer of the Commission and eight clerks to produce, such Was the disgraceful state of confusion in which they were. In happened that on Tuesday last

1065
he heard that a large sum was to be borrowed by the Commissioners. On Wednesday morning he went to the office, and asked if such was the fact, and he was told that on the 15th of April a Resolution was passed in Committee asking for the shortest term at which a Mr. Peath would lend 10,000 l.; that on the 29th the Committee recommended the Court to borrow it; and that on the 2nd of May a Court was held to consider the subject. Would the House believe it? There was no entry in the books respecting the result; but he was informed that the 10,000 l. was borrowed for five years at 5 per cent. He maintained that this was disgraceful to the Commission; and when his noble Friend gave, the unsatisfactory answer a few nights ago to the question whether he intended to bring in a new Bill with respect to the Commission, he (Sir Benjamin Hall) was not surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy), who was at the head of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, repeated the question, and expressed his astonishment that the Commission had been allowed to continue so long. He (Sir Benjamin Hall) asked the Secretary to show him the minutes of the Court from January the 1st to the present time. The Secretary answered that they were not entered. He then" desired to see the rough minutes; and the Secretary said, "I will give them to you, but I am afraid you will not be able to make anything out of them, they are so mixed together." This was certainly quite true, for he had never seen, in the whole course of his life, any public documents in so disgraceful a state as the documents in that office were; and he hoped that what he was now saying would reach the eyes and ears of the ratepayers, and that they would go and judge for themselves. He found that many of the papers were not signed, or dated, or authenticated in any way whatever; and yet those Commissioners had power to raise taxes upon 8,500,000 l. of property. The Secretary admitted that from January to the present time no minutes whatever had been entered in conformity with the Act of Parliament. In order to be careful in what he stated to the House on this subject, he read over to the Secretary every word of what he had now stated. He asked him in the presence of his noble Friend the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) whether he had misstated, or been mistaken, on any one point, and he was informed that he had
1066
not; so that whatever contradiction might be offered to his present statement must be directed against the Secretary, and not against his noble Friend and himself. On the 17th of December last a gentleman went to the office of the Commissioners and desired to see the minutes of proceedings. He was informed that he could not examine the last series, as from the 21st of June to the 15th of August they were in the hands of the binder; from the 15th of August to the 29th of October they were in proofs; and from the 29th of October to the 12th of December they were not entered up. This was mentioned to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 8th of February last, but there had been no amendment. He wished also to call the attention of his noble Friend at the head of the Government and the House to the disgraceful way in which the Commissioners acted towards the public. Would the House believe that the Court was adjourned from the 12th of July to the 19th, and from the 19th to the 26th, and from the 26th to the 2nd of August, in consequence of no Commissioner having been present at any one of those times? so that people who desired to appeal against rates were put off from week to week, and had their time wasted, all because the Commissioners did not attend to their duties. On Saturday last a Court was appointed to meet at 12 o'clock for the purpose of ordering works, hearing appeals against the district rate of the Western division of Surrey, to receive presentments of rates, presentments in case of nuisances, to hear parties summoned to appear, to affix the seal of the Commission to contracts, and to order summonses to be served on defaulters. The parties who went waited one hour and a half, and no Court was made. He asked his noble Friend if such things could be allowed to go on? He wished also to call the attention of the House to—he would not call it a fraud—but an imposition which had been practised on it. On the 14th of February the Committee of Sewers ordered Mr. Joseph Smith to make a survey of Victoria-street sewer. On the 4th of March Mr. Joseph Smith presented that Report, and the Committee passed a resolution directing their engineer to report upon the same, and to propose a system for cheeking, by means of Mr. Joseph Smith and his staff, the works performed by contractors, and declaring that no set-

1067
tlement be made until such works should have been so examined, &c. On the 28th of March, he (Sir Benjamin Hall) gave notice for a return of that Report. He begged to say that he had no communication with Smith or with a single person connected with that Court; but three days afterwards the Court met and desired the attendance of the surveyor, whom they rated soundly for having, as they imagined, given him (Sir Benjamin Hall) some information on the subject. On the 8th of April the engineer presented his Report to the Commission. It was read, but instead of receiving the Report, the Commission sent it back and desired him to revise it. On the 10th of April the House ordered Smith's Report and the engineer's Report to be presented. They were presented on the 2nd of May, Smith's Report as it stood, but the engineer's not as presented, but as revised, although it bore the date of its former and not amended state. Both Reports were now in the office of the Commission, but neither of them had been entered in the books. He hoped that what he had said would induce the Government to take some steps with respect to the Commission, for the manner in which it performed its duties was disgraceful to the metropolis. With respect to its financial affairs, too, it contrasted most unfavourably with the former Commission, the liabilities under which were only 58.195L; whereas the liabilities of the present Commission were 135,342 l. [Viscount EBRINGTON dissented.] His noble Friend, he observed, shook his head; but he assured him he quoted from the document sent to that House by the Commissioners themselves. [Viscount EBRINGTON: So he it.] His noble Friend said "So be it;" but the people had got to pay for it. He hoped that, after what he had said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be induced to bring in a Bill to suppress the present useless and extravagant Commission, and to place the management of the metropolitan sewers on a better and more satisfactory footing than that on which, as the House had seen, it now rested. He had only to add that he had shown his noble Friend (Viscount EBRINGTON) all the documents he had quoted; and that, if he should deny the statement he had just made, he hoped he would remember it was the statement of the Secretary of the Commission.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he had
1068
to solicit from the House that indulgence which they always extended to those who had to answer such charges as had been made on the present occasion. With the exception of the last sentence but one of the hon. Baronet—that in which he expressed a wish that the Commission should be placed on a better footing—there was no other single statement which he should not be obliged to deny, or give a different colour to, in the course of his explanation. Now, the first charge which had been made was, that the Commissioners attended hardly at all to the business of the Commission. Upon this point he had to refer the hon. Baronet to the Act of Parliament, which stated that the Commissioners should hold one meeting in the month—twelve meetings in the year. This was the total number of meetings required by the Act of Parliament to be held. The Commissioners were only twelve in number, half of whom, by the clumsy legislation of that House, were required to be present to constitute a quorum. The hon. Baronet would see, on reference, that the number of Courts held last year was thirty-two, and that the number of Committees was seventy-seven. This gave an average of rather more than two Courts for every month. It was to be remembered that these Courts were not primarily for the consideration of the business of the Commission; they passed those orders and decisions which the Commissioners, after mature discussion and consideration, had previously agreed upon; and, therefore, every single hour spent in those Courts represented a far greater number of hours spent in the deliberation and consideration of the business of the Commission. Now, in order to give the House some idea of the mass of business frequently transacted at one single Court, it was necessary to state that the printed minutes, ninety to one hundred pages in length, had frequently to be copied with the formal minutes of the proceedings of a single Committee, and that the same number of pages had to be copied with the original minutes. The Commissioners, in addition to their other arduous duties, were a Court of justice also, entrusted with very large and complicated jurisdiction. In the Courts at West minister, the few short words of the Judges, "For the defendant," had to be translated by the officer of the Court into a longer minute; and in like manner a long translation had also to be made at the

1069
office of the Commissioners of Sewers. What was the course adopted by a very analogous body to the Commissioners, namely, the Court of Quarter Sessions, which consisted of a body of justices executing important works, and taxing the public, and at the same time passing judicial sentences? The hon. Member for Oxford-shire (Mr. Henley) knew that in the case of an indictment preferred against the inhabitants of a parish for non-repair, the few simple words of the Court required a very large subsequent expansion on its records; and he (Viscount Ebrington) was acquainted with a case in which that record had not been entered for months afterwards, because it was found necessary to take legal advice as to the manner in which the record should ultimately stand. The Commissioners of Sewers had no other object in view but that of serving the public. They were not sinecurists receiving large salaries; they were a body of gentlemen, almost all of them having other public or private business to attend to; and he was only astonished at the large amount of time they bestowed on the enormous mass of business constantly coming before them. He had already said that the Commission of Sewers was a newly-constituted body acting under a complicated Act—an Act of no fewer than one hundred and forty-six clauses. They had to frame a new set of forms, for they had no precedent under the old law of sewers to guide them. They found the clauses of the Act of Parliament gave them power to do many things; still, it became frequently necessary to take legal advice as to the form in which the final record was to be entered on the minutes. The record of the Court was kept in manuscript; and whenever any delay ensued from the difficulty of ascertaining the shape in which the formal record should be entered, it was found necessary to delay the entry of all subsequent matters also. The consequence was, that in cases where one hundred pages of manuscript had to be inserted from time to time, errors of the sort mentioned by the hon. Baronet were unavoidable, and would necessarily continue to be unavoidable. For instance, requisite notices had to be expanded in a complicated legal form, several pages long. Now, it was not true that minutes were not kept, and carefully kept, of the proceedings of the Commission. The proceedings of the Commission originated in Committee; in the minutes of the
1070
Committee were to be found almost invariably all the recommendations on which the proceedings of the Court were founded; and, when these proceedings were agreed upon, the minutes of them were again submitted to the Commissioners for their sanction and verification before they were finally entered in the records, and sealed with the seal of the Commission. Though the entries in the formal Record were still somewhat in arrear, he could state that he had seen, in print, the minutes of the Courts up to the 6th of the present month. It was true that upon the same day when the Report of Mr. Smith upon the Victoria-street sewer was received by the Commissioners, they directed their engineer to inspect the sewer and prepare a report upon it. On the 8th the engineer came to the Committee of the Commissioners, and said he wished to consult them on some points connected with Mr. Smith's Report, and he brought a rough draft with him on the subject. The Committee told him to revise the draft, and said that they could not receive it in its rough state, but that they would receive his Report in its final shape on some future day. He revised it accordingly, and on a subsequent day presented it. The hon. Baronet was, therefore, not justified in saying that the Report obtained by the House was not the Report it had ordered; for long before the 10th of April, when the Order of the House was made, the engineer had been ordered to report by the Commissioners; and quite early in the month, several days before the 8th, he (Visct. Ebrington) had consented that the Report so ordered should be moved for unopposed, and had agreed with the hon. Baronet on the very terms of the Motion. So much, then, for the impropriety, or fraud, or evasion, charged upon the Commissioners with reference to the order of the House. Now, when he interrupted the hon. Baronet respecting the alleged financial position of the Commissioners, he did so on this ground—that the statement did not contain their financial position at present, though it did set forth accurately their financial position at the time of which it bore date. The liabilities were then what they appeared on the face of the papers laid on the table of the House; but at the present moment a very considerable reduction had been made in them, a great part of the rates having been now collected. The expenses of management for the seven former Commissions, during the eleven

1071
months of 1847, averaged 6s. 7d. per cent on the rental of the district within their active jurisdiction; and the management expenses of the present Commission during twelve months of the past year had been only 3s. 11 d. per cent on the rental of the district under their active jurisdiction. The economical management of the old Westminster Commission had been much praised, and the expenses of their management amounted, in the eleven months of 1847, to 4s. 7d. per cent on the rental of the district under their charge, while the whole expenses of the management over the same area was now, as he had before stated, only 3s. 11 d. per cent. They had executed works of drainage at one-fifth less than the expense proposed to be incurred by the old Commission, as ascertained from the estimates they left in the office. The reduction was accomplished by the present Commission executing the drainage in a superior manner. A good deal of the present pressure upon the ratepayers of the expenses of the Commission, had been occasioned by the clumsy legislation of Parliament, and the consequent difficulty of borrowing money for the purpose of diffusing over a series of years the cost of the works in the manner contemplated in the Act. It was true a rate of 6d. in the pound had been levied; but how was it expended? Not in improving fashionable neighbourhoods—for the Commissioners thought that work might safely be postponed a while—but in draining and effecting other sanitary improvements in the wretched localities where the poor dwelt in large numbers. In addition to the comprehensive schemes for the arterial drainage of the metropolis, both north and south of the Thames, which the Commissioners had proposed, and presented to the public since their appointment, they had executed works to the extent of 200,000 l. last year; and their drainage had been done at a much less cost per yard than their predecessors had paid. They had nothing to conceal. They invited investigation into their proceedings; and if the hon. Baronet would bring forward a Motion in a fair and tangible shape, and take a vote of that House upon it, they would willingly appeal from the vestry at Marylebone to the British House of Commons.
MR. HUMEsaid, that all that the noble Viscount had stated would not make up for the irregularities in the accounts of the Commission, and the illegality in their proceedings. Nothing that his hon. Friend
1072
(Sir Benjamin Hall) had stated was intended to impute improper motives to the members of the board; but he showed, that somehow or other, everything was in confusion, and it was no wonder that the ratepayers of Marylebone were pestering him and others against what they considered a species of robbery. He hoped that the ratepayers would, in consequence of the suggestion which had been made, go and verify the accounts for themselves. He believed that the Victoria sewer had been executed by the Commissioners at more than 50 per cent above the estimate. So much for the economical management of the Board. He hoped the Government would feel it their duty to inquire into the subject.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONdenied that the minutes were in a state of confusion or arrear; and explained that as to the minutes of the Board, there could be no mistake about them as they were made up to the 6th of the present month; and as to the accounts he could not only state that they were in the best possible order, but that the Government Auditor, an independent authority, had complimented in the highest terms the Commission on the state in which he found them.
Subject dropped.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1ª Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).

RAILWAY FROM HALIFAX TO QUEBEC— THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW BRUNSWICK.
LORD STANLEYrose, pursuant to notice, to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies in reference to recent proceedings in the Legislature of New Brunswick respecting the proposed railway from Halifax to Quebec. A project had, it seemed, been formed in Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, for the construction of a line of railway, which would greatly develop the resources of those colonies; but the authorities at the Colonial Office in this country had refused to accede to the terms demanded by the promoters of that project, and had offered terms of a somewhat different character. To those latter terms the Legislatures of Canada and Nova Scotia had shown a disposition to accede; but they had been rejected by the Legislature of New Bruns-
1040
wick. Now, it further appeared, that a project, which might be considered to some extent as one of a competing character, had been formed in the United States for the construction of a gigantic line, 2,000 miles in length, from Lake Superior to the Pacific. He believed there could be no doubt that a Bill for the construction of such a line would at an early period be adopted by the United States Legislature. The result would be to give a vast development to the resources of the United States, and at the same time to turn the tide of emigration completely from our own Colonies, unless the proposed line in those Colonies should be constructed. He wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies whether he had any objection to lay before the House any information he might have received with regard to the resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Now Brunswick upon this subject; and whether, if the proposal of Her Majesty's Government had been rejected by the Legislature of that Colony, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take any further steps for the purpose of meeting their views and promoting the undertaking?
EARL GREYsaid, he had no objection to give the information asked for by the noble Lord to the best of his power; but the information he had as yet received was very imperfect. It was true that the Legislature of New Brunswick had decided against the proposition regarding the establishment of railway communication for the North American Colonies which the Government had sent out for its consideration; but he did not think their decision against the proposition was deliberate, because it was arrived at hurriedly at the close of the Session, and after a very imperfect examination and understanding of the real nature of the proposal submitted to them. In the present state of affairs, therefore, and without further communication on the subject, he was not yet in a situation to say that anything could positively be decided upon by the Government. With respect to the applications of private companies, proposing to construct the railway, the course he had always pursued was to decline to entertain the project of any company which did not come to him with some authority from the Provincial Governments. That he thought the only safe principle to proceed upon, and he saw no reason to depart from it for the future. He could only state that as yet no really

1041
substantial and responsible company had come forward to undertake the formation of the lines referred to. One company only had appeared in the matter; but the Provincial Governments, both of Canada and Nova Scotia, had declined to entertain their proposals, believing that they could not be able to raise the necessary funds. Her Majesty's Government took the deepest interest in the question of railway communication for the North American Colonies, and they could not regard what had taken place in New Brunswick as any proof that their proposition had been finally rejected. Of course, however, if the three provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick could agree to some other plan, which the Government could recommend Parliament to adopt, he could only say it should receive the fullest consideration; but in the present condition of the question he could not say anything further.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had heard with much pleasure the statement of his noble Friend, that they might yet hope to see that matter satisfactorily settled. He (Lord Monteagle) could not but express the regret he felt when he found his noble Friend had given up the occuaption of the land when it had been offered to him. The whole question of the legislation for these North American railways, involving as it did the connection between them and the mother country, as well as the improvement of 13,000,000 of acres of land, was one of great importance; and he hoped his noble Friend would suspend any final proceedings on the matter until the opinion of the three Colonies should have been obtained. He wished to know whether any steps had been taken with respect to the Railway Bills of last year?
EARL GREYsaid, he had considered that it would have been much better to have the land under the management of a local government than of the British. With respect to the acts referred to, they had been only received two or three days, and no steps had yet been taken about them.
LORD STANLEYwished to know, with reference to the company to which the noble Lord bad referred, whether there would be any objection to lay on the table the communications which had passed between them and the Government?
EARL GREYsaid, if the noble Lord wished to move for them, they would be produced.

THE SHIPPING INTEREST.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, he had to present to their Lordships an important petition, signed by 400 shipowners of the North of England and the port of Shields, stating the large capital they had employed in the shipping trade, and especially in the carrying trade of the northern coal, in which they employed between two and three thousand seamen. (Minutes of Proceedings, 55.) They complained, in the first instance, that the alteration in the navigation laws had created severe depression in their home and foreign trade. In the home trade, however, and especially in sea-borne coals, they did not fear any competition, provided the Legislature would place their interest on a just and equitable footing. But there existed a very prejudicial interference by the directors of railways along the coast running to towns where traffic had been carried on hitherto by the coasting vessels, but which could no longer sustain a contest with the railways. The directors charged extremely high rates of toll where they had no competition, and extremely low ones on the same kind of traffic where they had to compete with the shipowners. It was quite evident that, if no measures could be adopted to arrest this prejudice to the carrying shipping trade of the north, this great nursery of seamen would infallibly dwindle away. In the early age of railways, he remembered predicting in that House—and he thought he had a right to claim credit for having done so—that, without some specific laws, the time would arrive when railroads, even at great distances, would knock up our mercantile marine as to sea-borne coals. This prediction, he remembered, was ridiculed at the moment; but the time was fast approaching when his words would be fulfilled, and unless the Legislature interfered, the shipowners in the north would be speedily and irremediably ruined. With regard to the immediate object of the present complaint, it was especially against the Great Northern Railway. That company had obtained liberty to charge higher tolls, and they exercised this right most unjustly. They had entered into arrangements with the Yorkshire collieries, and refused to furnish facilities except to favoured parties, which amounted to prohibition. It was not that there was, in his opinion, even now, the smallest danger of any inland coals carried by railway competing with the sea-borne coal by the northern

1043
ships, if the latter were fairly dealt with; but their Lordships would observe, that sea-borne coals were subject to heavy charges for lights and municipal dues, from which inland coals carried by railway were free. Certainly, in London (owing to the exertions of Sir Robert Peel), and within 20 miles round the city, the city dues had been equalised; but still the sea-borne coal was subject to other heavy charges from which inland coal was exempt. The railways now charged on their traffic upon their lines to London, several shillings a ton more dues to places 30 or 40 miles north of London, than they did to London itself. Surely, then, there ought to be some scale of proportionate uniform charge, regulated upon principles of fairness and justice. Admitting, to the fullest extent, the importance of cheap fuel, it was unwise and impolitic unfairly to tax the best article, as it was impolitic to break up, by permitting such proceedings, their mercantile marine of the north. The petitioners further hoped that, as seamen were employed for the national safety, they would not be sacrificed to the treachery of railway directors.
The EARL of HARDWICKErose, not so much to support the prayer of the petition, as to congratulate the noble Marquess that his opinions on the subject of the navigation laws appeared to have undergone some change.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: I beg to say that there never was a more mistaken idea. I voted against the change in the navigation laws, and I have seen no reason to believe that in doing so I acted unwisely.
The EARL OF HARDWICKEwas delighted to find that he had misapprehended the noble Marquess. He feared that his noble Friend was beginning to look with favour on free-trade; but he was delighted to find that this was an erroneous supposition, and that the noble Marquess was still a faithful Protectionist. For his own part, he did not think that the matter referred to in the petition was one which came immediately within the influence of the navigation laws. He would not weary their Lordships by entering into the details of the question; but he might be permitted to observe, that, in his opinion, the petitioners would not be so seriously damaged by railways' as they appeared to apprehend, because the science of the application of steam to the movement of floating bodies would eventually enable them to compete
1044
with railways on very favourable terms. By the joint operation of sails and screw propellers, coasting vessels would soon be enabled to carry on their trade upon a system which would enable their owners to regard without alarm the competition of railways. Vessels were already in progress of construction which would make the voyage between London and Newcastle and back again in four or five days, and that would be a feat which he believed no railway would be able to outstrip; and as the vessels would be freighted with fuel, the cost of the steam would be very cheap.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the complaint of the petitioners was, that the Great Northern Railway Company had obtained power to construct the railway upon condition of establishing a very low scale of tolls; but after their Bill was passed, they came again to Parliament, and obtained leave to increase the amount of tolls. The use they had made of this power was to impose a low scale of charges upon coals conveyed all the way to London, because in London they had to compete with sea-borne coal; but they had established high rates for the conveyance of coal to intermediate places, which were at such a distance from the sea that the company had no competition to encounter; and the petitioners prayed that charges proportionate to the distance might be enforced. That, he thought, was a very fair subject for consideration, though he did not pronounce any opinion on the matter.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHcould say from his own experience, and as one who suffered considerably, that it always had been the case that the long traffic was reduced at the expense of the short traffic.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this was a question of some difficulty. He apprehended that the effect of the course recommended by the petitioners would be to lower the tolls on the conveyance of coals for short distances; but to raise the tolls for long distances, as, for instance, on the transport of coals from Yorkshire to London. It was, however, quite obvious that the railway companies might not be able to supply villages, where there was a small consumption of coal, at the same rate at which they supplied towns, where there was a large consumption, and he thought a great deal might be said against any alteration of the law.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that any difficulty which might exist as to considering the question on both sides arose from the

1045
fact that the City duty was levied on sea-borne coal, and not on other coal.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Lord was mistaken, as the duty was as much upon inland coal as upon seaborne.
House adjourned till Monday next.