Sitting of 24 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Valuation (Ireland); Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues; Excise Summary Proceedings; Secretary of Bankrupts Office Abolition; Bishopric of Quebec; Colonial Bishops; Bishopric of Christ-church (New Zealand).

METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that if the House assented to this Motion, which was to go into Committee on the Compen-
1270
sation Clauses of the Bill, it would establish a precedent for heavy drafts on the public purse to serve merely local objects. If compensation were granted to the proprietors of metropolitan graveyards from this source, he did not see why the same principle should not apply to Manchester, Liverpool, and other provincial towns.
LORD JOHN MANNERSbegged to explain that it was not intended to give compensation, except in those cases where the Secretary of State should take upon himself to close the burial ground, and, as the Secretary of State had no power under this Bill to do so, the objection did not apply.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he had had the honour to be the Chairman of the Committee which sat some years ago to inquire into the subject of Metropolitan Burials, and he must say that he saw no reason why the proprietors of graveyards should receive any compensation from the public. It was proved in evidence before that Committee that one Company had received, through burial fees, as much as 80,000 l. for one acre of ground. These persons had been enriching themselves by augmenting the unhealthiness of the metropolis; and he, for one, must object to their receiving any further emolument, particularly out of the public purse. If compensation were granted in this instance, the House would lay down a principle which would apply all over the country.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that where burial grounds were filled to such an extent as to be a public nuisance, no compensation would be given.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must confess that he did not quite understand the distinction drawn by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works. He (Mr. Hume) objected to any charges being imposed upon the community at large for the mere benefit of the metropolis. He admitted that the Metropolitan Burials Bill would effect a great improvement in the metropolis, and he entirely approved of it; but if the House allowed compensation for improvements of this nature, the next step would bring them to compensation for roads, bridges, &c. He should object, therefore, to the proposal of Mr. Speaker's leaving the Chair, unless he heard some principle laid down which would operate as a cheek to the abuses which would otherwise arise.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he considered that the Compensation Clause would throw too much responsibility upon the

1271
Secretary of State. He doubted whether the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) was aware of the amount of labour and trouble which he was about to entail upon the right hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord did not know the parties with whom the right hon. Gentleman would have to cope. He would be beset by parochial authorities contending against any interference with their accustomed places of burial; and in addition to this, the noble Lord proposed that the Secretary of State should decide upon the claims of parties to compensation. If this arrangement were carried out, the hon. Member for North Essex (Sir J. Tyrell), who was sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman, would be entitled to compensation for shutting up the Bethnal Green graveyard, which was the most notorious nuisance in London: he therefore thought it would place the Secretary of State in an invidious position if he were called upon to decide on claims of such a nature.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he considered that when private property was destroyed for the public benefit, the public ought to pay for it. He meant to propose the insertion of words to empower the Secretary of State to order compensation for the closing of burial grounds in which burials might lawfully be made.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arising out of circumstances which could not be controlled, there was considerable difficulty in dealing with this question, and he confessed he did not know exactly what course to pursue. The question, no doubt, was one of considerable difficulty, whether these compensations should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund or not. On the part of the Treasury, he (Mr. Hamilton) wished, for time to consider the subject. If the resolution were allowed to pass now, he thought an arrangement might be made afterwards.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) had raised a question of great magnitude. The principle laid down by the hon. Baronet was, that public abuses were not to be removed unless a claim for compensation were established upon the Consolidated Fund. At this period of the Session, when public business was in a confused state, he deprecated any proceedings which would have the effect of imposing a charge upon the public Treasury, unless Parliament were
1272
well advised upon the consequences of the step which it was proposed to take.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had thought fit to call the attention of the House to the burial ground in Church Street, Bethnal Green, in which he (Sir J. Tyrell) had an interest. It was true that the graveyard in question might be a nuisance; but the National Gallery was built on the site of an ancient graveyard, and the quadrangle of Somerset House comprised an old burial ground. He received a ground-rent for the property to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had adverted, and he did not see why he should be prevented from turning it to the best advantage he could. Why should the House confiscate his property? It was a misfortune, no doubt, to have property of that description; but he had no more control over it than the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London had over the property which belonged to them in the neighbourhood of that House, though the revenues accruing from that property arose from immoral sources.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that he had made himself master of the case at the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, who now considered the repression of a public nuisance to be confiscation.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he had received a communication from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer since this debate had commenced, and his right hon. Friend was of opinion that the Government ought to oppose this clause.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it was his intention of dividing the House upon the question.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The House divided: Sir William Moles-worth was appointed one of the Tellers for the Yeas, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Yeas, Mr. Speaker declared the Noes had it.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he would take the liberty of saying that he had proposed the compensation clause upon a clear and distinct understanding with the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) that the consent of the Crown would be given. More than that, he had applied yesterday to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and having obtained his consent, he had thought it his duty to persevere with it.
MR. HUMEsaid, he considered, as a

1273
matter of order, that the House ought not to allow questions of this kind to be raised, unless the consent of the Crown were publicly stated. Any other course would lead to compromises which might be injurious to the public interests.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Queen's recommendation and assent only had the effect of enabling the House to consider the question of compensation.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that, in justice to the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), he ought to state that the arrangement assented to by the Government was conditional upon the proviso being given up. As that had not been done, the Government thought they ought not to consent to the compensation clause.
House in Committee. Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

THE AMEERS OF SCINDE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate [23rd June], "That there be laid before this House, Copies of the Evidence and Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into a charge preferred against His Highness Meer Ali Moorad, Ameer of Upper Scinde, of having made fraudulent alterations in the Treaty of Nounahar, concluded between His Highness and the late Meer Roostum Khan, and of all Minutes and Correspondence on the Indian Records connected with the charge.
"And, of the Report on Scinde of Sir George Clerk, K.C.B., late Governor of Bombay, dated the 24th day of April, 1848."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, that when the House was adjourned last night he was about to state that the Government of India were taking steps for the purpose of rendering the condition of the Ameers of Scinde as agreeable under their fallen state as it was possible to be. As long ago as the 27th February, 1851, the Governor General of India, the Marquess of Dalhousie, in a Minute reviewing the conduct of Ali Moorad, and speaking of the cession of territory made by that individual in consequence of the forgeries proved against him, noticed, in the concluding portion of that Minute, the fact that this cession would place a considerable revenue at the disposal of the Government of India; and he then observed that, without enter-
1274
ing into the question of his guilt, there might be reasons for showing mercy to and raising up from their present destitute condition the members of a once royal family, which he was anxious to lay before the Court of Directors. In their reply to that Minute, the Court of Directors expressed a hope that the Governor General would be shortly enabled to communicate with them on the subject; and on the 10th of November following the Governor General made a communication to the Bombay Government, stating that he was desirous of submitting to the Court of Directors, as quickly as possible, the views which it might be desirable to adopt for the amelioration of the condition of the exiled Ameers. The Bombay Government referred the matter to Mr. Frere, the Commissioner in Scinde; and in his reply, on the 15th of December, 1851, Mr. Frere expressed his opinion that the Ameers might be allowed, with perfect safety, to return to Scinde, but that he should be disposed to recommend a fixed stipend for their maintenance, instead of a grant of land. Mr. Frere also called attention to the fact that the families of some of the Ameers, who had been left under the protection of Ali Moorad, had been ill-treated and plundered while under his protection. He especially called attention to the case to the eldest son of Ali Roostum, who had a very large family, and who, having been plundered by Ali Moorad of his property, had been plunged into great distress, and was in fact in want of the common necessaries of life. Mr. Frere also directed the attention of the Bombay Government to the fact that the mother of Ali Roostum was in the same condition. He suggested, therefore, that power should be given to the authorities in Scinde to afford these parties temporary assistance; and on the 28th of April last the Governor General sanctioned that proposal until the pleasure of the Home Government should be expressed upon the subject. This was the latest information in the possession of the Government. He (Mr. Baillie) thought he had now shown that there was no backwardness or disinclination on the part of the authorities, either at home or in India, to render the condition of the Ameers as agreeable as was possible under their altered circumstances. His noble Friend (Viscount Jocelyn), in the address which he had made to the House, carried away by his own eloquence, had represented the Ameers to be models of virtue and inno-

1275
cence; but although his noble Friend had succeeded in showing that one of them was a rogue and a scoundrel, he did not think that he had thereby proved the others to be honest and virtuous men. On that question, however, he did not mean to pronounce any decided opinion. It was very possible that the Ameers might be very much like the average of other Eastern princes; but, under the circumstances of the case, he should be sorry to pronounce any opinion on the subject. So far as regarded the condition of the Ameers, he (Mr. Baillie) sympathised with the object of his noble Friend's Motion. What he found fault with was, that his noble Friend had tried to rake up a question of State policy which was decided in 1844. Such a step might tend to produce an opinion among the natives of India that there was nothing final or secure in the decisions of Parliament. There was no objection on the part of the Government to the production of these Minutes, with the exception of those which referred to past transactions, and for which, in his opinion, it would not be desirable for his noble Friend to press.
COLONEL ESTCOURTsaid, that he had no authority from the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn) to act upon his behalf; but having heard the debate, and the interesting statements which the noble Lord had made, he thought that the whole of the papers which had been asked for ought to be produced.
MR. HERRIESsaid, he did not think it necessary that he should then enter at any length into that case. The Government had not the slightest objection to the production of all the papers which could throw any light upon the subject. But he would submit that it was not desirable that the Report of Sir George Clerk, the late Governor of Bombay, on the state of Scinde, should be laid before the House. That Report was a very voluminous one, and contained references to other Reports, without which it could not be thoroughly understood. He did not think that its production was at all necessary for the purpose which the noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) had in view, and he, therefore, believed it would be better not to press, at least for the present, that portion of the Motion which related to that Report. At the same time he should add, that as far as the Government were concerned, they had no objection to furnish the fullest possible information with respect to all those
1276
transactions. The Governor General of India had already taken steps for improving, as far as he could, the condition of the Ameers; and he (Mr. Herries) had to state that he also would be ready to afford any assistance in his power towards the accomplishment of that object.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the suspicions which he had expressed in 1842 and 1843 had since been proved by events to be well founded, and showed that the Government had been the dupe of an artful and clever man. He did not mean to cast blame anywhere, but he thought this was a case in which the House ought to call for the fullest information, in order to show how the Government had been deceived. Never had men been so cruelly wronged as were the Ameers of Scinde. He did not say that they were morally pure, but he contended that they had been politically faithful. If they had turned against us when we were engaged in hostilities with Affghanistan, the consequences might have been fatal to our Empire in the East. He was glad to find that a settlement of their claims was now about to be made. It was never too late to do justice. He did not wish to prolong this discussion, because the Government professed a desire to treat the Ameers with proper consideration, and he hoped they would repair, as far as possible, the injuries inflicted by the Indian Government. He hoped, however, that some provision would be made for giving greater publicity to Indian documents than had hitherto been allowed. The garbling of public documents was a serious evil. He had been furnished by Sir Alexander Burnes with a complete copy of all his despatches to the Indian Government, and he had no hesitation in saying that if those despatches had been read at length at home, the Affghan war Would not have taken place. From what had fallen from the Government, however, he had great confidence that what was about to be done would reflect credit upon the humanity of the Government, as well as do justice to individuals. He would only say, on the part of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn) that, knowing the opinions which he had entertained upon this subject for many years, he was quite sure that nothing but the discharge of a most important duty could have kept him away from the House upon this occasion.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to make a short explanation in reference to an observation which had fallen from him on the

1277
preceding day. He believed that the noble Lord who had brought forward the Motion was under the impression that he (Mr. Baillie) had accused him of inconsistency. Now he had not intended to have advanced any such charge against the noble Lord, because he had been aware that the noble Lord had always entertained the same opinions upon that subject. He had merely expressed his surprise that the noble Lord should have thought it necessary to have made a charge against a Government he had afterwards served under for acts which they had sanctioned in the year 1844.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Copies ordered— "of the Evidence and Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into a charge preferred against His Highness Meer Ali Moorad, Ameer of Upper Scinde, of having made fraudulent alterations in the treaty of Nounahar, concluded between His Highness and the late Meer Roostum Khan; and of all Minutes and Correspondence on the Indian Records connected with the charge."
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Excise Summary Proceedings; Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues; Valuation (Ireland); Metropolitan Sewers; Nisi Prius Officers; Friendly Societies (No. 2); Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Distressed Unions (Ireland); Public Health Act (1848) Amendment.
2a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay; Navy Pay; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Inland Revenue Office; Savings Banks (Ireland); Metropolis Water Supply; Thames Embankment,
Reported.—Pharmacy.
3a Hereditary Casual Revenues in the Colonies.

THE COFFEE TRADE.
VISCOUNT TORRINGTONasked the noble Earl at the head of the Government the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers with respect to the Minute of Privy Council, dated in 1840, authorising the mixture of chicory with coffee?
The EARL of DERBYsaid, it had certainly appeared to the Government fit that that Minute should be rescinded; but the effect of rescinding it would be to revive the former prohibition on all dealers in coffee, that they should not have on their premises chicory or any other article usually mixed with coffee. What Government proposed therefore was, at the same time they rescinded the Minute of 1840, to give instructions to the Excise not to file informations, or to press for penalties, upon the mere fact of the dealer having chicory on his premises, provided that it was made up in packages of quarter or half pounds, marked with the size, and bearing a label on every packet, stating that it was chicory. There would be no interference with the trade: the public, if they desired to mix chicory with their coffee, could do so, and they would have the opportunity of knowing the amount of mixture. Thus the revenue and the public would be pro-

1259
tected, and no injustice done to the fair dealer.
In reply to a question by the Earl of MINTO,
The EARL of DERBYsaid, the grocers, as dealers, would not be permitted to have on their premises any article for the purpose of mixing with coffee, except in packages marked with the weight and nature of the article. He should also add that as there was a considerable amount of mixed coffee in stock in the hands of dealers, it was proposed to allow them a certain limited time during which no penalty would be enforced for the sale of such mixed coffee.
LORD REDESDALEclaimed the same privilege for mangold-wurtzel, as would be now ceded to chicory. He thought all articles used for mixture with coffee should be placed in the same category.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that all articles that might be mixed with coffee would be on the same footing; whether mangold-wurtzel, roasted corn, or roasted horse beans, they must all be in packages, and marked with the weight and the name of the article.

STANDING ORDER, No. 185—THE "WHARNCLIFFE"ORDER.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEcalled attention to the Standing Order, No. 185, sect. I, with a view to the modification of the provisions thereof, in respect of Bills to be brought into Parliament in any future Session. [This Order requires the assent of four-fifths of the proprietors of a railway to any Bill for proposed amalgamation with another Company.] His Lordship said, that the Order as it stood at present inflicted great hardship upon Railway Companies, by enabling a small minority of railway shareholders to pass a veto on a proposition for the consideration of Parliament of any change in the arrangements relating to the railway. He would submit that in making this Standing Order the House had overleaped the mark, and given opportunity to large companies, by purchasing shares in undertakings that might compete with their own, to prevent Parliament from considering the propriety of allowing such competition. He had been informed that besides the case which was before the House last Monday week—the Birmingham, Shrewsbury and Chester Railways—there was a similar case in the north of England, where a large railway company were again purchasing shares
1260
in order to stop competition. The effect of the order was practically to give to large and powerful companies a complete power of extinguishing their small rivals, and preventing that competition which it was so desirable for the public interest should be secured. It had been suggested as a check against these proceedings, that no holders of shares should be allowed to vote at meetings held under the "Wharncliffe Order," unless they were possessed of them for a certain period before such a meeting was convened. He did not think that the suggestion, although no doubt a good one in many respects, would obviate the evils to which he had referred. He would, therefore, move that the Order No. 185 be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, for the purpose of considering what alterations may be made in it, with a view of affording more complete protection to the interests of the public.
LORD REDESDALEstated, that the object of the Standing Order in question was to afford protection to shareholders against their directors, and its importance in this respect could not be overrated. If it had been found oppressive, there would have been more than one or two cases in which difficulty or grievance would have arisen. But he knew of none except those which were before the House last week—the Shrewsbury and Chester, and Shrewsbury and Birmingham; and in one of those cases the shareholders were protected by the proportion required being now not three-fifths, but four-fifths. In the instance of one of the companies the shareholders last year were in favour of an alliance with the North-Western; but the directors were in favour of the Great Western, and by management they so increased their number of votes that at the meeting a few months ago they would have carried their point if the proportion had been only three-fifths. In the other case the directors split shares, preparing the transfer and retransfer with the money of the company. Directors had powers, too, which they could exercise, with regard to delay in giving a list of shareholders, and giving it only up to the time of the application. They had enormous powers, and the House would do well to be cautious, and inquire, before altering this order. It was suggested that no parties except those who had held shares for a certain time be allowed to vote; and that was, upon the whole, a valuable suggestion. He thought the Standing Orders Committee was not

1261
the best tribunal to which this question could be referred. In his opinion it ought to be referred to a Select Committee less numerous than the Standing Orders Committee, by whom it might be fairly and temporately discussed.
Moved—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report to the House upon the propriety of altering the Standing Order No. 185, so far as regards Railway Bills."
LORD HATHERTONsaid, that he had for a long period endeavoured to obtain the establishment of a rival communication in the county of Stafford, which he consider ed, in common with the iron-masters and the great body of the manufacturers of that county, would be of great advantage. The effects of this particular order had been hitherto to prevent the accomplishment of this desirable object, and he should therefore be most happy to see some alteration made in the proportion of assenting shareholders at present required in conformity with the order.
The EARL of STRADBROKEwas understood to say that he thought a proportion of three-fifths, instead of four-fifths as at present required, would afford ample security to shareholders against the acts of the directors.
The EARL of HARROWBYthought the Order ought to be maintained, because it would prevent shareholders from being dragged into greater liabilities than they wished. If their Lordships wished to protect the interests of shareholders against the jobbing of directors, they should take care not to enable a small minority of shareholders to obstruct propositions for amalgamation. In this particular case the Order might have prevented competition, but it might promote it in another. Those considerations were totally alien to the question.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought that one point had not been sufficiently brought out in the discussion, namely, the right which the public had to be heard in cases of this kind. Great questions which affected the public ought to be brought under the consideration of their Lordships in a manner wholly free and unfettered; and their Lordships ought not to tie themselves in a way which would on any occasion prevent them doing that which would be manifestly for the interest of the public. With respect to a question of amalgamation, could there be a subject on which it was more important that their
1262
Lordships should be able to pronounce an unfettered opinion on the merits of each case, and that it should not be left to be decided by particular majorities in the various companies which it might be proposed to amalgamate, liable as they were to be influenced in a number of ways through all the office-holders, clerks, and persons interested in the continuance of those companies? It had been proved again that railways were administered more for the advantage of the public by great companies than by small ones; and when a question of amalgamation arose between two companies, their Lordships should look at the question on public principle, and sec whether such amalgamation would be likely to meet the wants of the public service. It was not to be tolerated that their Lordships should be debarred from entering on the consideration of a great line of public intercourse, because minorities in smaller companies, availing themselves of an order of their Lordships' House, chose to step in and say that their Lordships should not and could not sanction that great line of public intercourse.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that he thought it would be advisable to restore the Order to its original form, requiring the assent of only three-fifths of the shareholders to a proposed amalgamation.
LORD BROUGHAMwas quite of opinion that their Lordships should do now what they ought to have done years ago—refer the question to a Committee for consideration.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the whole of our legislation on the subject of railways was in a most confused and unsatisfactory state, and required some very material amendments, founded upon long consideration, and framed with great care and caution. There could he no doubt in the mind of any person who considered for a moment the position of the railway in question, that it was one of great importance to the public at large; and it was quite monstrous that the interests of the public should he defeated by a combination such as that which was practised in the course of the proceedings in regard to that railway. He admitted that the decision of the Standing Orders Committee (namely, that they saw no reason to recommend the suspension of the Standing Order) was perfectly correct, because no sufficient evidence had been laid before them for the purpose of proving the charges which were

1263
alleged against the North-Western Company on the particular occasion. But he begged to remind their Lordships of one circumstance. It appeared in evidence before the Standing Orders Committee, that, previous to the meeting for the purpose of confirming the agreement with regard to the amalgamation, shares were purchased by the company in the name of their servants for the purpose of defeating the agreement. And, if such a contrivance was resorted to on that occasion, what reason had their Lordships to believe that the same contrivance was not resorted to upon the second occasion, although there was not sufficient evidence to enable them to trace it, in consequence of the machinery which was made use of? Their Lordships, therefore, ought to adopt some means to prevent a repetition of that contrivance; and this could be done, he thought, by reducing the proportion of votes necessary to approve of an amalgamation from four-fifths to three-fifths, as it stood at the time the original order was made.
The EARL of DERBYhoped their Lordships would not adopt the proposition of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst). The notice given by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was, that he would call attention to the Standing Order in question, with a view to its modification in respect to Bills to be brought in in any future Session. The noble Marquess did not give any notice whatever as to the mode in which that Standing Order should be amended. He (the Earl of Derby) said that it would be unprecedented if on a discussion of that kind—which he thought had turned too much on the merits of a particular railway—they should amend the order in question without any notice having been given of an intention so to do. He thought that would be a more imprudent and precipitate course than that which was complained of as having been adopted in 1850. He was of opinion that there was another and more important question, well worthy their Lordships' consideration, which had been mentioned in the course of the discussion, namely, whether it should be considered necessary in all cases of this kind, that the shares of all persons intending to vote should have been held for a certain period before they were allowed to vote. He thought that would be a proper subject for inquiry by the Committee. He repeated, that he hoped the House would not adopt the somewhat hasty proposition of the
1264
noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), but would rather take the more prudent course of referring this matter to the deliberate investigation of a Select Committee.
LORD LYNDHURSTreiterated his former statement, that it had been proved before the Standing Orders Committee, that, previous to the meeting for ratifying the agreement entered into- by the directors, clerks and other officers of the North-Western Company had purchased a great number of shares for the purpose of influencing the proceedings.
On Question, agreed to.

SUITORS IN CHANCERY RELIEF BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD LYNDHURSTmoved the restoration of clauses with regard to compensation to persons whose offices were abolished by this measure, as they originally stood in the Bill when first introduced into the Commons, but which had been struck out on the third reading—for what reason he could not undertake to say.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, it struck him that if they increased the amount of compensation, the other House would scarcely acquiesce in it. He would suggest to the noble and learned Lord to postpone the consideration of this question until he had an opportunity in a day or two of seeing how it was likely to be viewed by the other House. Then the noble and learned Lord would be better able to determine the course it would be advisable for him to pursue. At all events he hoped that the noble and learned Lord would not place so much value upon his proposition as to risk the passing of the measure by pressing his proposition at that moment.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that there were four of the senior clerks to receive compensation for the loss of the fees which they had been hitherto authorised to receive. He thought it would be most unjust if compensation were not awarded to the junior clerks also, in respect to such fees, inasmuch as under the existing system they would be entitled to succeed to the offices of the senior clerks, and of course to receive such fees in the event of vacancies occurring. He had, therefore, prepared a clause to effect that object.
The LORD CHANCELLORobjected to the clause. The House must remember that this Bill was one of the late Government's, and the House of Commons had

1265
gone on altering and altering it, until it reached their Lordships' House at such a period of the Session, that it was utterly impossible to make it a perfect measure. He was therefore placed in this position—either to take the Bill, which was an excellent Bill in many respects, with all its defects, or not to proceed with it at all. He had thought it his duty to adopt the measure, hut, not having had time thoroughly to revise it, or to send it to a Select Committee, he could not take upon himself the responsibility of all its demerits. If it perpetrated any injustice, that could be remedied hereafter.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he would state his objections to the Bill. First, it was founded on the Report of a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament, of which the Master of the Rolls was Chairman, and one of the principal recommendations of that Commission was, that the subordinate offices in the Court of Chancery should be abolished. Look at its provisions. To whom did it restrict the issue of injunctions? The Master of the Rolls! Who received the fees? The secretary of the Master of the Rolls! At whose suggestion was it passed through the other House? At that of the Master of the Rolls! Then, again, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the unsparing manner in which it dealt with the officers of the Lord Chancellor. It reduced them to such a degree as that they would be hardly able to carry on their business. But what did it do with the officers of the Master of the Rolls? It did not touch them at all! No mention was made of them, except to make their offices of more advantage. It provided that the Lord Chancellor's secretary should have an additional clerk; but it stipulated that the salary should not exceed the insufficient sum of 200 l. a year. At the same time it provided that the secretary of the Master of the Rolls shall have two additional clerks, at salaries not exceeding 300 l. a year. The Committee, upon whose Report this Bill was framed, had the Master of the Rolls amongst its members; it was brought in by the Master of the Rolls; and it passed through the House of Commons under his superintendence. Although it cut down the establishments of the noble and learned Lord in the manner he had described, he (Lord Lyndhurst) admitted that there might be in it some parts which it would be desirable to pass into a law; but he would never consent to the enact-
1266
ment of a law which would do any injustice.
Clauses negatived.
Amendment made; the Report thereof to he received To-morrow.

HEREDITARY CASUAL REVENUES IN THE COLONIES BILLS.
On Motion that this Bill be read a Third Time,
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he was not altogether satisfied with the noble Earl's (the Earl of Desart's) explanation of this measure. It appeared to have reference to the sale of waste lands in the Colonies; and, inasmuch as he believed it had not been the practice hitherto to apply the proceeds of the sale of waste lands to the purposes of the mother country, he did not quite understand the meaning of the proviso to the second clause, that the surplus not applied to "such public purposes of such Hereditary Casual Revenues" should be carried to the Consolidated Fund. He should like to have some explanation of the measure, and to be informed whether it had reference to the waste lands alone, or whether it included the gold discoveries in the Colonies. He understood that the Government had resolved most wisely to apply the produce of such discoveries to colonial purposes. If that were the intention of the Act, he highly approved of it.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, considerable doubts had arisen whether the practice which had been pursued for some time, of appropriating the waste lands in the Colonies, by the authority of the Crown and of the Colonial Legislatures, constituted, in point of fact, a legal appropriation. It was intended by this Bill, notwithstanding the surrender of the Crown revenues, to authorise, as formerly, the appropriation of the casual revenues, whether arising from waste lands, or from the discovery of large mineral treasures, to colonial purposes. If the Act were not passed, such discoveries would be subject to appropriation by Parliament, and would not be applicable to those colonial purposes to which the other casual revenues were now applied.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEbegged again to call the noble Earl's attention to the clause with reference to the appropriation of the surplus to the Consolidated Fund. It appeared to be a mode of appropriation that was inconsistent with previous practice.
The EARL of DERBY: The opportunity

1267
for such an application of the surplus may never arise.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: It is the principle to which I am calling attention.
The EARL of DERBY: To maintain the just rights of the Crown, it is necessary that this new arrangement should he made.
Bill read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY BILL.
The EARL of LONSDALEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, and said, that one great question relating to this measure was the settlement of the rates. He thought the effect of this measure would be greatly to reduce the rates of profit on the part of the water companies. At present their rates of profit might be said to vary from 5 to 10 per cent—the average being about 7 per cent. He believed the effect of this measure would be to reduce the profits to an average amount of 4 per cent. The general effect of the measure, he believed, would be a great boon to the middle classes of the metropolis. After thirty years of fighting and quarrelling, they had at last come to an understanding and an arrangement which, he believed, would give general content to all classes, and he therefore hoped that no opposition would be offered to the second reading of the Bill.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYwould not oppose the Motion; but he hoped that this Bill would not become an obstacle to other measures which might be brought forward in some future Session of Parliament, as he had no doubt whatever that this could not be considered as a final settlement of the question. There must be some future measure, founded on some better principle for ensuring a sufficient and cheap supply of water. He objected both to the principle of this Bill, and to several of its details; but he would not detain the House at present with recounting his objections. He must, however, protest against this—that, owing to the late period at which the Bill came before their Lordships' House, they were not allowed to hear or to read any evidence upon the subject. No time was allowed for deliberation, nor were they permitted to refer it to a Select Committee. The Bill must be passed at once, without their Lordships knowing more of it than if it were a Chaldee manuscript.
The EARL of DERBYagreed with
1268
much that had fallen from the noble Earl. The Bill must either be rejected, or it must be passed without duo deliberation. Unfortunately that was the only alternative that was left to them; and if they rejected it, they would cause that all the labours of the other House with regard to this measure must be gone over again in another Session, with the possibility of having again the same termination. It was undoubtedly desirable that their Lordships should have the opportunity of examining not only this particular Bill, but also the various opposing schemes that had been brought forward by other parties; but their Lordships were aware that this measure had occupied much of the time and attention of Parliament for a number of years, and this was the first Session in which, after all the investigation that had taken place, there was any prospect of carrying a measure with the general consent of all the various interests—the interests, he meant, not only of those companies whose rights and privileges, however, it was impossible altogether to overlook, but, to a great extent, of the inhabitants of the metropolitan districts also, whose opinions, so far as they had been able to collect them, were in favour of this measure; and if it were now postponed for another year, it might be questioned whether the same favourable conjuncture of circumstances would again arise. There was no doubt of this, that the Bill did provide for a purer, a more extensive, and a regular supply of water to the metropolis. These were the three objects of the Bill. It placed limits also to the expense at which it was at present to be supplied, and if it did not procure water from all the sources from which the noble Earl thought a supply was available, it, at all events, did provide a supply from purer sources; and at the same time it provided that both in the case of the new and the old sources, an efficient system of filtration should be adopted. It provided also—and upon this he laid great stress—that the supply of water should be constant. These were great advantages; and when the alternative was, as he had said, either to sacrifice all the labours of the other House of Parliament by rejecting this Bill, or to sacrifice some part of the dignity of their Lordships' House by passing it without due deliberation, he did trust that their Lordships would adopt the latter part of the alternative.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not

1269
rise to object to the Bill, but to express his regret that the evils which had existed in the case of all the Governments of his time appeared also to beset the present Government. He alluded to the practice of Bills being sent up from the other House at so late a period of the Session that it was impossible for their Lordships to give them that attention which was their due. He thought it would be much better if, by a system of vigorous legislation, Bills were brought into their Lordships' House at an earlier period of the Session, so that they might meet with the mature deliberation of their Lordships; and he was sure that not the House of Commons only, but the public generally, would be benefited, if their Lordships were at an earlier period of the Session to be employed in the consideration of measures which could afterwards be sent down to the Lower House and finally passed into a law. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would take this suggestion into their serious consideration, for he was sure that by a vigorous proceeding of that kind the business of the Session would be greatly facilitated, and the measures more fully matured.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, he begged to remind the noble and learned Lord that the present measure was one of a taxing character, and could therefore have been only originated in the other House. He might further state that, if the noble and learned Lord looked to the Order-book of the House of Commons, he would find there twelve or fourteen Bills standing at various stages, all of which had originated in the House of Lords; and among these were some law Bills, the importance of which he was sure the noble and learned Lord would be the last to undervalue.
Bill read 2a, and committed.
House adjourned till To-morrow