Sitting of 5 April 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN for Blackburn.—Montague Joseph Feilden, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Combination of Workmen; Sheriff Courts (Scotland).

DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS AND PATRONAGE.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLgave notice, that on that day fortnight he would call the attention of the House to the contents of the Parliamentary Papers Nos. 271 and 272, of the present Session, respecting certain dockyard appointments and promotions, and should he find it necessary to found a substantive Motion on them, he would state its precise terms on Thursday next.
MR. STAFFORD said: Sir, I have to make an appeal to the House, and though, perhaps, in doing so I am somewhat irregular, still I trust the House will not withhold its indulgence to permit me to make a request of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, that he will afford every facility to the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone to bring forward the important Motion of which he has just given notice. And, in making this appeal, I feel I am justified by the occasion; for I may be permitted to observe that this is no common case, inasmuch as it affects not merely the Members of the late Board of Admiralty, but likewise those Members of the present Board who were also Members of the late Board. I trust then, Sir, that the hon. Member for Marylebone will give an early notice of the precise terms of the Motion which it is his intention to submit, and that when he does give that notice, that he will adhere to it. I hope I am not appealing in vain to the noble Lord; for he must see that it is due, as I had said, not merely to the late Board of Admiralty, but likewise to the Members of the present Board who were attached to the late one, that no uncertainty should hang over this question; and therefore that every facility should be afforded to the hon. Baronet for bringing forward his Motion.

THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF COMMITTEES.
MR. WILSON PATTEN: Sir, I beg to call for the indulgence of the House, while I mention a circumstance of a personal nature, that is connected with the business of the House. At the commence-
592
ment of the present Parliament the House did me the honour to elect me to the office of Chairman of Ways and Means; but I am sorry to find that my health and strength are not equal to the onerous duties of that office. I think it is most respectful to the House to make this announcement now, when I can do so without any public inconvenience being incurred; whereas at a later period of the Session it could not be made without great inconvenience. It was my intention to make some observations to the House regarding the duties of that office; but I shall not now do so, and shall confine myself to the expression of my grateful sense of the confidence reposed in me by the House; and to prevent public inconvenience occurring I will devote myself out of office to the assistance of any Member who shall be appointed to the office.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am sure, Sir, the House has heard with very great regret the statement of my hon. Friend. For the short time he held the office from which he retires he displayed so much judgment that he enabled the House to caary on the business, so far as regards him, most satisfactorily. And I am sure the House will feel we have sustained a great loss in losing the benefit of his conciliating manners and judicious administration of the office.
MR. DISRAELI: May I be permitted, Sir, as I had the honour of moving that Mr. Wilson Patten should take the Chair, to offer to him the thanks of myself and of every Member of the late Government for the kindness with which he came forward to accept it, though he was not insensible that in so doing he was likely to incur great inconvenience and injury to to health. I am sure the House will always recollect the able and efficient manner in which he has discharged his duties; and that on every occasion he will receive that consideration which is due to his high character and important services.

DESERTIONS FROM THE NAVY.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that seeing the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, he would beg to put to him a question of which he had given him notice yesterday. The right hon. Baronet was no doubt aware that a great number of desertions bad lately taken place from Her Majesty's ships, which had been imputed to the very strong

593
feeling of disgust which existed among the crews at the infliction of the punishment of flogging upon a petty officer on board one of Her Majesty's steamers. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any information had reached the Admiralty that many desertions had taken place from on board Her Majesty's ships?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I am bound to state to the House, that since the month of January last a considerable number of desertions have taken place from the squadron on the home station. It will, however, be recollected that there has not been so large a squadron assembled on that station for a very considerable length of time. Yet I was not aware, until the hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact just now, that the cause of that desertion had been imputed to any particular circumstance. I believe, as the result of the inquiries which I have made, that the cause of those desertions is to be ascribed to other reasons than those given by the hon. Gentleman, it is—to the unusually high rate of wages of the mercantile service—and to the most improper solicitations which have been made from various quarters to endeavour to induce seamen in Her Majesty's service to accept that higher rate of pay, and to break their fidelity to the service by deserting their duty. It is to that cause, and to that cause alone, that I ascribe that desertion. But, Sir, with reference to the causes mentioned, I have great satisfaction in stating to the House, that, in consequence of arrangements for the more frequent payment of the seamen on the home station, and the greater amount of leave of absence after those payments—that after this more protracted leave, the old seamen who have served for a long period, with hardly I may say an exception—that these men, whose experience was the greatest of the discipline and treatment on board ship, have returned to their duty with an extraordinary fidelity. But, Sir, I cannot sit down without referring especially to the case of the petty officer on whom, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Lambeth, corporal punishment was inflicted. That case was most patiently considered by the Board over which I have the honour to preside. It was a case of gross insubordination on the part of the petty officer. It was carried to this extent, that language was used of the most insulting nature, on the quarterdeck, to the lieutenant of the watch, and
594
which was followed by violence such that the sentry upon duty was knocked down upon the quarter-deck. I need hardly point out to the House how essential it is for the maintenance of a proper state of discipline on board Her Majesty's ships that such a punishment should be inflicted. In many foreign services this offence, which is even here a capital crime, would have been followed up by capital punishment. The punishment in this case was inflicted, not by the officer in command, but in pursuance of a sentence of court-martial, over which officers of the highest character and greatest experience presided. The punishment awarded was disrating, and the infliction of corporal punishment not of an excessive character, but such as it was in the power of every single officer in command to order; and it was followed up by a sentence of imprisonment in Exeter gaol, and subsequent dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service. The character which this offender bore in other ships being good, this circumstance was considered by the Board of Admiralty, and they, therefore, thought it consistent with their duty to mitigate the severity of the sentence, which was not to be carried into execution as far as regarded the dismissal from the service with disgrace, which would have debarred him from receiving any pension to which he was entitled for past services. The remaining portion of the sentence was commuted, and the term of imprisonment was reduced from twelve months to three. The man, therefore, will be able to return to his ship on the expiration of his punishment without disgrace, and I hope hereafter that he will be able to serve with honour, and that at the termination of the usual period of service he may receive the pension to which his services may be entitled.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know whether any increase in the desertions had taken place since the flogging?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: There has been no perceptible increase.

DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS AND PATRONAGE.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, My hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) has made an appeal to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to which he did not reply. If the noble Lord could facilitate the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), it would be agreeable

595
to the feelings of my hon. Friend. I will not ask the noble Lord to say Friday, because business of importance has been fixed for that day, but if the noble Lord could permit it to come on on Monday it would be desirable.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, it is very desirable that the Motion of the hon. Member for Marylebone should not be postponed for a very long time. At the same time I beg the House would recollect that we have but two days in the next week, and on each of those days there will be most important business. I should hope that the House might agree that Thursday se'nnight would be devoted to that Motion. Probably the House will agree that the Motion should take precedence on that day of all other Motions by general understanding.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I shall be quite ready by that day.
MR. TUFNELLsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty with respect to the order lately made in reference to the promotions in Her Majesty's dockyards. He wished to know whether the public service had any guarantee that the order just promulgated would be maintained and enforced beyond the existence of the present Government, or whether any succeeding Board might not be at liberty to revoke them?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, in giving my answer to the question put to me, especially after the notice which has already been given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, I shall confine myself strictly to facts. It has been the endeavour of the present Board of Admiralty to obtain the best security that, short of an Act of Parliament, can be procured for giving a permanent and lasting sanction to the arrangements which have been made with regard to promotions in the dockyards. An Act of Parliament in reference to those minute details, I am satisfied, would be unavailing. The next best course to an Act was an Order in Council, and for the first time the arrangements to which my right hon. Friend has referred have been embodied in an Order in Council, and there can be henceforth no departure from that Order in Council without an appeal to Her Majesty.

DECIMAL COINAGE.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
596
chequer in his place, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out the system of decimal coinage, and whether they intended to issue the new copper coinage on the decimal basis?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have to say, Sir, that there is no intention on the part of the Government to make any change with respect to the supply of the additional copper coinage both for this country and the colonies, which has become absolutely necessary. With respect to the general question of a decimal coinage, the Government are fully sensible of the great importance of it; and they likewise feel that the utmost attention is due to the arguments and opinions of those who have recommended the change; but the Government are also of opinion that the matter is one of great importance, and of great delicacy as well as importance, and that the altering of the value of those particular coins, which are, in point of fact, the measure of value and the basis of the whole idea of value to the mass of the population, is a very serious matter indeed, and one which ought not to be undertaken on any mere abstract opinions and considerations without fully ascertaining that the ground under our feet is secure. The course that will be taken by the Government is this: An hon. Member has already moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and the Motion will receive the support of the Government, for it will lead to such an elucidation of the matter as will enable them and the House to form a conclusive judgment on the subject.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ELECTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose, in pursuance of notice, to move an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry into the last and former Elections for the Borough of Hull; and although he did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, and that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any great length, he thought it was proper that he should in a few words remind the House of the circumstances under which the Motion was made. He was Chairman of the recent Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations in the petition impugning the last return of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Hull. The result of that inquiry was a Report, which had the effect of unseating Mr. Clay and Lord Goderich.

597
The Committee stated in their Report that it was their unanimous opinion that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, not only at the last election for Hull, but at previous elections for that borough, and that the poorer classes of freemen, in large numbers, were bribed to give their votes at the rate of 30 s. each man. In consequence of that Report, he felt it to be his duty to move the suspension of the writ, and he now felt it to be his duty to move for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate all the circumstances attending the last and former elections for that borough. It was most painful for him to make such a Motion, and the House would have a painful duty to discharge in deciding upon so important a town as Hull, containing 80,000 inhabitants, and about 4,000 or 5,000 voters. He thought that the House would agree with him, that, in a case where corrupt practices had extensively prevailed of the description to which he had referred, the magnitude and importance of the particular place should not be permitted to shield it from the discredit of such practices, and, if necessary, from the punishment that should follow. He felt satisfied that the House would not be deterred by the consideration of the great importance of Hull from agreeing to the present Motion. He had observed, in the course of the Session, the most perfect readiness of the House to support their Committees upon questions of this nature. He had no fear but that any one who had taken the trouble to glance at the evidence given before the Committee would be of opinion that they had not come to any rash or precipitate conclusion. The evidence, he admitted, was necessarily of the most superficial and imperfect character. As was usual in such cases, the inquiry was brought to a premature close by the sitting Members giving up their defence as soon as they saw that it was useless to defend their seats any further. The Committee were then left to come to the best conclusions they could upon the evidence they had already heard. If they thought that the termination of this inquiry had been anything like a corrupt compromise between the parties, or if they believed that the evidence then received did not give them abundant ground for applying to the House to ask for a more searching and thorough inquiry through the means of a Commission, he thought that the Committee, under all these disadvantages, would have felt it to be their duty to prosecute
598
their inquiry still further. They had, however, obtained abundant evidence to prove that corrupt practices had prevailed in the borough, not only during the last election, but at previous elections; and they felt that they were therefore fully warranted in asking the House to consent to an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry, which was a far more stringent and just course to take with a view to a searching investigation into all the circumstances of the case than any Committee of the House of Commons. It appeared, in the first place, that there existed at the last election for the borough, and at almost all former elections, a practice which was perfectly notorious, and which was avowed by all the witnesses, of giving a sum of 30 s. to every one of the freemen, who regarded the receipt of that sum as a right which belonged to them. And it appeared that no candidate going down to Hull would have any chance whatever of being returned if he did not follow up this practice. The freemen, however, were not the only parties who were obnoxious to such charges; for amongst the poorer classes of 10 l. householders bribery was also practised, though not of so systematic a character as amongst the freemen. Those poorer classes of voters, though they did not receive 30 s. each, were, somehow or other, the better for the election. The payments were made to them under certain subterfuges. A committee-room was nominally hired at the houses of those electors, but was never used for such purpose, and the voters were paid a certain sum for apparently the use of such rooms. The evidence before the Committee was not of a very satisfactory character, though he might state that the principal witness was a man steeped in the double infamy of having first sold his vote for 50 l., and then of coming voluntarily forward and exposing the transaction. It was also perfectly plain, by the evidence before the Committee, that a most lavish and extensive system of treating prevailed at the last election. He confessed that he was not a purist in matters of this sort, but he could draw a distinction between reasonable refreshment and a system of corrupt treating for the purpose of influencing voters. Public-houses were kept open at all hours. Treating went on in the most barefaced manner for the purpose of influencing the election for Hull. He thought it was highly desirable, as the evidence before the Committee was unsatisfactory and superficial, that a Com-

599
mission should issue in order to investigate upon the spot the whole circumstances of the case. He had reason to believe that it was the desire of the most respectable inhabitants of the town that such a Commission should issue; and if he had not given notice of the Motion, there would have been presented a petition, numerously signed, praying the House to take such a step. He had observed with great satisfaction the prcceedings of the House in regard to election petitions during the present Session. He did not believe that corruption prevailed at the last election to a greater degree than at former elections. On the contrary, he believed that corruption, on the whole, had been greatly diminishing of late years. But greater pains had been recently taken to develop those practices, and an alteration for the better had taken place in public opinion, and in the conduct of the House of Commons. The House, during the present Session, had done much to obtain and to deserve the public confidence. In his notice of Motion he had included the name of Mr. Carpenter Rowe, as one of the Commissioners; but he (Mr. Labouchere) had that day received a letter from that gentleman stating that his professional avocations rendered it impossible for him to serve on the Commission. He (Mr. Labouchere) therefore proposed to substitute the name of Mr. Solly Flood for that of Mr. Rowe.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the House should perfectly understand the grounds upon which this Commission should issue. The few Commissions that had already issued were issued under circumstances distinctly stated in the Reports of Committees. These circumstances were—first, that the bribery was extensive; and, secondly, that it was systematic. He thought, as a general rule, that those two principles should be recognised as their guide in the issuing of Commissions. In regard to the evidence before the Election Committee for the borough of Hull, he thought that the evidence was clear in showing that the bribery there was both extensive and systematic; and he observed that at the end of the inquiry, when the counsel for the sitting candidates gave up the case, he stated that he did so without any concert with the counsel on the other side; and the counsel on the opposite side stated that he had many more cases of bribery and corruption he could prove. He (Mr. Walpole), therefore, thought that this was a case in which the Commission
600
ought to issue. In reference to the necessity of giving the names of the Commissioners to be nominated beforehand, it appeared that one of them had, unfortunately, declined to act, and that the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, compelled to substitute another name for the one he had first proposed. He thought that, under the circumstances, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would give notice of the new name, in order that the House might have the opportunity of considering it. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman, if the House consented to the Address, that notice of the names of the Commissioners should be given before the House was called upon to agree to their appointment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be most desirable generally to give notice of the names of the Commissioners to be proposed, and he had already given the House such notice; but he had only that day received an intimation that one of the gentlemen whose names he had given would not be able to serve, and it was under those circumstances that he had substituted the name of the other gentleman. If he were now to postpone the nomination of those Commissioners, he would be compelled to postpone his Motion altogether.
MR. BANKESsaid, he understood that his right hon. Friend had made the observation respecting the necessity of giving notice of the names of the Commissioners, with a view of showing that if he assented to the Motion under the circumstances, such assent was not to be drawn into a precedent. He (Mr. Bankes) had no difficulty in assenting to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton. He thought, in respect to the names of the Commissioners, the rules of the House should be adhered to, as those gentlemen were armed with tremendous powers, and it was therefore most important that none but the most able and efficient men should be appointed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not insist upon notice being given of the names of all those Commissioners, for the effect would be to postpone the Motion altogether.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he felt it would be putting the right hon. Gentleman to great inconvenience if he were to insist upon the usual notice being given of the

601
name of this one Commissioner; but he hoped that, by assenting to the Motion as it stood, it would not be considered that he was taking an inconsistent course if in future he objected to such a proceeding without due notice.
Resolved—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty [which was offered].
Resolved—That the said Address be communicated to the Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto.
Ordered—That a Conference be desired with the Lords upon the subject-matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15 & 16 of Her present Majesty, cap. 57.
Ordered—That Mr. Labouchere do go to The Lords, and desire the said Conference.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, he had to propose a Resolution, at the suggestion of a large number of persons who had asked him to be their instrument, in calling the attention of the House to a subject of which he admitted the very great difficulty. He had some reason to expect that his Motion would be met with two objections: first, that it was ill-timed; and, secondly, that it was unnecessary. He would doubtless be told that a Select Committee was at that moment sitting upstairs, who would make such a Report as would satisfy the House on the subject. If he thought the carrying of his Motion would be offensive to the railway interest, or embarrassing to the Government, he should be the last person to seek to bring it forward. But he submitted, his Motion was of such a character that, if the Committee should make a Report that it was unnecessary to have a tribunal to insist on the regulation of railways, it would only tend to strengthen the hands of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell) had done him the honour to say that there was nothing in the terms of his Resolution in the slightest degree objectionable. If that were so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the Resolution. If there was anything more marked than another going on in the Committee upstairs, it was that they were all agreed on the necessity of what he (Mr. Brown) now asked the House to do. The House would recollect that when
602
the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) moved for that Committee, he had only in view an inquiry into the general amalgamation of railways, and that an hon. Member followed up the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman by a proposition for extending the scope of inquiry of the Committee. But what was the result? The Committee was now sitting, and the evidence given before them was just a repetition of statements with which the House was already familiar. He would refer the House to the evidence of a great authority in matters connected with railways, Mr. Seymour Clarke. That gentleman stated that in his opinion the result of the proposed amalgamations and arrangements would be, that, without some superintending authority, the public would be deprived of those advantages which they now possessed. Captain Huish, the superintendent of the London and North-Western Railway, in reply to a question put to him, to the effect of whether all just complaints made by the public against the companies might not become a subject of arbitration, said that it would require careful consideration, and the assistance of men who were conversant with the details of the working of railways, who would give judgments which would be acceptable to the companies. Each of the five witnesses already examined had stated in the most marked manner, that the supervision of the railways, to be effective, must be placed in some central power. He would be the last person to advocate any interference in the fiscal arrangements connected with railways; but he contended that until they made some better arrangements, until they had some authority to which the public could appeal, or some power to enforce such regulations as might be deemed necessary for the public safety, they would have the columns of their daily papers constantly filled with accounts of lamentable and fatal accidents on railways. He would now direct the attention of the House to a very recent case which had been tried in Scotland. Some persons attributed the fewness of railway accidents in Scotland to the lower rate of velocity adopted there; but he attributed it to the wholesome correction of the criminal law of that country. A trial took place a few days ago in Scotland, and he thought the summing up of the Lord Justice Clerk was a striking lesson as to legislating on these matters. He said—
"That, after the disclosures that had been

603
made, it was plain that on another such occasion it would be the parties responsible for maintaining such a state of things that would be put at the bar—directors or manager. The same state of matters seemed to have been continued even after this accident, and neither the manager nor the directors seemed to have taken any steps whatever to prevent the repetition of such accidents. Of course such a state of things was maintained at their own peril; and if another such catastrophe occurred, they had received a pretty plain intimation as to how the public prosecutor would deal with those who persisted in maintaining it."
Under the Scotch law there was a public prosecutor, by whose exertions justice was secured to the peasant as well as to the peer. This state of things was very different from that of the English law on the subject. Under the 9 & 10 Vict. (Lord Campbell's Act), a right of civil action was given for damages, which unfortunately, however, practically valued the useful man at pence, and the ornamental at thousands. He remembered that when this Bill was under discussion a noble Lord in the other House asked whether, supposing the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack was killed, any jury would dare to estimate his value. The rejoinder of the Lord Chancellor was, that he could conceive a much more difficult case, which was that of estimating the damages of a noble Lord in expectation of a seat on the woolsack. At a recent accident on a branch of the Midland Railway, in which a passenger carriage drawn by a horse was run into by an engine, a poor man received three pounds as compensation for the death of his wife, while a lady travelling in the same carriage obtained five pounds as compensation for damage done to her dress. What was wanted, therefore, was a public prosecutor, who would take care of the interests of the poor and working classes who might suffer from accidents on railways. Another objection that he believed would be made to his Motion was, that it would interfere with private enterprise; but that argument was worn out, and in the most satisfactory manner, for the Government felt it their duty to interfere with all private enterprise where the public were concerned. As a proof of that he need only refer to the supervision of steam-boats, of emigrant ships, factories, and stagecoaches. Any one who would take the trouble to read the reports that had been made from time to time on this subject, would see that the greater number of the accidents that occurred resulted from a disregard of proper management and
604
arrangement. It was the duty of the House, then, to become the conservators of the public safety; and he thought they could not hesitate to adopt his Resolution, which was a mere declaration by the House that something should be done. The Board of Trade had, indeed, adopted the inspection of railways; but that power of inspection was most extraordinary in its origin, and still more so in its continuation. If a railway was about to be opened, the Board of Trade sent down a surveyor and engineer to report upon the state of it, and see that it was such as was required for the public safety; but the power of the Board ceased there, and, whatever might be the result afterwards, however much the line might become disordered, or the machinery defective, or whatever calamities might arise from it, the Board of Trade had no other power. Upon a late occasion the President of the Board of Trade had estimated, and very fairly, the valuable services of one of the inspectors of railways (Captain Simmonds). Now that gentleman, in his report on the Ulster Railway, complained of the want of proper signals. He said—
"This is a most dangerous arrangement, involving points set to meet the traffic and constant stoppages on one of the main lines. I requested that it might be altered, so that trains travelling in either direction must stop on their own line. I was informed by the secretary that this arrangement was common at the other stations upon that part of the line between Belfast and Portadown, now in operation. I think it my duty to make the circumstance known to the Commissioners, in order that the company may be recommended to abandon a method of working attended with such great risk."
And then he went on to say—
"Each station is provided with a signal of the ordinary semaphore pattern, but the men were very imperfectly instructed in the use of them."
In a Report upon the Eastern Counties Railway, it was stated that a dangerous practice prevailed of sending off swift special trains, at a moment's notice, depending for their safety on the electric telegraph, which at many of the stations was not at work, and it was even stated that at one of the principal stations the station-master had delegated his duty to the maid-servant. Captain Laffan had also made a report upon the Leicester and Swannington Railway, in which he said—
"The signals in present use are the old and very indifferent signals that sufficed for the traffic of a coal-line. I am of opinion that these should be replaced by others of a better description."

605
And again—
"There is one circumstance connected with the traffic upon this line which I would wish to bring particularly under the notice of the Commissioners—namely, that it is proposed to work with trains composed partly of coal-trucks and partly of passenger-carriages, and that many of the coal-trucks now upon the line are either so slight in construction or so much worn by long use, that they will prove a source of danger to every train in which they are used. On my return to Leicester, after inspecting the line, a number of coal-trucks were attached to the engine, and one of the axles gave way, and delayed the train a considerable time. This, I was informed by the managing director, was by no means an unusual occurrence, an accident of the kind generally happening at least once a month, sometimes two or three in the course of a single week. In one instance lately the giving way of an axle caused the destruction of seven other coal-trucks which were following; and if, instead of coal-trucks, these had been passenger-carriages, it is frightful to contemplate what might have been the result.
The same report might have been made upon all the metropolitan railways, particularly upon the London and North-Western line. Upon that line there was very little regard paid to the condition of the carriages, and they would find that the great majority of accidents upon that line, whether attended with loss of life or not, arose from the breaking down of goods trains. Captain Laffan, upon the Belfast and Ballymena line, said—
"The permanent way is very roughly put down, and in very many places it is not even ballasted. There are no signals; and, from the absence of mileposts and gradient boards, it is difficult to define any particular place. The cuttings through rock are unfinished, large masses of earth and stones being left standing in dangerous proximity to the rails. These cuttings, too, are very badly drained."
With respect to another line, which was very fruitful of accidents, the Midland Railway—Captain Laffan said—
"On a recent inquiry into a collision on the Nottingham branch of this railway, I attributed the accident then, in a great measure, to the want of a proper surveillance over the servants of the company, and a consequent laxity of discipline. A review of the circumstances attending the collision at Eckington will, I think, lead to a similar conclusion. The driver was without the power of giving an alarm, because for three days previously his whistle had been deranged. That an engine should be permitted to work on a line so intricate as the Midland, without the power of giving an alarm, appears to me one of the worst features of the case. I do not think this combination of disobedience or indifference to orders, and carelessness, which resulted in a collision, could have occurred had a proper supervision and strict enforcement of duty been maintained over the servants of the company; and, unless a speedy change in this part of the company's economy is
606
introduced, I fear that still more serious consequences will result."
The Board of Trade had no power to check or enforce any regulations—all they could do was to recommend. The House had had laid before them a Report of the Commissioners themselves, with their own judgments upon the reports of the inspectors, and he would read a paragraph from that Report. They said—
"It only remains to advert to the cases in which inattention to regulations or carelessness of the servants of the company are involved. It would appear that in twenty-three out of forty-one cases, into the circumstances attending which investigations were made, considerations of this nature were involved. These may be divided under two distinct denominations:—1st, occasional, those caused by inexperience or carelessness of individuals; 2nd, habitual, those caused by general inattention to regulations on the part of the servants of the company, exhibiting, as a natural consequence, a laxity of discipline throughout the whole management of the railway. On this subject, as to which it is very difficult to give any accurate statement, and to separate the two classes, it appears that there is much ground for apprehension, that on some railways the disregard of regulations is habitual, and the general discipline lax, from the fact that breaches of the regulations issued by the directors of railway companies for the guidance of their servants are of very frequent occurrence under the immediate supervision of the superior officers of the railways, and in which many of them participate, or of which, at any rate, they are cognisant. Discipline upon railways is of the greatest importance, both to the public and to the companies, who are subject, by the occurrence of serious accidents, to great losses, and to the payment of compensation to injured persons; but, notwithstanding the direct interest which the companies thus have in maintaining discipline and enforcing the regulations which they themselves have considered necessary for the safe conduct of the traffic upon their lines, it has been the duty both of the Commissioners of Railways and of the Lords of this Committee, to animadvert, in some cases, in very pointed terms, upon the neglect of these regulations."
Captain Wynne, in a report upon a serious accident on the Midland Railway, said—
"This is the third accident on the Midland Railway which has occurred in an interval of little more than a month. On the two former occasions the accidents arose from an utter disregard of the orders and regulations of the company, which was traced to have arisen from a want of proper supervision over their servants; and though in this instance the disobedience has not been so direct and marked as in the others, yet there has been exhibited both recklessness and inattention to regulations. These, taken in conjunction with what transpired on my inquiries inso the circumstances of the two previous accidents, justify me, I consider, in placing the cause of this accident to the same inefficient system of discipline which led to the others."

607
There was also some very important information given by Captain Huish, in a document issued from the clearing-house which had been established for railway business, wherein he suggested a mode of communication between the guards and engine-drivers of railway trains. The mode was very simple, and consisted in extending the footways of the carriages from one to another. Such a plan, however, could not be carried out, unless all the companies connected with the "clearing-house" agreed to it. These were instances in which the Board of Trade might exercise a most salutary power in compelling uniformity, and thus increasing the safety of the travelling community. As the case stood at present, the Report of the inspectors merely had the effect of removing the responsibility from the shoulders of the engineers connected with the line, without placing it upon other parties. He would now refer to the Report of Captain Wynne on a fire which occurred in one of the trains on the London and North-Western Railway, upon which occasion, had it not been for the exertions of a Mr. Crampton, who at great personal risk had passed from one carriage to another, the results might have been most distressing in their character. Had the foot-boards of the carriages been extended in the mode suggested, there would have been no difficulty or risk in making the required communication with the guard of the train. Captain Huish, in answer to the recommendation in this Report, that the foot-boards should be extended, stated, with regard to the London and North Western Company, that they were willing to consider it; but, he added, that such a plan could not be observed unless it was generally adopted, as the carriages in every train were nearly always the property of different companies. This was a case in which he (Mr. Brown) conceived that interference might readily be made effective. He need hardly remind the House that two lamentable accidents had occurred within the last few weeks, which showed the inutility of the present system of Government inspection. In the first case there was a most distressing loss of life; and he thought the verdict of the coroner's jury would read Her Majesty's Government a lesson which ought to show them that, if their inspection was to be good for anything, it ought to be effective for the safety of the travelling public. This accident occurred on the line between Man-
608
chester and Bolton, and this was the verdict of the jury:—
"We find that the deceased, Thomas Croston, Richard Simmons, and George Barbour, were killed, on the 4th day of March inst., by the engine No. 13 running off the rails, and upsetting, near the Dixonfold station, on the Manchester and Bolton railway, caused by the excessive speed at which it was driven by the deceased Thomas Croston, against whom we return a verdict of manslaughter. And we state that, although the rules of the company furnished to the guards and drivers limit the speed of express trains to thirty miles an hour, the train has usually far exceeded that speed; and we think this cannot so constantly have occurred without the knowledge and approbation of the directors of the company. We find also that the engine No. 13, from having only four wheels, and the length of time it has been in use, was not a proper engine to attach to a train running at thirty miles an hour, even on a railway in good and efficient order. That the permanent way of this railway, as regards sleepers, chairs, and rails, in material and construction, is generally very defective, and by no means safe; that the speed at which the points at the branch lines are passed is highly dangerous; that the quick succession of trains on the line from Manchester to Clifton Junction with the East Lancashire Company is also very dangerous; that the general arrangements of the company as to the maintenance of way and management of trains do not conduce to the safety of the public; and we cannot too strongly condemn the management of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company on that portion of their line known as the Bolton and Preston district. We are also of opinion that the speed at which express trains travel on all railways is so great, that a stringent investigation should be instituted by the Board of Trade as to the construction and present condition of the permanent way, engines, and carriages, as well as working arrangements; and we fear it will be found that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway is not the only one on which such a system of economy prevails as seriously to endanger the safety of the public."
In the other case the jury returned the following verdict:—
"The verdict of the jury is, that William Stephenson came to his death by the engine No. 104 running off the line of rails and falling over the embankment at the west end of Willington viaduct, on the Newcastle and Tynemouth Railway, on the 2nd of March, 1853. They also find, from the evidence brought before them, that the line was not in a good and safe state, and that gross negligence in the management has been manifested in allowing ballast taken from the north line of Willington-bridge, while under repair, to be laid upon the south line, so as to render it dangerous. They are of opinion that a strange engine-driver ought not to have been sent down the line without some caution given as to the repairs going on at Willington-bridge. They are also of opinion that some legislative measure should be passed, making it compulsory on railway companies not to remove a single vestige of destruction of the line, carriages, &c., but that everything remain intact until inspected by competent persons."

609
He would put it to the House whether these were not lamentable cases, and whether the circumstances did not fully justify the findings of the juries. But what was the use of the present system of inspection, if, as was here shown, the poor people who had lost their lives perished from a want of care and an absence of due arrangement? Was it right that the Government should see these things occur day after day and not interpose? Was it right they should thus see the safety of the public disregarded, and not propose measures calculated to procure security and create confidence? Certainly not. They seemed to suppose that these accidents were wearing themselves out; but the public were fully roused to the necessity of some active interposition, and they would not be satisfied until it was provided. Now, what was it that he asked the Government to do? Why, nothing more than that they should provide for the public travelling along railways the same safeguards as they required in steamboats, emigrant ships, and factories. Passing from this immediate subject, he must say that the proceedings of some railway companies certainly required the exercise of some control. The South Eastern Company had provided carriages of such a description that they were actually obliged to bar up the windows in order to prevent the passengers from putting out their heads lest they should come into collision with the walls of the bridges. They were under the necessity of providing this precaution in order to guard against accidents from the use of those carriages and the narrowness of the bridges; for it happened that a passenger who had put his head out of the window, was killed upon the spot. In such a case as that, why, he asked, was not the Scotch law made to apply by which the directors would be criminally responsible? If the Scotch law had applied, there would have been far more care taken to secure the safety of the public. He held further, that there ought to be a tribunal to which the public might forthwith appeal—where the accommodation was not suitable, where the traffic arrangements were incomplete, and where hostilities existed between rival companies detrimental to the public service. At present we had nothing of the sort. In bringing this subject under the notice of the House, he had no party or private purposes to serve. He was moved solely by a desire to discharge his public duties.
610
If, he would add, the circumstances he had detailed pointed out the fact that there was a great disregard for public safety on the part of the railway companies themselves, then the House, in his judgment, was bound to affirm the Resolution he should move; but if they thought these things were incidental to railway travelling and beyond all remedy, then the Resolution will fall to the ground. But he was sure the House would arrive at the conclusion that they were not beyond remedy, and that the railways of this country must be put under such a system of inspection as would provide for the public safety. The Select Committee now sitting, he feared would lead to no practical result, and therefore he hoped the House would give the Board of Trade effectual powers. If, as he expected, nothing should result from the Committee, and no proposition should be made on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he should, at a future time, think it his duty to propose some effectual remedy for the evils he had endeavoured to point out. It was the duty of a good Government to propose to the House all such measures as might appear necessary for the public safety. The great increase in the number of accidents which had of late occurred on railways, demanded the especial attention of the House; and it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now existed for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHseconded the Motion. He said his hon. Friend had shown most conclusively that there was no appeal against the maladministration of railways except to the public through the press. He had also shown the evils which arose from the want of a tribunal of reference such as was established upon the Continent and in the United States. Without some such tribunal it was hopeless to expect any improvement in the railway system calculated to secure the safety of the public. In his opinion the Resolution was perfectly unobjectionable, and his hon. Friend had applied to the proper quarter, for it was to the Government that all the evils of the present system of railway travelling fairly and legitimately belonged. At the same time the railways had to complain of the proceedings of Parliament itself. They had been called upon to pay a sum of 11,000,000 l. for Parliamentary expenses in England alone—a sum sufficient

611
to have executed 1,100 miles of railway. They had also been subjected in some localities to excessive demands from landed proprietors. They had paid sums varying from 5,000 l. to 14,000 l. per mile. Under such circumstances it was not possible they could maintain a sufficient staff and pay a remuneration to their proprietors. But after putting them to these vast expenses, Parliament had actually granted in many cases competing lines. He repeated then that both Parliament and Government were to blame for the existing system. The evil of it was apparent some years ago, and a Committee was appointed, over which the Earl of Dalhousie presided, to whom all projected railways were to be referred. No tribunal ever arrived at more just conclusions than this Committee, or at conclusions more calculated to develop the interests of the country if they had been attended to; but the late Sir Robert Peel threw over its Reports, and nothing was done. Under these circumstances he had no hesitation in saying that whatever improvements Parliament could make in the railway system, the public were entitled to require at its hands.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is the duty of a good Government to propose to this house all such measures as may appear necessary for the public safety:
"That the great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on Railways demands the especial attention of this House; and that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on Railways."
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, if I do not occupy at any great length the time of the House upon this subject, it will certainly be from no want of a sincere conviction of its extreme importance; nor will it be from the least desire to distract the attention of the House from a question so interesting to the whole community; but it will be out of a consideration for the position in which the question has been placed by the House of Commons itself. The late Government with, I think, very good judgment, determined that a most careful inquiry should be made into the whole of the subjects connected with railways: that inquiry is now making progress. I had not the honour of being a Member of this House at the time the House decided upon appointing that Committee; but, now, by virtue of the office I have the honour to hold, it is my duty to be in the chair of that Committee, and we are taking the utmost pains
612
to sift and examine the whole question of the management of railways. We have examined several persons who, from their great eminence in the railway world, are most calculated to carry weight from their experience, and we shall proceed to examine more. We have also examined those who, by their official connexion with railways, are most competent to give us their opinions. We have reported the evidence we have taken from time to time, in order that the House of Commons may have the best and fullest opportunity of judging the effect of that evidence. Upon the particular subject of accidents, very comprehensive evidence was, a fortnight ago, laid upon the table of the House and sent to the printers. It is only delayed by the pressure on the printers, but it will shortly be in the possession of Members of this House. We have further examined into all the recent accidents in detail, and shall present the evidence to the House. Almost immediately after I was appointed to office, I sent a gentleman to examine what were the means employed upon the French and Belgian railways for the purpose of avoiding accidents. The result of that inquiry has been considered by the Committee, and will shortly be laid before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who brings this Motion has dwelt much on the importance of devising an effectual communication between guards and drivers. We have taken evidence upon that subject—we have a Report from the Clearing-house on that subject—and several of us have seen the invention actually in the course of experiment I think, then, it is desirable that the House of Commons, having appointed this Committee, should be in a position to consider the evidence taken before it, before they commit themselves to legislate upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman has also referred, particularly, to a point which I must acknowledge to be well deserving of inquiry—that is, to the difference in these matters between the law of Scotland and the law of England. Have the Committee been indifferent to that subject? When hon. Members get the Report, which is now in the hands of the printer, it will be found that the Committee have taken the evidence of the practical officers of the Board of Trade upon that subject; that they have had before them the views of that very Judge—a most able man, whom I have the honour of calling my friend—to whom reference has been made, the Lord Justice

613
Clerk of Scotland, for he kindly communicated them to me, and I laid them before the Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate of Scotland has just returned from conducting a successful prosecution under the law of Scotland against persons guilty of culpable negligence leading to accident and loss of life. I have applied to him to attend as a witness before the Committee, and he has engaged to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, then, we are making progress in our inquiry. Having got the opinion of the chief Criminal Judge of Scotland, and we shall shortly, I hope, have that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate as to what the law is in Scotland; therefore it would be premature in us to pronounce any opinion upon such a subject before we have heard all the evidence. I have here an extract showing how severe the Scotch criminal law is. I will read it to the House, in order to show that the subject is, as it deserves to be, under consideration, but not as passing any opinion, because I hold we should first examine the whole case and decide upon the evidence. At the trial referred to, the Lord Justice Clerk said, in summing up, that—
"After the disclosures that had been made, it was plain that on another such occasion it would be the parties responsible for maintaining such a state of things that would be put at the bar—directors or manager."
That, we are told, is the practical operation of the law of Scotland; but it is not so in England. It may be right, or it may be wrong, that it should be law; but before either the Committee or the House of Commons pass any opinion upon the subject, they should thoroughly understand the case. When the House of Commons appointed a Committee to go into these cases, and to consider them, I am sure they intended that they should be carefully considered; that the Committee should come prepared with their whole measure to the House, not that they should prosecute their inquiry under the direction of the House, or that the House should adopt some abstract Resolutions. During the last few days we had a document laid before us through the public press of great interest. It was the result of an inquiry which, by direction of the Congress of the United States has been made by a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining how far the interference of Government is desirable for the purpose of preventing accidents. There is a great deal
614
well worth reading in that Report. The Committee say it is very doubtful whether a more direct interference might not tend to increase the danger to the public instead of diminishing it; and they gave the following reasons:—
"To divide the authority, from which the regulations necessary to effect these objects must emanate, would give rise to confusion and embarrassments, engender bad feelings and hostility on the part of companies, take from officers their responsibility, and might result disastrously for the safety of the public."
Then, I say, give us time to know whether what we are called upon to recommend will "result disastrously for the safety of the public," before we express any opinion. I have no objection to assume to the Government any responsibility which will tend to promote the public safety. I desire to say clearly and distinctly that we do not ask for power, nor are we anxious for responsibility; yet, if by casting responsibility upon us you can secure the safety of the public, it is your duty to cast it upon us, and it is our duty to undertake it. Only, do it well advised; and do not come to a Resolution to that effect until you have read the evidence on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this subject does not impute that the very limited powers of the Board of Trade have been neglected or improperly exercised; and I have heard him do justice to that able public servant, Captain Simmons, to whose assiduity I can myself bear testimony; but he complains of the state of the law. Well, as I have said, the House of Commons have appointed a Committee which will inquire into and report upon that subject. We have not been negligent in our duty with regard to that inquiry; but allow it to come to a termination. Not only the Committee but the Government are giving their attention to this subject. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that in bringing forward this Motion he was giving us the benefit of his experience; but the time for making a practical Motion will be when the Committee have made their Report. I have no right, however, to complain of the Motion; but the question now arises, how will the House deal with it? The hon. Gentleman truly said that when he showed it to me I could take no objection to it. That is so. I do not think that any more true proposition can be stated than "that it is the duty of a good Government to propose to this House all such measures as may appear necessary for the

615
public safety." I shall not dispute that. Neither is it in my power to dispute "that the great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on railways demands the especial attention of this House," or that "it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways." That is certainly to do what we are doing, namely, most carefully to assist in the examination of these matters, and to ascertain the state of the law as it exists in different parts of the kingdom, in order that we may obtain one which will be effectual. It only remains, then, to consider what is to be done with the Motion. Is it respectful in the House towards itself, or calculated to create confidence in the public, to pass a Resolution which will stand upon our proceedings as a mere abstract Resolution without any practical consequence? I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion, because it is unusual to put on the books Motions of an abstract nature, leading to no practical consequences. If he is content to adopt that course, then it will not be necessary for me to urge any further objections; but, with a view merely to keeping the proceedings of the House in conformity with the usual practice, I shall move the previous question.
Whereupon, Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he could not permit the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. H. Brown) to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member had asserted that the directors of railways had not performed their duty to the public in carrying out the administration which the public had placed in their hands. He thought it was only fair, therefore, to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the precautions which were now employed throughout the length and breadth of the country, in conducting the traffic upon 7,000 miles of railway, were perfectly unknown when the railway system was first originated. So far as ingenuity could secure the safety of the public in travelling upon railways, ingenuity had been applied, and the whole body of men engaged in the conduct of the traffic devoted themselves, so far as their intelligence enabled them to do so, to this great and important question. The hon. Member had referred to an accident through non-attendance to sig-
616
nals; but he must remember that distance-signals were the invention of but the last few years—that the electric telegraph, now so important an agent in the prevention of accidents, was a perfectly novel expedient—and, in fact, that every appliance of skill and genius was resorted to, and every exertion made by those who had the management of railways, to do justice to the trust reposed in them, and to insure the safety of the travelling public. He hoped the House would credit his statement that there was the greatest anxiety on the part of the railway interest to perform their duty; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that such a number of persons as now travelled upon railways were never moved before with, comparatively, so few accidents.
MR. HUMEsaid, that Parliament having, as it appeared to him, given most undue powers to certain individuals, it was the duty of that House to see that those powers were exercised for the benefit of the public; and if any defects existed in the system, to correct them. He thought they should be indebted to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for having brought the subject forward; but after the very satisfactory explanation which had been elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Motion, reserving to himself the right of bringing it forward at a future period, in the event of any improper delay occurring on the part of the Government.
MR. D. WADDINGTONsaid, he was convinced that on this subject the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in his position as Chairman of the Railway Committee, would do all in his power to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Brown) in introducing the Motion, had stated that the railway interest, or the directors of railways, were indisposed to provide, by every possible means, for the safety of the public; and he could not allow that statement to be made without giving it a most unqualified denial. Since the hon. Gentleman took a part in railway management, a very different state of things had arisen, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, from thirteen or fourteen years' experience, that he did not know an instance in which the Board of Trade had made suggestions with reference to the public safety, in which the directors had not either carried those suggestions out,

617
or shown the Board that it was impossible to do so. With reference to the allusion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to an accident on the Eastern Counties Railway, and the Report upon it, although exception was taken to that Report by the chief officers of the Railway, it had the effect of calling the attention of every member of the Board to the consequences of negligence by a railway servant; and from that time, now nearly two years ago, nothing approaching to an accident had occurred on that line. Railway directors were sincerely desirous of insuring perfect immunity, if it were possible, from these casualties, and whenever an accident did occur, whether on their own line or on the lines of other companies, for the management of which they were not responsible, they felt the same deep anxiety and regret. He should leave the matter to the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) presided, convinced that on a careful review of all the circumstances, they would present a Report which would be beneficial to the railway interest, and, at the same time, conducive to the greater safety of the public.
MR. LAINGsaid, that the course which had been proposed by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade recommended itself so obviously to the House that he should not trespass at any great length upon their attention. He merely rose for the purpose of correcting, so far as he could, the impression likely to be created by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. H. Brown), that there was, on the part of the railway interest, and in the minds of railway directors, a disinclination to submit to any measure of Government control, which could be proved to them practically to conduce to public safety. However much the railway interest might justly complain of Parliament having put them to unnecessary expense, and they were consequently prevented declaring satisfactory dividends, when the public safety was involved every other consideration must give way; and if any measure were introduced with that view, there would not only be no factious opposition from the railway interest, but railway directors would be the foremost to assist in carrying it into effect. Independent of all considerations of humanity, to which he hoped even railway directors were not altogether lost, the pecuniary responsibility made it apparent to common sense that the directors were anxious to do every
618
thing in their power to assist the Government in any measure which should be really conducive to the public safety. But the question involved in this Resolution, and more especially involved in the observations of the hon. Mover of it, was the extent and nature of Government interference. He would not refer to the Report of the American Committee, which contained very sound views on this subject; but the question of Government interference had already been investigated by a Committee of that House. Soon after the railway department of the Board of Trade was first constituted, there were loud demands for the most stringent Government control, and a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), at that time President of the Board of Trade, was appointed, and the result was a complete explosion of the notion that any amount of interference on the part of the Government would conduce to the public safety. It was obvious that if the Government assumed the practical control of the working of railways, all responsibility with those who had charge of their management disappeared. Government interference might be invoked for increasing public safety; but it must resolve itself into three measures—either the Government must assume a superintendence of minute details, which, he was satisfied, would be attended with the worst possible consequences; or give such additional security to railway property that the companies would be in a position to incur large expenses in making experiments, so as to obtain the means of insuring the greatest possible security; or, if the present state of the law was not efficient, make it efficient, to bring home the responsibility to the proper parties. Upon this last point he must say, he had read, with great pleasure and satisfaction, the recent judgment of the Lord Justice Clerk, and he believed that was the commonsense view of the subject. He should be exceedingly happy if those principles were the general law of the land, so that every one in all grades of railway management might feel that, in the event of negligence, they would be made responsible should any accident occur. He thought it only right to state, in confirmation of the testimony borne by the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. James Macgregor), and as the result of his long experience, that a more zealous and intelligent body of men it would be difficult to bring together than the class

619
of officers to whom the working of railway traffic was intrusted. He believed they were keenly alive to the responsibilities which attached to their several situations, and in the discharge of their duties were deserving of all praise. Indeed, if it were not so, it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the great mass of traffic on the English railways with even the number of accidents which were now thought to be so large. This led him to remark, in comparing the accidents on English with the accidents on foreign railways, on the greater speed and greater number of trains in this country. In Belgium there were few accidents; but by the Belgian trains they did not travel much faster than by the old stage coaches in England. In France also there were few accidents; and in America, until lately, their number was very limited. The speed, comparatively speaking, was slow, and the number of trains would be totally inadequate to meet the wants of an English community. Where in England ten or twenty trains were run, in France or America the number was only four or five. As the speed was increased, the number of accidents increased. In a recent letter from Berlin he saw an account in the Times of five serious accidents on the Prussian railways, and in America the son of the President had lost his life in as frightful a casualty as had ever been reported. By the last official return from the Board of Trade, it appeared that, while the number of passengers in the half-year ending the 30th June, 1852, was 39,249,605, only one passenger was killed from causes beyond his own control. He did not dispute the fact that accidents had occurred which ought not to have occurred, and that they ought to be prevented by legislation, if legislation could prevent them. But no later than the last half-year, it was shown by an official return that, with the multiplicity of trains, and the high rate of speed to meet the public wants, only one passenger had lost his life from causes beyond his own control. In common with all who were interested in railways, he entertained the confident hope and expectation that some good would result from the labours of the Committee which was now sitting, and which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He certainly did not expect that that good would be exclusively for the benefit of the railway interest. If the railway interest
620
benefited by it, he believed it would be indirectly; that the public would, in the first instance, derive the benefit, and that it would ultimately extend to those connected with railways.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, he was quite in the hands of the House. If there was a general wish that he should withdraw the Motion, he had no objection to do so. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. D. Waddington) had told him that a marked change had occurred in the management of the railways since he (Mr. Brown) was connected with them. He admitted that a change had occurred, but it was a melancholy one, for in his time an accident was an exceedingly rare occurrence; whereas now the first question at every breakfast table in the morning was, had any railway accident occurred?
Previous Question, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BRECKNOCK COLLEGE.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he begged to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the future regulation, management, and permanent endowment of the College of Christ of Brecknock. The circumstances under which the Bill had been prepared might be very simply stated. By an Act passed in 1840, which gave effect to the recommendations contained in the fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, it was provided that the four deaneries of Wolverhampton, Middleham, Heytesbury, and Brecknock, together with the whole of the property belonging to the Collegiate Church of Brecknock, should devolve upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be applied by them to the general purposes for which they were constituted. After the lapse of a few years—in 1845—the attention of the Commissioners was especially drawn to the property belonging to the Collegiate Church of Brecknock, as some of the property at that time came into their possession, and they immediately instituted inquiries into the nature of the property and the obligations which it involved, and those inquiries were prosecuted still further in consequence of the corporation of Brecknock calling their particular attention to the original constitution of the College in the 13th century, confirmed by a charter granted by Henry VIII., setting forth that the College should be established and maintained for the encouragement of letters and divinity, and for extending the benefits of

621
education throughout that portion of the Principality of Wales. In order to give effect to these objects, it was proposed by some gentlemen interested in the matter, on behalf of the people of Brecknock, that an information should be filed in the Court of Chancery with the view of bringing to an issue the difficult question arising out of the antiquity of the grants, and the doubt which existed as to the precise purpose of the donors, and the extent of the property. On examining the question, however, it clearly appeared that to file an information in the Court of Chancery, where there were so many parties to the suit, would necessarily expend nearly, if not quite, the whole of the property which was then at issue—a course which was felt to be far from advisable. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners accordingly proposed to the different parties that they should compromise the matter by mutual consent, and that a Bill should be brought into Parliament to give effect to an arrangement by which the ecclesiastical part of the property should be devolved on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a permanent endowment of a sufficient amount should be assigned to the College or school at Brecknock, calculated to fulfil, in every respect, the objects of the original charter. He was happy to say that that proposal had been agreed to; and that it was in conformity with that agreement that he now proposed to ask the leave of the House to introduce the Bill of which he had given notice. As the subject was one of considerable complication, he thought it better to defer any explanations of the details until the House had had an opportunity of seeing the Bill itself. It might perhaps be sufficient that he should state that it was proposed that a scheme should be framed for the government of the College, that it should be submitted to the Court of Chancery for its approbation, and that, if approved of by the Court, that that scheme should be made the basis of the constitution of the College, and of the rules and ordinances by which it should be governed. He was happy to think that when the leases which were now held should fall in, an amount of property would devolve upon the College which would make the establishment worthy of the monarch by whom it was originally founded, and conduce at once to the interest of the people and the advancement of letters and learning.
MR. HUMEsaid, that before he could
622
give his consent to the Bill, he should like to know where information could be obtained respecting the original intention of the donors with respect to the property. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had stated that certain proceedings had taken place under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that certain information had been obtained which had induced them to put themselves in communication with persons who were interested in the matter. Who were those persons? Were they the persons representing the public, or were they the clergy or landed proprietors? Before any further proceedings took place, the right hon. Gentleman, or some one else, should lay on the table of the House such documents as would enable them to judge how far the proposed distribution of the property was right and proper. He (Mr. Hume) was not one who was prepared to create any new ecclesiastical establishment, and the object of this Bill seemed to be to frame an ecclesiastical establishment. This might be in accordance with the will of the original donors, and, if so, it would be less objectionable; but, at all events, he should like to know how the fact of the case stood.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to make useful that which had hitherto been useless, and to apply funds which ought long since to have been applied to the education of the people. As an inhabitant of that part of the country, and knowing something of the circumstances, he was very much obliged to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for having turned their attention at last to this establishment, and he hoped ample time before the second reading would be given to enable the residents in the Principality to master the contents of the measure. The property belonging to this establishment was of enormous extent. He believed the property was worth nearly 8,000 l. a year, and the House would hear with some surprise, that although this 8,000 a year had been enjoyed by somebody, not by the laity, a short time ago there was hardly a boy in the school, and from 1839 down to a very recent period, not a single prayer had been offered up in that place of worship. The building had been used by those who had charge of it for most improper purposes, and during fairs horses had been taken in to stand, and a charge made for the accommodation. If the funds had been properly applied, there might not have been

623
that ignorance in that part of the Principality, which some persons alleged did exist, as those funds were amply sufficient for the educational as well as the ecclesiastical purposes for which they were formerly granted. A short time since there was hardly a pane of glass in the building, the water was running through the roof, and sheep were in the prebendal stalls and at the altar. It was altogether in a most disgraceful state, and Sir Thomas Phillips, a gentleman who had taken great interest in the matter, had published a book, in which he said—
"The college of Brecon combined almost every abuse which existed in the appropriation and management of ecclesiastical property. The church was not kept in repair. No lectures or sermons were delivered, and no services were performed. The college church, a handsome building, was so dilapidated that the roof would have fallen in, had not a layman who received his education at the college made the necessary repairs, and public worship had not been performed in it since 1839."
The property, as he had said, was worth 7,500 l. or 8,000 l. a year. The laity had not enjoyed it. Somebody must have enjoyed it. By the Act of 1836, all the bishops were to have certain fixed incomes, and the Bishop of St. David's was to have 4,500 a year. His predecessor sent in an account of the income of the see, by which it was proved to be 1,600 l. less than 4,500 l. a year, and therefore 1,600 a year was paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the Bishop of St. David's, to make up the supposed deficiency. That deficiency did not exist, and the Bishop received a much larger annual income than that which was assigned to the see. The reason he had alluded to this was, that the Bishop of St. David's happened to be Dean and Treasurer of this collegiate church, and the property of this collegiate establishment formed a portion of his income to the extent of 300 l. or 400 l. a year, for which he performed no duty whatever. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell them whether there had been any communication with the Bishop of St. David's as to giving up the money he received over and above the income assigned to the see, and particularly that portion which he received as Dean and Treasurer of the Collegiate Church, and for which he did nothing whatever.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) in thinking that before the second reading of the Bill the House should be put in possession of such documents as would tend to
624
throw light upon the nature of the transaction, including any correspondence that had taken place between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop of the diocese.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Member (Sir B. Hall), that it was found to be so difficult to arrive at the true construction of the charter, it was considered the better course to come to an agreement with all parties interested. He considered the best course for hon. Gentlemen to take was to read the preamble of the Bill, in which was stated the general facts. If the preamble was acceded to, there would be no difficulty in the matter, and then he should be in a position to afford explanation as to the plan of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, in stating that the property was worth between 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a year, had seemed to represent to the House that it yielded that sum at present; but the fact was that this, like all other ecclesiastical property, had been originally granted on leases for lives, and all, therefore, which was at present received from the property was the rents, which amounted only to some 348 l., and of this only 144 l. had as yet come into the hands of the Commissioners. As the leases fell in, there would be a much larger sum available for the purposes of education, but at present the sum was very limited. The hon. Gentleman had that night repeated what lie had said before as to the mode in which the incomes of the bishops were regulated. He had said that they had been so regulated as to give them a fixed annual sum. Now, the arrangement provided by law was to assign a certain sum as the income of each bishop, and to make an addition to, or a deduction from, his previous average income, according as it had been below or above the sum assigned to him—so as to bring it as near as possible to that sum. The result had been, that in some cases the bishops had ultimately received a larger amount than was originally intended, and in others less. He begged to say also that the Bishops of St. David's had been deans and treasurers of the Collegiate Church at Brecknock from a very early period; and that a special Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of Queen Anne, gave the bishop another prebend in addition to his deanery and treasurership. These preferments would ultimately fall into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would form part of the property which would come under the operation of this Bill.
Leave given.
Bill to provide for the future regulation and management, and the permanent endowment of "the College of Christ of Brecknock," founded by King Henry the Eighth, with permissive powers to unite the same with Saint David's College, Lampeter, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Goulburn, Viscount Palmerston, and Mr. Fitzroy.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL WINES.
MR. OLIVEIRA: Sir, in rising to bring under the consideration of the House the Resolution of which I have given notice, I have to solicit that indulgence which I observe is always granted to Members who are placed in the position that I am—that of addressing the House for the first time. Sir, if that indulgence is necessary under ordinary circumstances, how much is the necessity enhanced when so humble a Member of this House ventures to treat of a question of the magnitude and importance of that to which I refer. No considerations of a personal nature would have induced me to undertake this task; but when I am informed by large and important commercial classes that the uncertainty which exists upon this subject is acting prejudicially on their interests, and that the revenue arising from this source is interfered with, I readily adopt the course of bringing it before the House, in order that it may be dealt with, and a decision arrived at. Were it not for these considerations, I would far sooner have left the subject in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, however, that right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of personal discourtesy, or any desire to anticipate his views upon this question with reference to his general financial statement; I have already had some communications with the right hon. Gentleman upon the matter, and I have explained to him the necessity I felt for bringing the subject forward thus early. Sir, I hope I do not exaggerate the importance of the subject, but I confess I cannot view this as a mere narrow question of whether wine shall be cheap or dear—whether wine is to be reserved as a luxury for the rich, or a necessary and daily article of consumption for the million—whether a few opulent merchants shall exercise a monopoly upon this branch of commerce, or whether their interests are to be invaded. This question, as I apprehend, stands on far higher grounds, and
626
its merits must be discussed in connexion with far nobler objects. This is a question involving considerations of a financial and commercial character of the greatest moment. It is a question affecting the moral and sanitary interests of the bulk of the people of this great country; it is a question relating to the international and treaty engagements with other countries; and, lastly, it has important bearings upon that greatest of human blessings, the preservation of peace between the nations of the world. I am aware that I shall be told there are many other subjects which have stronger claims for a reduction of duty than wines—for instance, hops, soap, tea, paper—the taxes upon knowledge, as they are popularly called—malt, and a variety of other taxes. I perfectly agree that at first sight this would appear so, and upon a recent occasion I showed my concurrence in this view by voting for the abolition of the duty on hops; but in that case, as in all the others referred to, there is this distinction, that they are total repeals of existing revenues without any substitution; whereas, there is an almost moral certainty that by diminishing the duty upon wine to a low standard, consumption will increase to such an enormous extent as to produce a much larger amount of revenue than that now received. This, I think, is a fair deduction, judging from experience in tea, coffee, and sugar—all of which have, under a low duty, increased in a most surprising degree; whereas the duty upon foreign wines, notwithstanding the great increase in the population and distribution of wealth, has remained stationary, or nearly so, as shown by the following table:—The wine duty in 1833 produced 1,633,830 l.; in 1834, 1,705,639 l.; in 1835, 1,691,522 l.; in 1836, 1,793,963 l.; in 1837, 1,687,097 l.; in 1838, 1,846,057 l.; in 1839, 1,849,698 l.; in 1840, 1,791,636 l.; in 1841, plus 5 per cent additional from 15th May, 1,720,479 l.; in 1842 (stagnation about treaty), 1,334,469 l.; in 1843, 1,703,344 l.; in 1844 (when Treasury Minute issued, settling the question about the drawback), 1,922,545 l.; in 1845, 1,891,232 l.; in 1846, 1,892,206 l.; in 1847, 1,778,645 l.; in 1848, 1,799,126 l.; in 1849, 1,767,516 l.; in 1850, 1,821,123 l.; in 1851, 1,856,331 l.; and in 1852, 1,872,943 l.; Tea produced in 1841–2 was 3,973,688 l.; 1851–2,5,985,482 l. The consumption of coffee in 1841–2 was 28,370,857 lbs.; 1851–2, 35,044,3761bs. It will be in the recollection of the House that early last year a

627
Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider and inquire into the cause of the decline in the revenue derived from the import duties on wines. That Committee was moved for by a learned Friend of mine, no longer, I regret to say, a Member of this House, or this subject would have been dealt with by him instead of falling into the hands of the humble individual who has now the honour to address the House. That Committee sat for a period of seven weeks—namely, from the 22nd April till the 8th June, during which time a mass of most valuable information was collected upon this subject. I was a constant attendant at that Committee, and I was invited to give evidence before the Committee with reference to the wines of the south of Portugal, Madeira, and those produced in and about Xeres (sherry). In my humble judgment the evidence in question goes clearly to prove that a very large reduction in the duty would be desirable. I hold in my hand the evidence of that Committee. I regret to say no Report was made to this House, though a Draft Report was drawn up by a Member of the Committee, a few passages from which I will (with the permission of the House) refer to. The following is one of these passages:—
"The consumption of wine has not kept pace with the increase of population. For many years past it has been nearly stationary. Of late it has shown a strong tendency to retrograde." "In the decennial period of 1785–95, the era of Mr. Pitt's liberal commercial policy, with an average population of 13,000,000, and an income of less than 15,000,000 l., the average annual consumption was 7,000,000 gallons." "During the decennial period 1775–85, immediately preceding, with an average population of 12,000,000, the average annual consumption had not exceeded 3,000,000 gallons." "In the decennial period 1831–41, the population averaged 25,500,000, but the annual consumption of wine averaged considerably less than 7,000,000 of gallons. During 1841–51, the average consumption has been less than 6,500,000 gallons, although the population has increased to an average of 26,500,000, paying for 1851 upon nearly 60,000,000 l. to the Income Tax. At the same time the average revenue from wine remains nearly stationary at 1,700,000 l."
I will now refer to some points which bear upon the commercial and financial interests involved. I am of the same opinion with most of the witnesses, that nothing short of a very large reduction will stimulate consumption so as to increase revenue. There can be no doubt that British shipping would be largely benefited by it. I will read a passage from a work recently published by a great authority upon this
628
subject, Mr. Cyrus Redding. He says, in his introductory remarks to his compressed edition of the evidence taken before the Wine Committee—
"The present duties on wine are not to be judged solely by their extravagant amount; they lock up and keep idle a large amount of capital and labour which would benefit the public and the revenue too if they were in full activity If the consumption of wines were increased to 30,000,000 of gallons, as there is every reason to believe it would be, there would be required no less than 600 vessels of 250 tons each to bring the wino home, instead of 120; these vessels must take out freights, so that the advantage to the shipping interest would be very considerable."
In connexion with this part of the inquiry, I am happy to see that a company has recently been formed by some of the leading wine houses who have trading transactions with Spain and Portugal to establish screw steamers, and they represent—
"That the importation of wine to London alone amounts to about 20,000 butts of sherry, and about 16,000 pipes of port annually, and by quicker communication great advantage will accrue to the importers thereof, who may then calculate on arrivals with a greater degree of certainty, and thus be enabled to reduce the large stocks in bond now held by them at a heavy expense."
I am strongly of opinion that a condition of a large reduction in our duty upon wine should be a simultaneous large reduction in the duties charged upon British goods in France, Spain, and Portugal. If I am rightly informed, negotiations for this object have been going on with France for some time. I feel satisfied that in Portugal the same object might be obtained, if negotiations were opened on the subject, and no doubt ere long Spain would follow the example. In my inquiries upon this subject with various commercial bodies throughout the Kingdom, I have found a great difference of opinion. The Chamber of Commerce of Belfast have addressed me upon this subject, and forwarded the following resolution:—
"That in the opinion of this Chamber a reduction of the duty on French wines would be desirable if the Government of France would, as an equivalent, admit the manufactures of Great Britain and Ireland at a corresponding reduction."
In the same spirit, the Mayor of Newark addressed me:—
"I am much in favour of the above project (reduction of duty on foreign wines), especially if it can be coupled with the very essential condition in paragraph No. 4 in your circular letter of September 1."
That paragraph in my letter is as follows:—

629
"4. A large export of British manufactured goods would take place to the wine-growing countries, it being a sine quâ non in granting the reduction of duty on foreign wines that the countries so favoured should at the same time admit British manufactured goods at a corresponding low duty.—B. Oliveira."
He goes on to say—
"I believe that the introduction of the light wines of France and Germany, bringing them within the reach of the superior artisan and the middle classes, will be productive of great improvements in their condition, both physical and moral, as it will substitute a wholesome tonic beverage for the baneful ardent spirits. I have always considered the apparent innocence and good taste of the outdoor amusements of the bulk of the population on the Continent, as compared with our own, to be the consequence, to a great extent, of the innocent nature of their beverages, compared with the heady and often deleterious ale (almost always salted in the low public-houses to induce thirst), and the still more objectionable gin and whisky."
A great authority inclines to the opposite side. The late lamented Mr. Porter, when asked his opinion upon this question, replied—
"In dealing with our own tariff, I would never ask if a foreign Government would do it. I would do that which I thought for the best interests of this country, and have them do the best they could for the interests of their own country."
In an interview I had with the President and Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, they totally disregarded the reciprocity question, and I hold in my hand a letter from that body containing the following statements:—
"I send you a local paper containing a copy of a memorial recently addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Chamber on the subject of improved commercial relations with France. You will perceive on perusal that this Chamber cannot concur in the doctrine laid down in the fourth paragraph of the document dated 1st of September, and bearing your signature, which was forwarded to this Chamber."
The paper referred to I hold in my hand. It is the Manchester Examiner and Times of October 23rd last year, containing the memorial which was forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised to give it "his full and anxious consideration." The passage in the memorial is, "Your memorialists urgently pray that an Act for diminishing the duties on wine to at least one-fifth of its present rate may be proposed to the Parliament about to assemble." I could multiply extracts of this tendency from commercial sources of the highest authority, but I will not occupy the time of the House. Now, one of the
630
objections raised by the opponents of this measure is, that a sufficient quantity of wine calculated for this largely increased consumption could not be produced. I conceive this to be a complete fallacy. In the kingdom of Portugal alone there are produced annually 900,000 pipes of wine. I beg to read to the House a letter I received a few days ago from one of the greatest commercial houses in Lisbon (Mr. Walsh), in which is the following passage:—
"I think, and have always thought, that this country has plenty of resources which only require development to make it prosperous. Its produce of wine amounts to upwards of 900,000 pipes."
The Portuguese Minister at this Court (Count Lavradio) fully corroborated this statement to me, and assured me that wines of the best quality, grown upon his own estate, were sold at 4l. to 5l. per pipe, and wines from my own knowledge which would be much esteemed here if imported at a low duty. The same distinguished individual informed me that the province with which he is connected (Estramadura) could export annually 200,000 pipes of sound wholesome wines, besides providing for its home consumption; and these I conceive to be exactly the kind of wines suited to the taste of our middling and humbler classes—possessing body, flavour, and warmth, without alcohol. But at the present duties these fine wines are prohibited, the duty being practically from 700 to 800 per cent upon their value. The produce of France is estimated at 900,000,000 gallons. I give this from the letter of a gentleman of the highest authority in the trade (M. Gassiot). Of Spain I have no data; but I hold in my hand a letter from a correspondent in the Island of Teneriffe, forwarded to me through the kindness of Her Majesty's Consul of that island. It is to the following effect:—
"I find that the total produce of this island was long calculated to average 25,000 pipes; but of late years, from the decline in price and unproductiveness of wines, the proprietors in many parts have converted their vineyards into potato and corn fields, and in others they have rooted up a great many of their best plantations; and for the last five years the average has not exceeded 10,000 or 12,000 pipes a year. The exports have declined in a much greater degree, and 1,500 to 2,000 pipes a year may be taken as a just estimate, of which about three-fourths may have gone to Great Britain. The quality of the wine, when properly taken care of, is good. Vidonia is the principal sort produced; but there are Malmsey and Tent wines of superior quality. Present

631
shipping prices are—cargo, 10 l. to 12 l. per pipe; second quality, 14 l. to 16 l.; ditto, 20 l., of 100 imperial gallons."
The wines of Teneriffe would be much esteemed, in my opinion, if the duty were lower. I am well acquainted with them, having passed a considerable time in the island. Madeira would supply a large quantity, if the taste for that wine were restored, as I make no doubt would be the case if the duty were reduced. The produce of that island, from all the best sources of information, averages 30,000 pipes per year, of various qualities; but in consequence of the very small demand for these wines, coffee, sugar, and grain have been planted over a large portion of the island. If, however, a demand should spring up, no doubt the inhabitants of that beautiful spot would soon consult their own interests by supplying it. With reference to the capability of the soil of Portugal, as well as other wine countries, to produce large quantities of wines, it is only necessary to see what has been the effect in former times, when port wine was the favourite in this country. Mr. Balbi, in his Statistique de Portugal, giving an account of the establishment of the Alto Douro Company, says—
"The district where the famous wines of the Alto Douro are made, since 1756, under the control of that company, is comprised between the Maris and the Tua, in the provinces of Tras-os-Montes and Beira, along the banks of the Douro, being about one league in width and eight in length. This little space, which before the formation of the company was desert and uncultivated, has become one of the most populous spots in Portugal. The wines of the first quality are generally sold to foreigners, especially to the English; the second class are consumed in the country, or exported to Brazil."
Now, it is just these second-quality wines which are very cheap, that would, with a low duty, be consumed largely in this country, and might be produced to an unlimited extent. It is said that the labouring classes in England would not acquire a taste for these new beverages. I would upon this subject simply refer to the evidence given in the blue book by Mr. Short, Mr. Pool, and Mr. Barker, briefly as follows:—
"Mr. Barker, a licensed victualler, in Holborn, sells retail over the counter, in glasses, a pipe and a half of Port in a week; some drink at the counter, others take it home in small bottles; the principal consumers are small tradesmen, bankers' clerks, and persons of that class, a very large proportion of the sick poor, and clerks and men of an income of 150 l. or 200 l. a year—what you would call 'skilled labourers.'"
632
Amongst these respectable artisans and middle classes he finds that there is a decidedly growing taste for wines, and says, "No question but this consumption would be surprisingly increased with the reduction of duty." Mr. Pool, also a licensed victualler, of London-bridge, draws from the butt port and sherry, and bucellas, in quartern glasses; in this way he sells a pipe in three weeks. If the duty were reduced to 1s., he would do twice as much trade as he does now as regards wines. His customers are of the artisan class, many of them; there are thousands of people who come to his place who would drink wine instead of spirits. He considers that the increased consumption would displace spirits certainly, but not beer. Mr. Short, of the Strand, is able to buy more largely and therefore more cheaply, than any other licensed victualler in London; and, as he makes a proportionate reduction in price to his customers, who are of exactly the same class as with Mr. Pool, he has a larger custom. He draws about 160 pipes a year—more than three pipes a week sometimes; and of this, perhaps two pipes and a half he sells in draught. He draws principally port, sherry, and bucellas, from the butt; champagne, hermitage, and claret, from the bottle; all these he draws in glasses. The people come to the bar and drink it, and walk away.
"He charges 4d. per quartern glass of port, 7d. per quartern glass of champagne, and 6d. per gill glass of claret. The duty is so much on the French wines, he cannot bring it in. If we could get the duty down on French wines, the people would drink them in preference to port. If we could sell claret at 2d. or 3d. per glass, we should have them in all day; they take a glass of wine however. Bricklayers' labourers, coalheavers, journeymen carpenters, and men of all grades come in and take their glass of wine. You never see anybody drunk in my house; we have a thousand people a day, and not a drunken man amongst them. Irish labourers frequently carry home a bottle of port to their families. I have seen them come miles to get a bottle of draught wine."
And this brings me to consider the effect that the use of wine would have upon the moral and social, as well as the sanitary condition of the people; and I am very strongly of opinion that drunkenness would be diminished, and many crimes which result from that odious vice would become of rare occurrence. There can be no doubt, I think, that in a sanitary point of view the use of wine would be advantageous. Now, the most serious practical question remains to be dealt with—namely, the

633
immediate falling-off in the revenue before the increased consumption at the low duty should right itself, and the drawback to be paid for stock in hand. Upon the first question, I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commence my system while he has a surplus revenue, whilst he has the power to keep Exchequer-bills at 1d. per diem, and whilst Consols are at par; and little difficulty will be felt as to the second point. I am informed by merchants who have examined the question carefully, that the estimate for drawback would be from 500,000 l. to 600,000 l.; which might be provided for in debentures to be received in payment of future duties. I will not detain the House by going into the question of adulteration, the great evils arising from the doctoring of wines by retail dealers, by admixture of noxious ingredients; nor into that wide field the manufacture of British wines, amounting to about 600,000 gallons a year, a large portion of which are sold as foreign wines, by which the revenue suffers. I have already occupied so much of the valuable time of the House, that I must express my regret that my zeal in this question should have induced me to trespass at such length. Permit me, in conclusion, to thank the House for the kind and patient hearing it has given me whilst I have so imperfectly endeavoured to lay this subject before it; and I beg Her Majesty's Government to carry out in this respect that system of unrestricted competition and prudent extension of the principles of free trade to which they are so solemnly pledged.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the Import Duties upon Foreign and Colonial Wines, with a view to reduction to one shilling per imperial gallon."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the character of the hon. Member for Pontefract, and the manner in which he had introduced this important subject to the House, made him most anxious to avoid any appearance of discourtesy to that hon. Gentleman, or of a reserve amounting to discourtesy, which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was afraid, unless he prefaced what he was about to say by an apology of this kind, might possibly appear to have been intended. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been most desirous, had it been consistent with his duty, to enter at the present moment upon a full exposition
634
of the views of the Government with regard to the wine duties. He fully agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there were very strong reasons why the views of the Government and the intentions of Parliament on this subject should be made known at the earliest possible moment. It had been the unfortunate destiny of the wine trade, at more periods than one, to be subjected to the annoyance—he might almost say the torture—of this description of uncertainty, an uncertainty grievous in all trades, but especially grievous in the case of a commodity which was subject to a duty bearing so high a proportion to its value, and a commodity, too, which acquired its highest value from being so long kept in store. He was sure, however, the hon. Gentleman, who had shown so much candour in his statement, would appreciate his motives when he said that, having fixed a day on which it would be his duty to declare the intentions of the Government, and to make proposals to the House with respect to the finances of the country in general, it would be a positive departure from his duty if he were now to acquaint the House with what he might then have to state on the subject of the wine trade. The delay which might occur between this day, the 5th of April, and the 18th, would add but little to the evils of the uncertainty which had to this time prevailed. He would promise the hon. Gentleman that when the day for the financial statement arrived, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would either announce a change with regard to the wine duties, or else he would endeavour to show that the Government had been precluded by reasons which it was not in their power to surmount from recommending such a change at the present time. At the present moment he would only tell the hon. Member that there were but few words in his address with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not thoroughly concur. He was not one of those who thought it impossible or visionary to expect a great extension of the taste for wine, and consumption of wine, among the people of England. On the contrary, it appeared to bins that the present state of the taste of the people in regard to wine was the natural result of our fiscal system in that respect. It appeared to him that there was a growing disposition to drink wine here in spite of the system that had so long prevailed. Considering that wine was one of the great gifts of Providence to

635
man—considering what a place it occupied among the means of his subsistence—considering how many useful and wholesome ends it subserved in connexion with his physical temperament—considering the manner in which it might be used as a competing article with alcoholic spirits: he must confess it was most desirable, if it were possible, to make an important change in the duties upon wine. The extension of trade in Europe—the breaking down of a set of virtual monopolies which we had created, and which aggravated the wine duties—monopolies in favour of particular districts—the stopping of adulteration, and putting down spurious articles brought into demand under colour of a system of high duties: these and other considerations recommended a proposal, he would not say whether that of the hon. Member, but which should bring about an important change in the wine duties. In fact, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might say he knew no article burdened with a fiscal chain under our financial system with respect to which any stronger reasons for a change could be given. But, most unfortunately, it likewise happened that, strong as were the reasons for alteration, the difficulties were equally pre-eminent. It would be absurd to make a trifling alteration. To make a great alteration, reducing the duty to a low uniform rate, the hon. Member considered would be perfectly safe. He said, "Reduce it from 5s. 9d. to 1s. a gallon, and you would be greatly gainers." [Mr. OLIVEIRA: In a short time.] "A short time" was a convenient phrase. [Mr. OLIVEIRA: In two years.] He had great respect for the hon. Member's word, and almost an equal respect for his opinion; but here was a revenue of 1,750,000 l., and, before parting with five-sixths of it, he should like to have either a surplus of a nature which the House thought could properly be so disposed of, or some very good security indeed as to the mode in which the amount was to be made up; and he would frankly say that he did not think the hon. Member's case was quite made good on that vitally essential point. His position and that of persons out of doors was, "Only make the reduction of duty large enough, and you will rapidly recover it all;"—the hon. Member said, in two years; others said, at once. This was matter of opinion. As he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said, he should not like to part with that revenue
636
without some security; he should like some good and sufficient security—a bond from some of the gentlemen who were so confident—to make up a deficiency, if it should occur. But, as matter of opinion, he would state the ground upon which he demurred to accept the reasoning. He did not think that the taste with respect to wine, or any other article, was to be revolutionised, or materially modified, in a day. The present state of the taste for wine in this country he considered to be the result of the long prevalence of the existing financial system, but he held that you could not alter it essentially, except in the course of years. Two years, he was afraid, hardly amounted to a period such as must be contemplated. We consumed about 6,000,000 gallons, from which we derive an income of 5s. 9d. a gallon. If the duty were to be reduced to 1s., we must have 36,000,000 gallons of foreign wine instead of 6,000,000. He did not think we could consume 36,000,000 gallons until the national taste was, he might say, completely transformed; and he hardly thought the hon. Member himself would say that it would be rational to anticipate so great a change in the national taste within the very short period which he had laid down. Here was to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the knot of the question. If the duty could be brought down without loss to the revenue, the matter would be very simple; but if it could not be brought down to a very low rate without a large immediate loss of revenue, then look at your difficulties. Immediately you found those who recommended the reduction competitors with a host of persons recommending reduction upon other articles as important, nay, in some cases more important, upon the whole, to the comfort and welfare of the community. If you said we must sacrifice 1,000,000 l. for some years upon wine, you must be prepared to confront those who told you—and told you truly—that with that 1,000,000 l. a year you might effect a great reform in the duties upon tea; you might effect something very near a reconstruction of your Customs tariff generally; you might remove that most mischievous duty upon soap; in fact, you might make a multitude of changes, such that he, as one anxious to remove the wine duty, was yet bound to say he was not prepared, under the circumstances of the country as we saw them, or were likely to see them, to make an immediate sacrifice of 1,000,000 l. a year for this purpose. There

637
was an intermediate course of attempting to vary the duty, to prevent inequality of operation; but that the hon. Gentleman had not recommended. Upon the whole, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he had gone as far as his duty would allow. He had expressed views with regard to the possible consumption of wine under a different system, and with regard to the strong objections to the present system, which he thought were as decided as those of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of revenue, he had expressed an opinion different from that of the hon. Gentleman, because, though with him he might be disposed think that after a considerable number of years the duty even at 1s. would recover itself, yet, looking upon it as almost certain that such a change would in the first instance involve a very heavy loss of revenue, he thought there were other claims which, in all probability, the House would consider prior and weightier, and upon which, if they had such a revenue to dispose of, they would choose in preference to dispose of it. As he had said, he should think it his duty again to advert to the subject when stating the views of the Government with regard to finance in general; at present, he regretted that he could not go further than he had done to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman and those who concurred with him. There was a collateral point raised which evidently was in the nature, as far as it went, of an aggravation of the difficulties attending this proposal. The hon. Member said that if the duty were to be reduced from 5s. 9d. to 1s., it would be necessary to allow a drawback upon stocks in hand. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not at present dispute that; but drawbacks upon stocks in hand with respect to Customs duties had been, he might say, abolished, and the case of wine, in his opinion, would not form, under ordinary circumstances, an exception to the general rule. The general rule being established, ought, under ordinary circumstances, to be applied, but he must confess, adverting to the nature of the change proposed, that if the wine duty were reduced from 5s. 9d. to 1s. the case of the wine merchants might be a very strong one, and he would assume that they came to Parliament and that Parliament sanctioned their claim. Of course, however, that claim could not be found upon the Treasury Minute of 1844, the occasion of which was this: Wine at that time was the subject
638
of negotiations with foreign countries, negotiations liable to extend over a course of years, and it would have been most cruel to expect parties to conduct their trade under the pressure of uncertainty for so long; and it would have been cruel to the revenue also, to which, in 1842, 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. were lost. A Minute was therefore issued, providing that in case of the reduction of the wine duties under treaty drawbacks should be allowed. The case now was different; it was not a reduction under treaty that was proposed. But, assuming that the parties were to ask for and obtain a drawback upon stocks in hand, that was a very serious matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the House. He would not enter into the figures now, but he believed the hon. Gentleman said it was a question of 500,000 l. or 600,000 l. He said it might be done by debentures; but those debentures were to be receivable for duties in future years, and therefore it would but be draining now the resources of future years. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must say that, if the case should occur, he hoped the House would determine to provide honestly—not using the term in an offensive sense, but only in a Chancellor-of-the-Exchequer sense—to provide honestly for that heavy expense out of the expenditure of the year, and not throw it upon future years. But, looking at the matter in that view, it was obvious that it constituted a most formidable addition to the loss of 1,000,000 l. of revenue which we were to expect in the first instance, and which would thus be raised to 1,500,000 l. before we could expect a revolution in the taste for wine upon a reduction of the duty to 1s. He did not remember that there was any other point to which he need advert. In the general views of the hon. Member he concurred; in his wishes with regard to the subject he cordially participated; in his partications of the result he must confess he was unable to follow him; and with respect to the definite intentions of the Government, whatever they might be, his duty would be to reserve any intimation of them until the 18th, when he should have to make the financial statement for the year.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Oliveira) had brought the question of the reduction of the duties upon wines under the consideration of the House; and were it not that there were great finan-

639
cial difficulties in its way, he should at once vote for the hon. Gentleman's proposition. There were, however, other claims quite as important as the lowering of the duties upon wine, which the great commercial interests of this country with justice could make upon whatever surplus revenue might exist. With respect to high Customs duties imposed entirely for the purposes of revenue, he believed that the wise course in the present financial condition of this country would be to reduce those duties gradually. With regard to duties of excise, such as soap, paper, hops, and malt, all levied for revenue only, a partial reduction would be of no practical benefit whatever to the consumer. When you can afford to do so, consistently with the exigencies of the State, you ought to repeal the duty altogether, in order to supersede the presence of the exciseman from the manufacturing premises. Until the income tax was disposed of, he did not think that they ought to call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any reduction in any duties whatever. In making these observations, however, he did not wish it to be supposed that he differed from the principle which had been laid down by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract; but he was of opinion, that after the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be better if his hon. Friend were to consent to withdraw his Motion. He trusted that the duty on wine would be reduced; and he also hoped that the duty on soap would soon be abolished altogether, for he knew of no tax at the present day imposed upon the people of this country which was so pernicious in its effects as that which was levied upon soap. This relief, however, could not be effected until the income tax were reimposed, he hoped in a more equitable form, and until 1860, that is, when the terminable annuities should fall in.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that after the excellent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, embracing everything that could be said in favour of a reduction, he regretted to find that he spoke only in a Chancellor-of-the-Exchequer sense, and that there was, after all, but a dim and distant prospect of the wine duties being reduced. The right hon. Gentleman said that if be could satisfy himself that there was a reasonable prospect of increased consumption following a reduction, his difficulty would be removed. The analogy of
640
other nations showed that the difficulty was more imaginary than real. In Paris the consumption was about 218 bottles per head per annum, the duty being about 10 d. per gallon. Even in the Hanseatic towns, where the duty was much higher than in Paris, the consumption was 28 bottles per head. It was the opinion of experienced commercial men that a reduction to 2s. per gallon would be very beneficial. On looking at the returns recently laid before that House he found that the annual value of gloves imported from France was 80,000 l., of watches imported 100,000 l., of potatoes 400,000 l., things for which France was not particularly distinguished. Such circumstances, when taken in connexion with the fact that only 70,000 l. worth of wine was imported per annum, were well worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the Motion had not been unproductive. They had heard the right hon, Chancellor of the Exchequer denouncing the tax; and the first step towards getting rid of an evil was the admission of its existence. As the right hon. Gentleman had said the tax was as bad as the hon. Member (Mr. Oliveira) represented it; that was a pledge to remove it whenever he could. But he was really in a condition to begin the reduction directly; that was proved by the result of the reduction in the sugar duty. There was no part of our financial arrangements so injurious as that which taxed the innocent beverage of the people. High taxation on beer tended to demoralise the people. We had made food cheap, we ought to make drink cheap, and, when we had 26,000,000 gallons of spirits annually consumed, the Government ought to look to the matter. As the price of malt had been raised, the consumption of spirits had increased. That the greatest advantage would result from grappling manfully with Excise and Customs duties was proved by experience in regard to the reductions begun by Sir Robert Peel; for the Customs and Excise duties exceeded by about 2,000,000 l. what they were before those changes were made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was right never to be without a surplus; but he was placed in his present office that he might apply his superior knowledge to making the best arrangements for the revenue. Experience showed that these heavy duties limited the consumption and the enjoyment of the community; the members of the community were entitled to the utmost enjoy-

641
ment consistent with the maintenance of the revenue; and the object was to give the community all the security that could be given for the revenue, and the members of the community all the enjoyment that could be had consistent with that security. The time, he hoped, was approaching when Parliament would be enabled to deal with a great many of our taxes—with taxes to which, for every 1l. that the public ought to pay, they paid 2l. or 3l. in consequence of the mode in which those taxes were levied, or the irregular way in which they came to be charged on the consumer. The heavy pressure of the duties on spirits and tobacco was contrary to all just principles, encouraging immorality, and depriving the legal trader of the advantage he ought to possess. He held the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the position which the right hon. Gentleman had taken on the wine duties. Before resuming his seat he wished to call attention to the situation in which hon. Members were placed by Acts of that House. When a great increase of expenditure took place, he warned the House that they were wasting the public means. He believed the alarm of last Session led to that increase. He made no objection, because there was no standing against the flood. When you saw people mad, you could only get out of the way. The people seemed to him to be mad, and the Ministers on both sides went with them. Some said do one thing, and some another, and the result of that system of seesaw was, that Parliament had laid out 1,000,000 l. on the militia, and 1,000,000 l. on fortifications. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much as the House of Commons. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take an enlightened and bold view of the system of taxation, and would not be frightened by the apprehension of losing a few thousands; but if he were going to throw away 150,000 l. on a school of design, and 100,000 l. on this fortification and 100,000 l. on that fortification, his surplus would be but small.
MR. DUNCANsaid, that he had occasion lately to wait upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to deliver to him a memorial from the Chamber of Commerce in Dundee, which fully explained the effect of a prohibitive French tariff, not alone upon the trade of that town, but also of several other towns both in Scotland and in Ireland. In that memorial there was a statement of the
642
quantity of linen which had been manufactured in the trade for twenty-one consecutive years; and he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect which the importation of French wines into this country at a reduced rate of duty would have, not simply upon our revenue, but upon the manufacturing industry of the people. In the year 1834, the amount derived from the quantity of linen exported from Great Britain was only 51,000 l., and from the quantity of linen-yarn only 31,000 l.; but the moment the tariff was reduced, the quantity rapidly increased. In 1842 the amount of linen exported from this country was 8,586,667 yards, which yielded a return of 270,000 l.; being a considerable advance upon the amount in the year 1834. Now, it was obvious that this country had a great interest in increasing that trade; but instead of fostering the importation of French wines in order to effect that desirable object, a prohibitive duty had been placed upon those wines, and the consequence was that the French had imposed an additional duty upon our linen manufactures; the import of which into France had consequently fallen, and thus materially affecting our trade in that article. The House had, therefore, something more to consider in the present instance than the mere question of revenue; and he was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do nothing better than to effect a reduction in the duty upon French wines, so that our linen trade might be benefited; and he had little hesitation in saying, that by taking such a step, the right hon. Gentleman would be conferring a lasting benefit upon the community at large.
MR. OLIVEIRA,in reply, said, that taking into consideration the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed the Motion, he could not refuse to withdraw it. The right hon. Gentleman had given him some encouragement by admitting the wisdom of reduction as soon as practicable; but out of doors the impression produced upon the wine trade by what had been said that night would be, that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to assent to such a Motion at present.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW WRIT FOR LANCASTER.
MR. W. BROWNsaid, he would now move, "That a new Writ be issued for a

643
Member for the Borough of Lancaster, in the room of Robert Baynes Armstrong, Esq., unseated on Petition." He believed the case of this borough differed in character from that of many other places which had been subjected to investigation, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not refuse their assent to his Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Lancaster, in the room of Robert Baynes Armstrong, Esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
MR. THORNELYsaid, he thought it very undesirable to issue writs in cases in which bribery and treating had been proved to exist. It was true that in the case of Lancaster the Committee had not made any Special Report, but they reported that the late Member was, by his agents, guilty of bribery, and mentioned cases in which 5l., 2l., and 1l., were received. The course taken by Election Committees during the present Session had received the strong approbation of the public, and by granting new writs immediately they would only give encouragement to corrupt electors. Nothing would suit a corrupt party in a borough better than to have an election once a month. He would submit that in cases like the present, a writ ought not be issued without further inquiry; and so strong was his opinion on the subject, that he would move, as an Amendment, that no writ be issued until one month from that day.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no new Writ be issued for the Borough of Lancaster, before Tuesday, the 3d day of May next,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. HUMEsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking why they were to deprive one place of the privilege of returning a Member, and give it to another whose situation was precisely similar? He looked round in vain for the noble Lord the leader of the House, who, he understood, intended to propose some general measure. He would like to know whether the present proposal had the noble Lord's sanction. If they had so far secured the approbation of the country, why were they to stop short? He was sorry that neither the Chairman, nor any Member of the
644
Committee, was present to express an opinion.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the House was in a very unsatisfactory position with regard to the issuing of new writs. It seemed to be guided by no principle, not even by the evidence, but acted upon the caprice of the moment, the decision upon a Motion for a new writ possibly depending upon whether it were introduced before dinner or after. Having himself to undergo the same ordeal as many other hon. Members, it would not become him to say much about purity; but he would ask any hon. Member who had read the evidence given before the Lancaster Committee, whether in any case, decided adversely to the Member, there had been less proof of corruption. He took it granted, that if any Member of the Committee wished to oppose the Motion, he would have been present.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was very much disposed to agree in the view which had been taken of that subject by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He believed that in a matter of that kind, which, if not of a judicial character, rather approximated to that character, it was extremely desirable that they should act in conformity with some certain rule, and not under the influence of mere accident or caprice. It was far better that hon. Members should abate something of their particular wishes in those questions, than that they should perplex the public mind by deciding one way with respect to them today, and another way to-morrow. They ought, if possible, to follow some settled rule; and it appeared to him that such a rule existed in the present case. It was not to be supposed that the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Lancaster (Mr. W. Brown) would preclude the House from instituting an inquiry hereafter into corrupt practices in that borough if they should think it desirable that such a course should be adopted. In the cases of the Blackburn and the Bridgenorth elections the Reports of the Committees had been quite as strong as in the present instance, and yet the writs had been ordered to be issued for those two boroughs, after the House had maturely considered, on the one hand, the wrong that might be inflicted on an entire constituency by punishing it for the crime of a few individuals; and after they had considered, on the other hand, the duty imposed upon them of checking, by every fair means at

645
their disposal those corrupt practices which it had been proved had taken place at many elections. The rule—the wise rule they had adopted—was, that no writ should be issued in those cases except after a notice of seven days had been given upon the subject. The meaning of that rule was, that after the lapse of the seven days the writ should be issued if no new facts should be brought before them to call for its postponement. Now, in the present case, the required notice had been given; and, in the meantime, neither the inhabitants of the town, nor the Members of the Committee who had tried the petition, had taken any step which could induce the House to adopt any measure of special severity in the matter. Under these circumstances, he believed it would neither be generous nor just to deprive the inhabitants of the borough of the opportunity of exercising their constitutional privilege; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thornely) would not press his Amendment. He would again remind the hon. Member that the adoption of the original Motion need not prevent the House from instituting hereafter an inquiry into the state of the borough of Lancaster.
MR. H. DRUMMONDsaid, he felt much surprised that the House, notwithstanding their sincere desire to put an end to corrupt practices at elections, should have taken what he considered to be such inadequate means for effecting that object. He held very strong opinions upon that subject, but he should not then press them on their attention. He understood the noble Lord the Member for London to have promised to bring forward a proposal for dealing on some definite and comprehensive principle with those questions; and he confessed that he waited with much interest for the fulfilment of that promise. He perceived that in almost all those cases they had punished the innocent Members, and had let off the guilty agents. That seemed to him a very extraordinary mode of proceeding, for those attorneys had been at the root of all that system of corruption. They were the persons who played with the Members, as at a game of chess. They got up petitions at the Members' expense, and carried on these matters to their own profit merely. These things required to be looked into, and to be dealt with by some general system. He trusted the noble Lord or some other
646
person would deal with this matter. In the present case he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did not see how, after they had laid down a rule, they could then refuse to act upon it.
LORD STANLEYagreed that the manner in which they were in the habit of dealing with these cases was extremely unsatisfactory. He had once had some connexion with Lancaster: and he felt bound to state his belief, from what he then knew of the borough, that corruption did prevail there extensively, and especially among the freemen. But at the same time it was absolutely necessary to act on some fixed rule; and he understood the rule on which the House had decided after full consideration, to be this—that they would not suspend a writ, or originate further inquiry, except where either such inquiry was recommended by the Committee, or where it was petitioned for by the inhabitants. Now in this instance there was no recommendation by the Committee, and no petition from the inhabitants. If therefore a division were come to, he must vote against the Amendment; but he was very glad to hear it stated that the issuing of the writ did not preclude further inquiry, since from all he knew of Lancaster, he believed such inquiry to be exceedingly necessary.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he entertained a strong opinion with regard to the state of the borough of Lancaster, and he was glad to find that that opinion was confirmed by the high authority of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House. He did not, however, think it advisable to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Main Question put, and agreed to.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. H. DRUMMOND,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that an Act had some years ago been passed on the subject of combinations either among workmen or their employers. By that Act it had been proposed that the two classes should be placed on precisely the same footing with respect to combinations. Some differences had recently taken place between a number of men and their masters; and some of the former having "got into trouble," as it was called, the Judges had decided differently on their cases, in con-

647
sequence of a doubtful provision in the Act. The object of the present Bill was to remove the doubt. It was a purely declaratory measure; it contained but one clause; and it would leave the workmen and their employers subject to precisely the same legal conditions.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion. The late difference of opinion among the Judges required that the House should pass a declaratory Act.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he did not mean to object to the second reading of the Bill; but he should of course reserve to himself the right to decide hereafter whether it would really carry out the objects of the former Act, which it professed to explain. He was aware that doubts had arisen with respect to the construction of the word "molestation;" but he believed that everybody would be prepared to admit that it would be exceedingly wrong to alter the existing Act in such a manner as to permit that kind of molestation which, without any act of violence, would enable workmen by means of a system of intimidation, which was perfectly well understood among them, to prevent members of their class, in spite of their own wish, from continuing at their employment. He thought it would be necessary to see whether or not the Bill then before the House would be attended with that effect; but of course there could be no objection to the general purport of the measure.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Dartrey.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Land Improvement (Ireland).
3a Bail in Error.

BAIL IN ERROR BILL.
LORD CAMPBELLmoved the Third Reading of the Bail in Error Bill, and said, he was very glad to see present the noble and learned Lord whose Bill upon this subject the present Act sought to amend. The object of that Bill was a most laudable one, but difficulties which were not anticipated rendered it unavailable for the purpose intended. One object of the present measure was to prevent improper compromises being made between prosecutors and persons admitted to bail; and another was to compel persons out on bail to appear in Court from time to time if required. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Truro) had assisted him in the preparation of the Bill, which would have been passed several weeks ago but for a suggestion for an extremely useful provision made by that noble and learned Lord, namely, that the Clerk of the Crown Office should, on the first day of term, report to the Court what had been done in writs of error that were depending. Instead, however, of introducing a clause into the Bill to accomplish what was proposed, that object would better be attained by a rule of court, which he had ordered to be prepared; and he hoped,
586
therefore, there would be no opposition to the passing of the Bill as it stood.
Bill read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CANNING,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it was a transcript, or nearly so, of an Act passed in 1847. The object of both that and the present Bill was to encourage the permanent improvement of land in Ireland by enabling landowners to obtain loans from the public funds for that purpose; and the difference between the present Act and that of 1847 was, that it was now sought to extend the power already possessed by proprietors of obtaining loans for the improvement of their estates by means of public money advanced for that purpose, and to enable them to undertake those improvements with money from their own funds, or obtained from private as well as from public sources, under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The working of the Act of 1847 had given very general satisfaction, not only to the Government, but to those private individuals who had obtained loans under its provisions, and no part of the measure had been more satisfactory than the superintendence of the Commissioners of Works. As evidence of that, he might state that during the time it had been in operation, money to the extent of nearly 2,000,000 l. had been advanced under it, and, upon an average, the expense of the machinery for working it had not been greater than 1 per cent in cases where the amount of the loan was under 500 l., and not more than 10 s. per cent in the case of loans above 1,000 l. The machinery was precisely similar to that called into action by the Act of 1847. There would be one or two verbal amendments which it would be necessary to propose in Committee; but, with that exception, no alteration would be necessary. He hoped there would not be any obstacles thrown in the way of the Bill, and that it would be allowed to go into Committee.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
The EARL of WICKLOWbelieved the Bill to be founded upon just and sound principles. It was an Act for carrying out the objects of the former Bill, to which

587
the noble Lord had alluded, for enabling the proprietors to borrow money from the Government. All the provisions of the Bill were the same as those of the Act of 1847, with the sole exception that the present Bill enabled landed proprietors having partial and limited interests, to undertake the improvements which they wished to carry out, with their own money or with money borrowed from private sources. There was, however, one provision introduced which he trusted Her Majesty's Government would look to. It was this: No landed proprietor, let his property be what it might, or however scattered over the whole of the kingdom, was allowed, under the provisions of that Bill, or at least under the direction of the Commissioners of the Treasury, to draw a larger sum than 5,000 l.; whereas the smallest landed proprietor, wishing to improve his estate, had power to draw to that extent. Now, there were many persons with property scattered all over the country who were most anxious to improve it, and yet were debarred from doing so under this provision; and he trusted, therefore, that this defect in the Bill would be looked to and remedied. As he had observed before, the Bill was well intended; but he was afraid that from the manner in which the payments were to be made, it would be found nearly inoperative. This Bill was intended for two classes of persons, and for only two: for tenants for life who had money, and who might be expected to expend it on their own land—a very small class in that country, unfortunately; and the very large class, he was sorry to say, of tenants for life who had no money, and who might be induced to go into the money market to raise funds for the purpose of carrying out improvements. He was afraid, however, that when it came to be known that the only mode of repayment was in the form of an annuity for 82 years, those who applied to the money market would find it impossible to obtain loans. He had no doubt the Bill had been framed upon a good calculation, to give 4 per cent interest for the loan, and secure the repayment of the sum advanced in 22 years; but few people would, he thought, be disposed to lend money upon the terms proposed. This defect, as he considered it to be, in the Bill, could not be amended in that House, but he thought it his duty to point it out. If this Bill had contained another provision, giving power to the bor-
588
rower to settle the interest of his loan upon the estate, and so to mortgage the property to that amount, with the liberty also of borrowing under the existing provisions of the Bill, the Act would have been available for the purpose intended; but, as at present framed, he feared it would be inoperative.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he thought it likely that for the reasons stated by the noble Earl, some persons would not be inclined to lend money for carrying out these improvements upon the terms proposed. That was, no doubt, an evil; but if they gave the tenant for life power to mortgage the estates, the mortgagee must have the power usually possessed by the holders of that class of securities, and would, therefore, be able to file a bill for the recovery of the interest upon the mortgage when it was in arrear, and thus the whole of the parties interested might be plunged into litigation arising out of these improvements. Nothing could be more dangerous or objectionable than this, nor more directly opposed to the principle of the Bill. He had great confidence that his noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government, as well as the Board of Works, would take every step to see that the money was properly expended; but the powers for the improvement of land given by this Bill were indeed of a most dangerous character; and it could not but be regretted that while emancipating Ireland from the curse of estates involved in debt, they were beginning a new system that might involve every settled estate in that country in incumbrances for all time to come. The moment they did what this Bill professed to do, and enabled the owners of a limited estate in land to charge their own expenditure on the settled estate, they took away all inducement from men who had settled estates to improve the property which they enjoyed—for if a man could charge on the estate what was spent in improvements, it was not likely that he would have recourse to his own money without taking what would, in fact, give him a charge upon the remainder-man or reversioner. He thought that it was Lord Clare who said that it was a common way in Ireland "to improve a man out of his estates." The Montgomery Act, which gave power to charge estates with improvements made by the tenant in tail, had not worked well in Scotland. He should not oppose the passing of this Bill,

589
but he certainly wished to see the provisions fenced round by some safeguard. He was, he confessed, a little alarmed at the third clause, which gave the Board of Works power to appoint such engineers, architects, agriculturists, &c., as might be necessary to transact their business, and to pay them such salaries as they might determine upon. These expenses must all be borne by the settled estates in Ireland; and he must, therefore, impress upon the Government the necessity of seeing that these powers were not abused.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that this, like every other Bill which related to property in Ireland, seemed to him a violation of the rights of property; for it gave persons having a limited interest in property the right to burden other persons—namely, those entitled to the reversion or remainder. That was no doubt in itself an evil, only to be justified by the peculiar position of the property and the proprietors of Ireland. Bills like the present, were, too, attended with disadvantages, inasmuch as they took away from the landowners that which was properly their duty—namely, to look after the improvement of their own estates—and conferred it upon a public body, the Commissioners of the Board of Works, who were not so well qualified to perform it as those who were interested in the property. The Bill seemed to commence with a thorough distrust of all who had possession of land, or were in the occupation of land in Ireland, for though it conferred power on them over the property of others, it took away all control in regard to their own property, and gave the Board of Works the supervision of the management of their estates. If, however, it was admitted that the state of Ireland rendered this violation of the first principles of property necessary, then he did not see the force of the objections to it which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken. Because he apprehended that the same machinery which was in action to prevent the abuse of the money expended on land borrowed from the Government, would operate in regard to money derived from the funds of the tenant for life; and that in each the Commissioners of the Board of Works would be obliged to see that the money was expended so that the result of the outlay should permanently benefit the remainder-man who is to inherit the estate, as well as the tenant for life. In fact this Bill, in common with preceding Bills, virtually ves-
590
ted the land of Ireland in Commissioners who were supposed to manage it for the benefit of all parties, owners, occupiers, tenants for life, and remainder-men. If he was convinced that such would always be the case, he should raise no objection to the Bill, because then the reversioner would not suffer by it; for though subjected to a rentcharge which he was no party to imposing upon the property, he would receive a full compensation for the injury thus done him in the increased rent which he derived from the land in consequence of the improvements.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that he hoped that many of the objections that had been raised to the Bill would fall to the ground upon a fuller examination of it. He was obliged to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) for opposing with the weight of his high authority the suggestions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) that the life tenant should have the power of mortgaging the estate. This would defeat the principle on which this measure, as well as that of 1847, was founded, and would, he thought, be liable to all the objections which the noble and learned Lord so well urged. He might, indeed, state to the noble Earl that the rentcharge provided by the Bill was larger than he seemed aware of, being calculated to yield 5 per cent on the outlay; it was hoped that this would induce banks and other private persons to lend money for the improvement of land. The objection, that this Bill was calculated to induce the people of Ireland to encumber their estates more than at present, applied quite as forcibly to the Act of 1847, the operation of which for six years had, he believed, given unqualified satisfaction. The Bill had been laid on the table since the middle of last month, and had been delivered to their Lordships some days before Easter, and he hoped, therefore, they would think full time had been given for its consideration. However, he was quite ready to grant whatever delay noble Lords might consider desirable, and would propose to put it in Committee of the House on any day which might be convenient to those noble Lords who were desirous of discussing its provisions.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.