Sitting of 9 August 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Petty Sessions (Ireland); Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Consolidated Fund £10,634,087 2s. 4d.; Militia Pay; Metropolis Sewers.
3° South Sea and other Annuities, Provision for Payment, &c.; Defacing the Coin; Linen, &c. Manufacturers (Ireland); Female Convicts; Apprehension of Offenders Act Amendment; Marriages, Holy Trinity Church, Hulme, Validity; Hackney Carriage Duties.

TRANSPORTATION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, there was no subject more important or more difficult to deal with than the question of secondary punishment. In the early stages of society crimes produced in the minds of the community but one feeling—that of resentment; and the sole object of legislation was one almost simple, namely, vengeance. In those more barbarous ages that vengeance was carried to such an extremity that not only was the punishment of death inflicted for almost every offence that could be imagined, but for graver offences the actual extinction of life was not considered sufficient unless accompanied by varied and exquisite torture inflicted upon the offender previous to death. Where death was not inflicted, imprisonment for a long period, attended with every severity that human ingenuity could inflict, was awarded to those whose lives were not actually taken away. As civilisation advanced, and as milder feelings had prevailed in legislation, the punishment of death had in principle been restricted to offences of the most serious and flagrant character, and secondary punishments had been substituted in the greatest number of cases. But the question of secondary punishments was also one of extreme difficulty. You want to make the punishment penal upon the offender, to make it a deterring example to prevent others from committing similar crimes, and yet at the same time you wish to avoid shocking the feelings of the community by sights revolting to mankind, and you ought to endeavour, if possible, to do that so as to
1536
combine a system of reformation with the principle of punishment. In the countries which had not had large colonial establishments such as we had, whither offenders might be transported, a great variety of practice bad prevailed—offenders had been punished on the secondary system within the limits of the country in which they had committed the offences. We, however, owing to our extensive colonial possessions and advantages, had hitherto been enabled to dispose of our offenders who were subjected to secondary punishment by transporting them beyond the seas after having undergone a certain period of preliminary imprisonment at home. We had now been reduced to the necessity of altering that system, by circumstances which were not within the control of the Government. In the first place, those colonies to which hitherto our offenders were transported, were become thriving and wealthy communities, and their feelings had led them to revolt against being made, as they conceived, the receptacles for criminals deemed unfit to be left in the mother country. Whether those feelings were well founded or not, it was unnecessary for us to inquire, for we had conceded to those Colonies the principle and the right of self-government, and, that cession being made, we must adopt and submit to its consequences; and the refusal of those communities to receive henceforward criminals sent from this country, would of itself compel us to alter the system which we had hitherto pursued. Independently of that consideration, a great event had happened in those Colonies which had hitherto been the places to which criminals under secondary punishments had been sent; and, even if the colonists themselves had not made any objection, that great event would necessarily have led to the reconsideration of our previously existing system. Because, though it might be advisable to send the criminal out of his native country to pass a certain period of qualified servitude in a foreign country, and to follow up that qualified servitude by a conditional pardon, involving of necessity perpetual banishment from his native land, and although that punishment was one which had great influence upon the minds of men—on the criminals themselves, on their families, and on their neighbours—yet when it turned out that those lands to which these criminals were sent, were places where wealth abounded beyond the previous imagination of man, where the

1537
exercise of a small amount of manual labour was likely to create a splendid fortune for the man who would employ it, it was quite clear that the great discovery of gold in those Colonies which had hitherto been the places to which criminals had been sent, so entirely changed the character of transportation to those Colonies, that it no longer continued to be a banishment, but henceforward must be looked on as a reward to be aimed at; and, if a free passage could not be obtained by honest means, a man would commit crimes for the simple purpose of being sent to that wonderful and gold-producing land. The attention of the Government had been therefore unavoidably directed to the revisal of our penal system. The first result to which the Government was led was the necessity of ceasing to send those offenders to the Colonies abroad at all. He believed, however, that there was one portion of the Australian continent to which the twofold objections to which he had adverted did not apply. There was a part of Western Australia to which, for some time to come, at least, offenders might continue to be sent; but the bulk of offenders hitherto sentenced to transportation must henceforward be dealt with in a different manner. The Bill now before the Committee therefore proposed, as hon. Members would perceive, to empower the Courts of Law to alter the nature of the sentences. That which was intended to be done might be generally described in the following manner:—For a considerable period the practice had been, when a culprit was sentenced to transportation for a given term of years, that he was confined, in the first instance, for a certain period, varying, according to regulations, from eighteen months to a less period, in separate confinement; be was then transferred to the public works, and, next, upon good conduct., was sent out to the Australian Colonies, on what was called "a ticket of leave," which placed him in a condition of qualified servitude; and at the end of another period, if his conduct deserved such indulgence, he received a conditional pardon. As offenders could not now be sent abroad—except, at least, that small portion who might go to Western Australia—it was proposed that a period should be taken—which it would be perceived was token into the Bill—after the preliminary imprisonment in separate confinement, corresponding with the period of the voyage out to the Colony, and the ticket of leave servitude; and that after such period the offender should be capable of re-
1538
ceiving a ticket of leave, not in a foreign Colony, but in this country, liable to be called back to complete the full term of his sentence if his conduct during the period should not be such as to warrant the further continuance of his leave. He was quite aware there might be objections to the course which the Government had been compelled to pursue; but it was not sufficient to point out objections, unless at the same time those objections could be enforced by showing that another and a different course was practicable. The Colonies must be considered as shut to us, and it was needless to inquire whether it was desirable or not that offenders should be released under certain conditions at home. Many persons had thought that new penal Colonies might be established. It had been suggested that the Falkland Islands, for instance, and other places which had been named, might be substituted for those Colonies which hitherto had been places to which criminals had been sent; and, in the first instance, those suggestions appeared plausible. But the Committee would see, upon a little reflection, that however plausible in the first instance, such an arrangement would not accomplish the purpose hitherto aimed at and accomplished by transportation. If the only object were to provide a place of detention for offenders during the period in which they were to be kept, he might say, under qualified imprisonment, there could be no difficulty whatever. Nothing could be easier than to establish such a penal colony in the Falkland Islands, or even much nearer home, where the expense of sending out offenders would be infinitely less, and the expense of keeping them also not so considerable. For that purpose we should not require penal settlements at a distance from our own shores. There were islands which might be obtained upon the various coasts of the United Kingdom, which would answer perfectly well as places of detention for criminals during the periods of their liability to qualified confinement; but the object which had hitherto been sought for by transportation, and which he thought he might venture to say had, to a great degree, been attained hitherto, had been the subsequent reformation of the culprit. It had been felt that when the transported man had undergone his sentence, and had passed through the preliminary or transition state, which consisted in the ticket of leave commission, his habits became changed, his mind became more reconciled to

1539
habits of order and conformity to the law, and when he got his conditional pardon he merged into the community of the country to which he had been transferred, and he became one of that community, harmless at all events, and very often, it was to be hoped, a useful member of society,. If, however, our new Colonies were established, say in the Falkland Islands, where there was no free population, where the great bulk of the inhabitants would be themselves convicts, this last process of amelioration could scarcely be hoped for or rarely attained. There would be no free population into whose mass these reformed offenders might be absorbed, or who would be the means of educating them to habits of order and industry; they must be set free in a colony of convicts, and it was obvious that that would not accomplish any beneficial purpose either to themselves or to the country where they were. Then it had been suggested that they might be sent to the neighbouring countries—to the continent of South America for instance; but he was afraid that those countries to which they might under those circumstances be sent, would not view without prejudice or disinclination an influx of what they might consider bad subjects into their community, and difficulties would unquestionably arise out of that consideration. No doubt there are objections to the course which we are prepared to recommend, and difficulties are easily started in our way; but he was afraid that we were so circumstanced as to have no choice, at present at least, but to make up our minds that that portion of our offenders who might be sentenced to transportation, and who, under a former system, might be sent out to the Colonies with tickets of leave and the hope of a conditional pardon, must be dealt with, partly at least, in some similar manner at home. He could assure the Committee that the great subject of reformation had not been lost sight of either by the present Government or those who had preceded them. He could not but think that, with regard to a great portion of the persons sentenced to transportation, reformation was by no means a hopeless object to be aimed at. There was nothing that had struck him more forcibly, in the short time during which he had had the honour to preside over the department of which he at present had charge, than the great diversity of punishment allotted by different authorities to offences, he might say, of the same kind,
1540
or rather the extreme variety of judgment exercised by different Courts in allotting for punishment for offences. What he meant was, that, on the one hand, he had frequently observed very severe punishments, lengthened periods of transportation, inflicted for what appeared to him trifling offences; while, on the other hand, to offences of a much graver character were awarded punishments of a much lighter description. This was an evil which must necessarily arise from the varied judgments of men; and when they considered the great number of Courts before which criminals were from day to day brought, it was impossible that they should not expect, either from diversity of judgment, or circumstances known to the Court at the time, which could not be recorded in their proceedings, but which nevertheless influenced their judgments, that there must be an apparent inequality in the, sentences pronounced. For that inequality the constitution fortunately provided a remedy by an appeal to the Secretary of State, whose duty it was to investigate all such appeals, and if necessary to advise the Crown in cases where he might think that the severity of the punishment was injurious to the public interest. The inference which he wished to draw from this was, that a great number of persons sentenced to transportation had not committed crimes of a magnitude which indicated such a degree of moral depravity as to prevent us from hoping that during the period of their confinement a great reformation might be effected in their minds and character. At all events, every effort would be made to accomplish that object. When those persons were to be released upon this conditional ticket of leave, the grave question immediately arose—what were they to do? Where were they to go, and how were they to be employed? Because there was, of course, in the minds of men a disinclination to employ, by preference at least, persons who had been sentenced by law for their offences. Men would prefer, if they could find such agents, those against whom no charge or delinquency had been established; and the apprehension was, that if persons of this description were so released, though they might carry with them some small accumulation of the wages which they had earned during their detention, that would soon be gone, and the difficulty they would find in supporting themselves by honest employment might perhaps drive them back to their old associates and to their old course

1541
of life, which had rendered them amenable to the law in the first instance. Upon consulting persons, however, who had charge of these departments, and whose experience and reflection on questions of this nature would enable them to judge, he had every reason to believe that there would be found means of giving all these persons employment upon the public works, separate from the convicts, at suitable wages, thus placing them in this country in a state of transition in some degree analogous to that in which they would have been had they been transported to the Colonies. Thus, these released convicts might, during the period of their ticket-of-leave service, find employment which would not attach any stigma their character, and from which they might easily slide into the ordinary avocations of the industry of the country. So far as that went, he should hope that means might be found for smoothing their passage from the condition of convicts to the condition of free and hottest labourers. Another objection had been urged, that the detention of so many more convicts in this country would entail additional expense upon the counties, by the necessity of providing places for their accommodation. Upon that point Her Majesty's Government felt it their duty to relieve the apprehension of the counties, because it would be the duty of the Government, and it would also be in their power, to provide, at the public expense, that additional accommodation which this altered system might require for the custody of the criminals during the period of their confinement. It would be perfectly unjust that a change which the counties had not originated, and in which they had no hand, should fix upon them an additional annual expense. There was no reason, therefore, for the counties to be under any apprehension that this additional expense would fall upon them. This, generally speaking, was the change which the Government proposed. It was a change, as he had before said, not resulting from choice or from the will of the Government. It was a change imposed upon the Government by the course of events, and one which appeared to him to be a mode of meeting that course of events the least, of any of which he was aware, liable to objection. There were a great number of public works connected with the harbours of refuge, and with the defensive works on the coast, in which employment might be found, for a great length of time, both for those convicts who were still work-
1542
ing out their sentences, for those who were sentenced to hard labour, and for those who might be in the condition of ticket-of-leave men. Those operations would be well performed by these men; and he thought that in that way habits of industry might be created in them which would tend eventually to their future reformation. With regard to the general expense of providing additional accommodation, the change, he thought, would be attended with a considerable saving of public money, because, if they set on the one side of the account the cost of erecting places for the accommodation of the increased number of convicts, and the cost of maintaining them, and on the other side the great cost of sending them abroad, and the cost of maintaining them there, it could be shown that a very considerable annual saving would in the end result to the public. That, of course, was not an ingredient in the decision to which Parliament might come, but, at all events, it was an incidental circumstance, which was so far satisfactory as showing that the charge which other necessities imposed would not be attended with additional expense to the country. In conclusion, he would invite the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the Bill, which had been drawn with great care. The whole system must be considered as an experimental one to a great degree, and if in the working of it fresh suggestions should occur, and other improvements appear likely to be easily accomplished, Her Majesty's Government would be most happy to receive any such suggestions from others, and profit by the lessons of experience. He believed, however, that, on the whole, this was the best mode that could be devised to meet that great change in circumstances which prevented us from pursuing that course which had hitherto been followed.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he entirely concurred in almost everything which the noble Lord had said; but there were one or two points to which he desired to allude before they considered the clauses seriatim. It was clear that the present system of transportation could not be continued on the same footing as heretofore—that some new arrangement must be adopted—and that the object should be to inspire convicts with that feeling of dread which the existing system of transportation no longer excited. Numerous cases could be mentioned in which crimes had been committed by persons who desired to be sent out to Australia, and those cases ought to be borne in mind when they considered how far and to what

1543
extent they could prudently do away with transportation to our colonial possessions. But then came the greater and more difficult question—how were they to deal with their convicts at home? He believed, with the noble Lord, that it would not be prudent, upon the whole, to establish any new penal settlement at a distance from this country, because, if they intended to aim at the reformation of offenders, they could only effect that object by putting them into a country where the usual character of the greater part of the inhabitants was superior to that of the convicts themselves. Another reason against the establishment of another penal settlement abroad, was the question of expense; and he was bound to say that the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to deal with the convicts at home was upon the whole an excellent arrangement. If they looked to the reports upon the subject of secondary punishment, they would find that the system of employing criminals upon public works had not only proved highly beneficial to the convicts themselves, but had also contributed to the lasting advantage of the country. The cost of transportation was little short of 200,000 l. a year, including the expenses incurred in the Colonies; the cost of the prisoners at home was also very great; but the works at Portland paid themselves at the present moment, besides producing a noble harbour, and he was satisfied that, if similar works were prosecuted in other parts of the kingdom, great public good would be done to the country, and great progress would be made in the improvement and reformation of criminals. In the year 1849, the profits arising from the labour of the convicts employed at Portland amounted to 7,214 l.; in 1850, it produced 14,067; and in 1851, 20,541. During the past year the earnings of the convicts had exceeded the cost of the establishment; and there was no reason to doubt that, wherever the same facilities existed for the employment of offenders, the same results would follow. He hoped, therefore, that the plan now before the House would be vigorously prosecuted by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, as they would thereby attain a lasting benefit to the country, while they would do more to reform criminals than they could do by any other system whatever. It was for that reason that he cordially concurred in almost everything which the noble Lord had said; but perhaps he might be allowed to make one or two observations which had occurred
1544
to his mind in reading the Bill. By the first clause it was proposed to do away with transportation altogether where the sentence was for a shorter period than fourteen years. He bad great doubts whether they ought to have framed the clause in that manner. He thought it would have been better simply to have given to the Crown, acting under the advice of the Home Secretary, the power of commuting all sentences of transportation for a shorter period than fourteen years for a period of penal servitude at home. There were still cases in which a colony might desire to have convicts; but if this Bill was passed into law in its present form, it would be impossible to pass sentences of transportation for seven or ten years. What he would suggest, therefore, was, that the first and second clauses should be left out altogether, and that a necessary alteration should be made in the third clause, so that offenders might be sentenced either to transportation for a shorter period than fourteen years, or to a corresponding period of penal servitude at home. He doubted also whether in Western Australia, which contained only a small population, sufficient employment could be found for those convicts whom, according to the proposition of the Government, it was intended to send to that Colony; and with reference to that part of the measure, he thought some alteration might very properly be introduced. The second observation which he had to make referred to the mode in which they were to deal with the ticket-of-leave convicts, who were to enjoy, under licence, an opportunity of reforming themselves in this country. To work out that system they must have great control over criminals; and if a man had once, through the indulgence and mercy of the Crown, had a portion of his punishment remitted, and if he committed during the time when he was enjoying that conditional pardon a similar offence, then a higher grade of punishment ought to be awarded in such circumstances. What he ventured to suggest, therefore, was, that a proviso to the effect stated should be inserted in the Bill; and he had only to say, in conclusion, that he concurred with the noble Lord in the propriety and good policy of this measure, and that he hoped it would contribute not merely to the peace and contentment of our Colonies, but likewise to the reformation of the offenders themselves.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he would suggest that at the Isle of Man a

1545
large number of convicts might be advantageously employed. There was a great depth of water at Douglas, in the Isle of Man, where the Government had some idea of forming a harbour of refuge, which would be a great advantage to the Scotch coasts and to Liverpool. He recommended this work the more because the Isle of Man contributed a large sum to the revenue of this country, on condition that a harbour of refuge should be built. Besides which, by the recent Consolidation of Customs Act, a ninth part of the revenues of the Isle of Man was to be employed on her harbours. There would be great advantage in the Government carrying out such a work.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTwould be glad to know what were the intentions of the noble Viscount with regard to the adjustment of the employment of convicts. The noble Lord had mentioned public works, and as far as it went that plan was excellent. He wished, however, to call the attention of the noble Lord to the prison at Cork, where malefactors were so beneficially employed that they obtained funds for their own sustenance, and were enabled when set free to obtain an honest livelihood. The farm system, the separate system, the aggregate systems and the manufacturing system—were all combined in the system at Cork.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this was a subject in which he had not only taken a great interest and assisted in discussions in it in that House, but which in discharge of the duties of his office last year, had met with his serious attention; he hoped, therefore, that he might be allowed shortly to address the Committee on the measure. He thought there was reason to complain of the Government in bringing forward a subject of such extreme importance, and which had caused a strong feeling in the country, at so late a period of the Session as to preclude the possibility of a satisfactory discussion either to themselves or to the country. The late Government had made up their minds for various reasons as to the impossibility of transportation to Van Diemen's Land, the only one of the Australian colonies to which practically criminals had been transported of late years. There had been remonstrances on the part of the Colonies, and it was not only a question whether the Colonies could receive convicts, but whether with prudence they could be sent there. In addition to other grounds upon which they had based their opinion upon that point, he might mention that one not the least important
1546
was the circumstance that transportation to Australia had begun to be regarded by the criminal rather in the light of a reward than a punishment; cases had occurred in the Ionian Islands, in which the officer commanding the troops was obliged to inflict the punishment of death because offences were committed by the men in order that they might get transported to the land of gold. In another place, however, those who were most competent to judge had intimated a strong opinion that transportation ought to be continued as a secondary punishment. He (Sir J. Pakington) had always advocated the value of transportation as a secondary punishment; he had seen its effects, and under different circumstances he thought it admirably answered the purpose of the first secondary punishment after that of death. But, as things were, he thought the Government, he was going to say, lead acted wisely; but, as had been said by the noble Lord, the Government had no option than the course they had taken. Notwithstanding the necessity which he believed existed for such a measure, he thought the Government ought to have come forward with it earlier. He had often in the course of the Session put questions to the noble Lord as to when such a measure would be brought on. The late Government, in the Queen's Speech, virtually put an end to transportation; and the Judges were embarrassed with regard to the sentences which they were to pass; and when this Bill came down to this House and stood for a second reading, at two o'clock in the morning, when he (Sir J. Pakington) was fortunately in bed, but when the noble Viscount was still watching over the affairs of the country, it was read a second time sub silentio. It might be said that anything was justifiable by the Government in the month of August; but still he thought that even exceeded the licence of that period of the Session. The noble Viscount had now made a statement which though satisfactory, was not so full as it ought to have been; for which, perhaps, he would have the excuse of a morning siting in the month of August, and therefore under circumstances which rendered it impossible that the Bill should be discussed as it ought to be, so as to inform the country by means of their deliberations how this great question of secondary punishments was to be settled. One thing was quite certain, and that was, that the plan did not originate either with the late or the present Government, but was caused by the course of events comprised in the

1547
objections of the Colonies to receive convicts, and the discoveries of gold, which rendered this course imperative. Under the separate system of imprisonment the term was practically only a year and a half, although the law recognised three years as the term. The next step in secondary punishments was transportation for seven years, which was, in his opinion, too great a jump from one sort of punishment to another. He had placed this point before the Committee on Prison Discipline which sat in 1850, and they adopted the outline of a plan by which district prisons were to be erected at the cost of the Government, and an alteration made so as to substitute large periods of imprisonment for transportation. He had prepared a memorandum for the late Government, which he left in the Colonial Office, in which he recommended a gradation of secondary punishments, and the employment of prisoners in great public works, so as to make them self-supporting. That was the outline of the plan which the noble Viscount had adopted. He need not say, therefore, that he was in favour of the plan of the Government. Experience showed that there was no reason to despair of the reformation of offenders who had been guilty of the milder offences; and by means of an amended prison discipline they might look to the reformation of the larger proportion of criminal offenders, and also remedy the evil, which was so much dreaded, of turning loose on society persons who had been criminal offenders. Great alarm was felt on that point, but he thought it an unnecessary alarm; for the public was not aware that when at one period transportation was suspended, a great many persons who had been sent to the hulks were let loose at the expiration of their terms of imprisonment; and that after a by no means reformatory training. By the adoption of such means as were now proposed, transportation might be got rid of. There had been a great increase in the number of criminals who were sentenced to less than ten years' transportation, and who consequently did not go abroad. It appeared by the returns for the years 1848, 1849, 1850, and 1851, that the average in each year was 573 persons who were transported for more than ten years, and 5,249 who were transported for less than ten years. For this latter great majority of cases the plan of the Government fully provided; and he believed that such reformation would be effected that society would have no cause to
1548
regret the change; for the law would be as well administered and crime punished as heretofore, while looking to the minor element of expense, he believed the noble Lord was right in saying that punishment would be carried out at a far less cost to the country. He here came to a part of the statement of the noble Viscount, in which he failed in explaining the system of imprisonment intended. The noble Lord had told them that there were means of accommodating prisoners; but he had not stated so fully as it ought to have been stated what that system was to be. Now, when a prisoner was transported, the first period of punishment was passed in separate confinement in gaol. In the case of a prisoner in future to be sentenced to transportation for seven years, how was the first period of punishment to be passed?—was it to be passed in separate imprisonment? [Viscount PALMERSTON: Yes.] But when that period was passed, where was the man to go? [Viscount PALMERSTON: To the public works.] That might be; but the noble Viscount had presented no calculation on the point, and it was doubtful whether there would be public works sufficient to absorb the great amount of labour which would be at the disposal of the Government; and the noble Lord should afford the House some more accurate information on that point. The Committee on Prison Discipline which sat in 1850 had recommended that district prisons should be erected, winch should be self-supporting. He was of opinion that such prisons could be made self-supporting, and he hoped that they might understand that the Government would be cautious in seeing that there would be no want of accommodation, and that sentences were not abridged merely to get rid of prisoners, for by that means the ends of justice would in a great measure be defeated. The late Government intended to do away with transportation, but not until proper prison accommodation was provided; and his (Sir J. Pakington's) own idea was, that it should cease on the 1st of January, 1854. The public had a right to expect from the Government that in putting an end to transportation so suddenly, they at the same time had the means of accommodating prisoners at their command. There was another important part of the subject that was most worthy of their consideration, and that was how they were hereafter to deal with a class of persons convicted of grave crimes, the punishment of which was only short of death, and who had hitherto

1549
been punished by fifteen or twenty years' transportation. The number was comparatively small, he had already shown; but what was to be done with them? At present they might go to Western Australia, He should suggest that if they were sent there, the system adopted in that settlement should be altered. Hitherto it had been a settlement for convicts generally, but now it would be reserved only for the worst criminals, and care should be taken to make the state of such men penal in exact proportion to their guilt. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had mentioned that the population of the Colony was small; and he (Sir J. Pakington) thought you could not long make Western Australia an extreme penal Colony, and the time must be contemplated when you could no longer even send this class of criminals there. Would the Government found any other penal Colony? He did not think it so impossible as the noble Lord appeared to anticipate, and therefore, there ought to be fuller information afforded on this point. The Falkland Islands might be open to the objections stated by the noble Lord; but that was not the only place which might be taken for the purpose, and when he was Colonial Secretary he had received overtures on the subject from other places. Mention had also been made of Moreton Bay; but that could not be made a penal settlement without a breach of faith towards New South Wales, that district being now included in the Government of that Colony. When the impossibility of founding a new penal Colony was talked of, it should be remembered that the magnificent Colony of New South Wales had its origin in a penal Colony. The noble Lord had also spoken as to the variety of sentences which were awarded to nominally the same crime, and he referred it to the variety of characters existing among those who administered justice in our Courts of Law; but the real state of the case was, that in all the Courts, whether of assize or quarter-sessions, the variety of sentences was the result of the endless variety of guilt, although the crimes were nominally the same. He should conclude by stating that it was his intention to support the measure.
MACARTNEYsaid, that if this Bill was passed immediately, it would produce the greatest inconvenience in Ireland, where there was not sufficient accommodation for the present number of convicts, to say nothing of the increased number who would have to be provided for under the
1550
new system. What Ireland wanted was, an improved system of prison discipline, and the Government ought, at all events, to have given them eighteen months or two years to prepare for the change. At the present time there was suitable gaol accommodation in Ireland for no more than 3,434 persons, but the number of prisoners was actually 5,246. Moreover, the ticket-of-leave system would have a worse effect in Ireland than anywhere else, for in that country the state of morals among the labouring classes was very low indeed, and the people were easily corrupted. The turning loose 200 or 300 of these convicts among the lower orders was a very serious consideration. He had always heard that the Government could send as many convicts as they pleased to the northern part of New Holland.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he fully approved the proposition of the Government. The right hon. Baronet the late Colonial Secretary (Sir J. Pakington) had told the Committee that it was the intention of the late Government to put a stop to transportation at the beginning of next year. There was, therefore, only six months' difference between the propositions of the two Governments in point of time, but in every other respect the difference was very much greater in favour of the present proposition. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say that, knowing the feelings of the colonists on the subject, he would have landed convicts in Van Diemen's Land during the remainder of the period which he had fixed, because, if such were the intention of the right hon. Baronet, he would take leave to tell him that he would have run the risk of signalising his reign at the Colonial Office with as mischievous an éclat as had marked his predecessors. If there was any peculiar merit in the proposition of the Government, it was the promptness, readiness, and decision, with which they had recognised an urgent and palpable necessity. The reason for the introduction of the Bill was perfectly clear—that whereas the system of secondary punishment had consisted of three different stages—separate imprisonment, employment on public works, and transportation—the third of these stages had been rendered impracticable by recent circumstances. The only argument against the Bill was, that transportation was a desirable punishment; but it was useless to consider what was desirable when it could not be obtained. But even supposing it were still matter for argument, he considered transportation the least desirable punish-

1551
meat that could be inflicted. There were three grand objections to transportation as a punishment: that it was impossible to be carried out; that it was utterly detestable in itself; and that it was perfectly inefficient for the purpose in view. That it was impossible as a permanent system was manifest from the fact, that no settlement could be fixed as a permanent penal settlement; and the run after new settlements for the purpose, if not exhaustion, was extravagantly expensive. It was detestable as a punishment, by which Governments sought to get rid of the responsibility of their criminals by removing them out of sight, and by placing on their Colonies the burden for which they themselves ought to provide; and it was, moreover, a cowardly punishment, because no one ever thought of throwing this burden upon any but the weaker Colonies, who could not help themselves. No one ever suggested, for example, that Canada should be made a penal settlement; yet Canada, according to the noble Lord's theory, was peculiarly adapted for a penal settlement, by reason of the superior class and number of the population. It was inefficient as a punishment, because it was simply regarded as a means of enabling a man to remove to a place where his position would be infinitely ameliorated, as a transference, at the public expense, from poverty here to wealth in the gold regions of Australia. It must be borne in mind that the effect upon the lower classes of quitting the shores of England for a distant land was no longer what it used to be ten or twelve years ago, when all beyond this island was a terra incognita, regarded with doubts and fears; whereas now-a-days these classes knew as much or more about the Antipodes than they knew about their own country, and the effecting, somehow or other, of a removal thither was matter of general desire. Earl Grey himself, the most energetic champion of transportation remaining, had, out of his own mouth, condemned the system as an efficient punishment, when the other night he described transportation as absolutely a boon, which criminals had been taught to look forward to, and of which it was not fair to deprive them. A fine secondary punishment, truly!—a substitute for death itself! Most truly rejoiced was he to see in the measure now under consideration the termination of this system of punishing criminals with boons. He was satisfied that, by the effective operation of this measure, and by the application of reformatory processes, the sources of crime might be so narrowed
1552
that, before long, our ordinary prisons would amply suffice for all the convict criminality of the country. Much had been said of the opinions of the Judges. Now, he did not think Judges the persons best qualified to form an opinion as to the terrors of a sentence. It was a matter of absolute necessity that transportation should cease. And what was to be done in lieu of it? The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had darkly hinted at some other penal settlement. He seemed to linger about the precincts of Botany Bay, as if that Colony having been adopted first for penal purposes, had no right to disclaim being used for these purposes still. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: No, no!] He certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to intimate that the region of Botany Bay, having been a penal settlement, we had a sort of lien upon it for its original uses.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had been quite misunderstood.
ADDERLEYsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman repudiated that argument; and was glad to find, also, that both sides of the House acknowledged the propriety of endeavouring to cut off the spring of crime in this country, rather than of providing a depository for it in other countries. There was now a prospect of being so able to deal with criminals in this country, and especially the young, by a reformatory process, as to lead to a hope that it might be practically dealt with by the extended use and application of various kinds of prisons in this country. The system of detention was more in the nature of real punishment than transportation, and yet we had never dealt with the question of perpetual imprisonment as the nearest substitute, in the worst cases, for the penalty of death. The Duke of Newcastle had been taken up rather warmly for saying that they were singing the requiem of transportation; but he (Mr. Adderley) believed that system had come to an end of itself, and all that it was necessary for them to do was to prepare for the inevitable result. He rejoiced to think that this measure carried in it the seeds of the entire cessation of transportation, and that it was the germ of the transfer to this country very speedily of the whole system of secondary punishment. If, however, any transportation remained in operation, it ought to be conducted on principles diametrically opposed to those of the Bill, by which the most atrocious criminals were to be sent out to enjoy all the ad-

1553
vantages of the gold regions of Australia, and to demoralise the population; while minor criminals, who might be sent out with enormous benefit to themselves, and with, perhaps, slight, if any, injury to the colony, were to be kept at home, to be thrown hereafter into the misery and the vice which had involved them in punishment. The proposed gradation of punishment leaving the narrowed means of transportation to supply the highest instead of the lowest stage of sesondary penalty, evinced the lingering ignorance of statesmen that transportation has ceased to have terror in it, as a sentence, in this country, while the new sentence of penal servitude to be used for the lighter offences will carry much greater terror with it, and the order of punishment will become inverted.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he entirely concurred in the proposition which had been made by the noble Viscount the Home Secretary, whom he heartily thanked for a measure which he had been long desiring to see. He did not himself admit the expediency of the entire cessation of transportation which hon. Members opposite advocated. Western Australia, for example, so far from rejecting convict labour, required it as a means of developing her resources; but, undoubtedly, the convict labour to be supplied to Western Australia should be of the best and not of the worst description, as had been suggested by hon. Gentlemen. The worst classes of convicts, he felt, should be dealt with elsewhere. Colonel Jebb, to whose unwearied and most able efforts the country was so much indebted on this matter, in his Report on the Discipline and Management of Convict Prisons and Disposal of Convicts, (1852), observed—
"In considering the means necessary for giving effect to any change of system affecting the continuance of transportation, it is deserving of consideration whether it would not, in many respects, be desirable to form a penal establishment in this country for convicts convicted of the worst classes of crime, and for incorrigible convicts; and, if any are sent abroad, to make a selection of the best and most deserving of the convicts, instead of the very worst."
It was highly desirable that this suggestion should be carried out. There were many modes in which the labour of convicts could be made use of in this country with much public advantage. The entire system of our convict labour required amendment. Mr. Inspector Hitchins, in his Report on the State of Government Prisons in Ireland (1852), said, with re-
1554
gard to the public works in Spike Island—
"Serious complaints are made, however, of the limited number of prisoners appropriated to these public works, and the ineffectiveness of their labour. Fort Camden contains five small rooms leading out of each other. 132 prisoners are detained there. Fort Carlisle consists of two rooms fitted up to receive 84 convicts. The entire number of convicts contained in Spike Island and forts is 2,380."
With respect to the manufactures and employments carried on there, Mr. Hitchins said—
"While no difficulty will be found in providing employment for a portion of the prisoners confined in Mountjoy and other prisons, there is a large section of the convicts of Ireland quite unsuited for any trade or handicraft. The disposal of this class is a matter of serious moment; and I would again beg to bring before your Excellency the necessity of establishing an agricultural depôt either on the mainland or on some island. This is a measure which cannot be too speedily taken into consideration."
He trusted that the noble Lord would take these recommendations into his earnest consideration. The establishment of an agricultural depôt would be, in many ways, most beneficial, giving the convicts knowledge of an occupation and habits of industry, and, at the same time enabling them to save the State the cost of their maintenance. Another most beneficial employment of convicts might be in the construction of such public works as harbours of refuge. With comparatively small outlay, convict labour might be made to create, for example, a packet station and a harbour of refuge in Galway—an object, confessedly, of great public importance, and productive of largely valuable results. One great feature in the measure was the fixing the absolute period of punishment, instead of having, as now, one period named in the sentence, and another practically inflicted on the criminal. At present, an offender might be sentenced to seven, ten, or fourteen years' transportation, and yet, after all, not be transported at all—an uncertainty, notoriously productive of the worst effects upon the criminal classes, too well disposed to regard a sentence so passed as a form, if not, indeed, a farce. He trusted that the attention of the noble Lord would be applied to the best mode of dealing with convicts after the period at which they should be released, in this country, with conditional pardons or tickets of leave. It was a subject, no doubt, of great difficulty, and one upon which he had very serious doubts as to the propriety of carrying out as proposed at pre-

1555
sent. Upon this point Colonel Jebb observed—
"The class of convicts requiring assistance in this country would, probably, be most difficult to deal with; but if they were released with conditional and not free pardons, and some systematic efforts were made to enable them to meet the difficulties of their position, I should confidently expect a much more favourable result than might be generally anticipated. Rather than leave them to their fate and to the chance of Government being again burdened with the cost of a trial, and other attendant evils, I believe it would be desirable to retain the services, on public works, of such well-conducted convicts as could not readily find employment."
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he hailed this measure as a great improvement in our penal legislation, so far as regarded the system of secondary punishment. Transportation, as a punishment, was notoriously inefficacious, operating neither as an example to others—the main object of punishment—nor for the reformation of the offender, nor for his punishment at the most economical rate to the State. He fully concurred in the propriety of the objection that had been urged against sending out to the Colonies—if convicts were sent out at all—convicts of the worst, instead of those of the best description. There was, however, one great defect in the Bill, that it did not provide any means by which the convict, discharged from his imprisonment, should be placed in a position for putting to account the industrious habits and the reformed principles he might have acquired during his punishment. It was highly expedient that these unhappy persons, that they might not, of necessity, fall again into their evil associations and their evil courses, should be enabled, in some way, to proceed to a distant Colony, or to apply their reformed sentiments and their improved habits to the purpose of an honest livelihood. Another great object to be attained was the effective superintendence of the convicts who were to be retained at home with tickets of leave, instead of being transmitted to the Colonies.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the question had hitherto been argued as a convict question and a colonial question, and the effect of the measure upon our social system had almost been lost sight of. The 9th clause was of immense importance to this country, and must materially affect our various institutions. Looking at the accommodation to be provided for convicts in this country, it appeared to him that, in the course of a short period, a large number of men with tickets of leave would be thrown upon the industry
1556
of the country, together with those who had fulfilled the term of their imprisonment. These people would be brought into direct competition with well-conducted industry, and there was no saying how much injury might not be occasioned to the latter by this circumstance. He believed that such a plan would force upon the country a general system of police. The noble Lord had not explained the mode in which the ticket-of-leave system was to be carried out. On that point a considerable amount of discretion must be given to the Government, and he did not see how they could carry out the scheme, except by some general system of police. He thought the carrying out of the system would also involve the necessity of a full consideration of the law of settlement, and he was not at all satisfied that it would not cause a considerable additional expense to counties.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, that whatever doubt might be entertained as to the effect produced by sentences of transportation now, there could be no doubt they were formerly considered a very serious matter. As to the inequalities of sentences, they were occasioned by various matters brought to the knowledge of the Courts relative to the former conduct of the prisoners. He hoped to see the measure carried into a law, and trusted that both this country and the Colonies would greatly benefit by the change.
MR. MICHELLwished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to allow persons under sentence of transportation to be employed at harbours of refuge—works greatly required on many parts of our coast—provided no additional expense was incurred beyond the usual maintenance of the convicts.
MR. FLOYERsaid, it appeared to him that the classes exempted in the 11th clause were the very classes who, of all others, should be sentenced to transportation. He was not one of those who would do away altogether with the punishment of transportation. It placed the convict in a new country, removed him from the scene of his dissipation and guilt, brought him into communication with a new class of people, and opened up to him a new and more honest course of life. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question. One of the present depôts of convict labour—that at Portland—was situated in the county which he had the honour to represent. An apprehension prevailed in that neighbourhood that if, under the system, the ticket-of-leave men were to be dis-

1557
charged at the prison gates, a large addition would thereby be made to the surplus labour in the district, and, without doubt, the morals of the community around would suffer. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would adopt precautionary measures, in order to prevent such results?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in the first place, I have to express, on the part of the Government, the great gratification which they have felt at the general acquiescence in the leading principles of this measure; and, in the second place, I have to express our gratitude for the many valuable suggestions which hon. Members have thrown out in the course of this discussion; and which, bearing upon the execution of the measure, will receive our full and attentive consideration. I think that almost everybody seems to have come to the conclusion that this is a measure of necessity, that transportation to our Colonies could no longer be carried on. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) suggested that we should look back to the origin of New South Wales as a Colony founded by convicts; but I think his object has been somewhat misunderstood. I imagine that what he meant was this—not that the example of New South Wales gave us any claim upon other Colonies, but rather that we should found a new Colony in the same manner in which that Colony was founded. Now, I do not quite concur with the right hon. Baronet in the inference to be drawn from that example. I am disposed to think—what was stated by another hon. Gentleman—that if you look back to the infancy and childhood of New South Wales, however much it may have improved in its manhood and maturity, you will not see anything to induce you to follow the steps of those who founded that Colony as a penal settlement. I think there is one consideration which must have occurred to the mind of every person who has reflected upon the subject—that in founding a penal Colony in which you look to the enlargement of the convicts after a certain period of detention, you ought to provide that there shall be a due proportion of the sexes; and that is hardly possible if you begin a new penal Colony in the same manner in which New South Wales was founded. The right hon. Baronet said, that the statement I made was not perhaps as ample as might have been wished, in regard to the detailed means of execut-
1558
ing the different arrangements consequent upon the adoption of this principle. The fact is simply this—in explaining to the Committee a measure perfectly new, I thought it better to confine myself to those general principles upon which the Government had come to a final determination; but in regard to the detailed arrangements, which might be modified by experience as we go on, and by valuable suggestions, which may be and have been made to us from all sides, I thought it was not desirable for us to pledge ourselves as to what course we should finally pursue. But several points have been mentioned, to which I think it necessary to allude. First of all, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Floyer), I may repeat what I have already stated, that we hope to be able to give employment on public works, not with convicts, but separately and for wages to those convicts to whom tickets of leave may be granted. I think that the greater number of those to whom tickets of leave are given, will gratefully accept such employment as a transition, by which to get back to the ordinary employment of the country; and those who are so employed will invariably be taken away from the immediate neighbourhood of the depôt from which they received their discharge. With regard to the question how far we can expect that public works will be found to give employment to the convicts, I have only to say that, as far as we can look forward, I think no apprehension need be felt upon this subject. There are numerous applications for harbours of refuge and for works of great utility on the coast, which could be performed cheaply and advantageously by the employment of convict labour. Then it was said it would not be right to send our worst criminals to Western Australia. I admit that; and the Committee ought to remember that there are means of employing such persons upon public works within the United Kingdom, as well as at Bermuda, Gibraltar, and other places, where offenders undergoing a long servitude might be sent, instead of to Western Australia. All those who have spoken, have expressed but one opinion as to the desirability of so improving our system of treatment for prisoners, that we should endeavour not only to reform them morally, but to instil into them a consciousness and perception of the value of industry, and of the fruits which it in-

1559
variably produces. I am not the least afraid that the industrial employment of the convicts, whether it be in agricultural occupations, or in the construction of public works, or in other descriptions of labour, could have any prejudicial effect upon the general industry of the country. That alarm I believe to be perfectly groundless; and, on the contrary, I think the public benefit which will accrue from the employment of convicts upon works of utility, and from impressing them with the conviction that it is better to live by industry than by the fraudulent and dishonest exercise of their intellect, will infinitely counterbalance any little jealousy which any trade might feel at the competition of persons so situated and so employed. I think these are the principal points which have been touched upon. I shall feel it my duty to carefully consider the different suggestions which hon. Members have made in the course of this debate. The detailed arrangements for the execution of this measure are matters which require attentive consideration; and I am happy to say that in the consideration of these details, as well as in carrying them out, I have every reason to rely on the most able officers, such as Colonel Jebb and others who have been referred to. I therefore feel that it will be my own fault if I am not able to make such arrangements as will at once satisfy the public, and accomplish the purpose which Parliament has in view, in giving its sanction to the present measure.
Clause 1.
Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he hoped the two first clauses would be omitted, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole).
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas not prepared to accede to that proposition.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwould suggest the substitution of the words "period of imprisonment" for "penal servitude," because if, by the latter words, the Government meant to distinguish that punishment which was to be a substitute for transportation, then larceny, which could not be punished with transportation, would not be brought within the scope of this Bill.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the object of the Government was this. They did not intend to touch the law by which confinement within the walls of a prison was
1560
awarded for a certain limited period, not exceeding three years, but to deal simply with sentences of transportation, which constituted a different punishment altogether. If Parliament should think it right to deal with sentences of imprisonment, it might do so, but that would require a separate measure.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know if the noble Lord would have any objection to alter the clause so as to do away with transportation for less than ten years, instead of for less than fourteen years?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was not prepared to consent to any alteration in the Bill.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
MR. BOUVERIEbrought up the Report of the Committee of Supply.
Resolutions 1 to 4 agreed to.
(5.) Naval Coast Volunteers.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could assign any reason why rum should be the only spirit selected for consumption in the Navy? During the last thirteen years, various tenders had been made to supply the Navy with spirits, the produce of British corn and British labour. In 1841, this question was submitted to the consideration of Parliament, and the Board of Admiralty at that time gave the House to understand that, acting in accordance with the advice of medical authorities, the heads of the victualling department were about to introduce some other spirit beside rum for the use of British sailors. Since that period, the question had not been much mooted; no steps had been taken to carry out the promise of 1841; and he understood that at this very time a contract was being executed for supplying Her Majesty's Navy with 30,000 gallons of rum. Now, it certainly was a very surprising fact, that free-trade Ministries, which had carried the principle of unrestricted competition so far as to accept tenders for supplying the British Navy with foreign beef, pork, and bread, had endeavoured to prop up the colonial monopoly in supplying the same Navy with rum. The parties whose interests he was then advocating did not ask the Board of Admiralty to take British

1561
spirits at a higher rate or of a worse quality than the colonial spirit. On the contrary, they contended that they would supply a better article at a lower price. An application had lately been made to the Board to the effect that sailors in the Royal Navy should have the same privilege extended to them in that matter which was enjoyed by sailors in the mercantile navy, and that they should be allowed to use rum, or other spirits, just as they themselves might prefer. But that application was met by a decided refusal. He had been informed that the spirit which was supplied to the Royal Navy was what was called "the sweepings" of the rum in the market, and that it had been sold at the rate of 2s. 1d., while the price of good rum varied from 2s. 8d. to 3s. But even at the price of 2s. 1d., he believed that a better article could be obtained from the manufacturer of British spirits. It was evident that the public in general preferred British spirits to rum; for while the annual consumption of the former in the United Kingdom amounted to 24,000,000 of gallons, the annual consumption of the latter amounted to only 4,000,000 of gallons. He wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Baronet could offer any explanation of the course taken by the Admiralty upon that subject; and, also, whether he would have any objection to lay before the House the correspondence which had taken place with respect to it between the Board of Admiralty and the representatives of the distillers of the United Kingdom?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must confess that he must plead ignorance of the precise expressions with reference to the rum market to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He did not know what the "sweepings of the rum market" were, and he could not, therefore, offer any explanation upon that part of the subject. He really must beg leave, however, somewhat to doubt whether this question had originated from any desire to promote the comfort of the sailor, or whether it had not rather some more immediate connexion with the distilling interest of the United Kingdom. But, whatever the reason, he could only answer the hon. Gentleman in one way—namely, that it was the opinion of the Board of Admiralty that it would not be conducive to the good of the service or to the discipline of the troops if there were an issue of more than one kind of spirit on board Her Majesty's ships. From almost time immemorial rum had been the spirit
1562
in use in Her Majesty's Navy. Every effort had been made to induce the sailor to prefer the use of other stimulants to spirits. Coffee and other liquids had been introduced in the hope of leading to a diminished use of ardent spirits. There was now, therefore, only one issue of spirits daily, and it would occasion the greatest possible inconvenience if there was to be an issue of more than one description of spirit. Then came the question, what the spirit should be; and considerations both of habit and taste, and, as he believed, also the health of the sailor, had induced the Board of Admiralty to give the preference to rum. The subject had been brought before various Boards of Admiralty, and all had concurred in the opinion that it was the preferable spirit. If the hon. Gentleman wished to see the correspondence between the Board of Admiralty and the distillers, he had no objection to produce it.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would be prepared to lay before the House a copy of the medical report which had been made upon that subject? He understood that the question had been referred by the Board of Admiralty to the medical officers of the Navy, with a view to ascertain whether in a medical point of view rum possessed any advantage over home-made spirits. He was given to understand that the Report of those officers was in favour of native spirits, and that, in their opinion, rum contained deleterious qualities which those spirits did not possess, while it did not contain their good qualities. He believed that if a choice was given in this matter to the sailor, he would invariably prefer British to Colonial spirits. There was no doubt that the movement against the existing practice in the Royal Navy had originated with the distillers of the United Kingdom; but those gentlemen were perfectly justified in seeking to obtain the abolition of a monopoly which was a direct infraction of that principle of unrestricted competition which had of late years been adopted in the commercial policy of this country.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that that was not a question of free trade or of monopoly; it was merely a question of what was most conducive to the discipline and the comfort of the men in Her Majesty's Navy. He was not aware whether the question of health, as regarded the use of any particular kind of spirits in the Royal Navy, had been under the consideration of

1563
any medical officers. But he should say that if the Board of Admiralty were not competent to decide a case of that kind, or if their decision were to be set aside by the House of Commons, the sooner the Board abandoned its functions and was abolished, the better.
Resolutions agreed to; as were also Resolutions 6 and 7.

SUPPLY—ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS.
(8.) 407,667 l., Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home.
MR. LUCASsaid, he had been in communcation with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) on a subject connected with this Vote, and he had to thank the noble Lord for his great attention, courtesy, and frankness. Referring to the form of the Vote, hon. Members would find that there were sixteen Government prisons, of which eight in Great Britain were entered on one page, and eight in Ireland on the other. It was an extraordinary fact that two systems of prison discipline, as respected one very material point, were enforced in those prisons—that the system in the prisons which were included in one-half of the Vote, was different from the system in the prisons which were included in the other half of the Vote. He referred to the provision made for the religious instruction and moral reformation of prisoners, and particularly of Catholic prisoners. In Ireland there was one practice and arrangement, and in England another which was totally different. The House would see that this was a question which was of the greatest importance, in consequence of the change about to be made in the manner of treating criminals. The system of transportation had been abolished, or nearly so. The treatment of prisoners was to be almost entirely at home, and therefore their discipline and management had relation to the system of transportation, as that system was carried out in the Colonies. What had been the system pursued in the Colonies with respect to religious instruction? It had been that of perfect religious equality. No difference whatever had been made in the religious treatment of convicts in consequence of differences of religion. That system originated with the Earl of Derby when Secretary for the Colonies; and, with the permission of the House, he would refer to what that noble Lord said in 1847. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract in which Lord Derby expressed the opinion that it
1564
was a scandal and a shame that we had not appointed ministers of religion to attend to the spiritual wants of criminals, and that it was a matter of satisfaction to him that he had sent out Protestant ministers and Roman Catholic clergy, whose efforts had been attended with beneficial results.] It was while Lord Derby was Colonial Secretary that a commencement was made of sending out both Protestant and Catholic chaplains to Sydney, and Van Diemen's Land. The same arrangement bad continued up to the present time, and been attended with the best possible results. Seeing that the system of transportation was to be stopped, and that the prisoners were going to spend their time at home instead of in a penal settlement abroad, the question he (Mr. Lucas) had to put was, whether a system which had worked so well at the antipodes was to be introduced into the prisons of Great Britain? He said Great Britain, because the system pursued in the Colonies had long been in operation in Ireland. In the Irish Government prisons the arrangement was simply this—that the prisoners were all, on being admitted into the gaols, entered according to the religion they professed, whether Protestant, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Catholic, as professing that religion whatever it might be. There was a chaplain for each religious denomination who received a salary. In die county gaols, as well as the Government prisons, the same system prevailed. In the Irish prisons the prisoners had all the religious services they required, the weekly services on Sundays and holidays, and every comfort and accommodation which persons in their situation needed. In Ireland so completely was the system of religious equality carried out, that the Catholic chaplain gave his services to the Catholic prisoners, and the Protestant chaplain his to the Protestant prisoners. There was no temptation put in the way to induce Catholic prisoners to practise hypocrisy from the moment of entering the prison. In the English prisons, however, nothing was known in law but a Protestant chaplain. If a prisoner chose to ask for the services of a Catholic chaplain, he could do so, and might receive those services; but the person whom he must try to please, if he wished a character for good conduct, was the Protestant chaplain; and the system worked so that it was, in point of fact an inducement to the Roman Catholic prisoners to act hypocritically in order to obtain the favour of the Protestant chaplain, though at the same time he

1565
did not mean to say the system was intentionally worked so. He had that fact from the very best authority, namely, the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Kingsmill, who for many years had been chaplain of Pentonville prison, and who was examined before a Parliamentary Committee on the 22d of March, 1847. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from the evidence, stating that there was no difficulty in a Catholic prisoner seeing his friends; that there were seldom in Pentonville prison more than 200 out of 500 who professed, at entrance, to be Catholics; but that many Catholics entered their names as Protestants, lost some feeling should militate against them if it were known that they were Catholics.] It must be obvious that those numbers could not be true as respected the Catholics who entered Pentonville. The Right Rev. Dr. Wilson, Bishop of Hobart Town, whose name was well known as connected with the Colony of Van Diemen's Land, and for the great services he had performed with reference to convicts in that settlement, stated the result of his experience to be, that he had always found, with respect to the numbers who attended Catholic services, that every ship from England carried from 15 to 20 per cent of Catholics, and every ship from Ireland not more than 10 per cent of Protestants. Dr. Wilson had been visiting several prisons in this country, and he found that at Portland only-forty were visited by a Catholic clergyman, who was permitted to visit once a fortnight, receiving 10 s. for doing so, and was required to give his receipt. At Parkhurst the visit must be paid from one to three o'clock, so that Catholic prisoners had not the usual service on Sunday. The number attended was stated as being only twenty, and as sometimes having been only one or two; and the gentleman who attended never received one farthing for his attendance. The House would see that there was an immense difference between the apparent percentage of Roman Catholics in the gaols here, and the real percentage in Van Diemen's Land, where equality prevailed, and where there were no motives for hypocrisy. Great sums were devoted to the reformation of criminals; but the worst basis for their reformation was hypocrisy practised even from the moment of entering the prison. There could be no desire in any part of that House—there could be motive—for continuing a system which was at variance with their practice in Ireland and the Colonies, and which was
1566
maintained here only because attention had not been sufficiently directed to the subject. There was, he believed, no difficulty in preventing the correction of the abuse complained of. Though the vote referred only to Government prisons, yet he might be permitted to remark that the same abuse and grievance extended to all county gaols, the difference between the Government prisons and the county gaols being, that the former were under the direction and control of the Home Office, while the latter, although he believed under its supervision, were more difficult to be dealt with. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department would perhaps inform him whether there was a statutory obstacle to the control of county gaols by the Home Office. Of course, there were some prisons where the number of Catholic prisoners was small; but the same case occurred in Ireland, where it was met without the smallest difficulty. From returns of the Protestant and Catholic prisoners in the Government prisons of Ireland, it appeared that in Mountjoy prison the average number of Catholics was 480; of Protestants, twenty; and of Presbyterians, seven or eight; yet there were three chaplains. In Smithfield prison the average number of Catholics was 280; of Protestants forty-five; and of Presbyterians, eight or nine; and so with respect to the others, such were the proportions that notoriously prevailed. The difference between England and Ireland was, that whereas the larger proportion of prisoners in Ireland was Catholic, the larger proportion in England was Protestant. The difficulty differed not in kind, but only in respect that it was a Catholic difficulty in the one country, and a Protestant difficulty in the other. As the practical difficulty had been overcome in Ireland, in Van Diemen's Land, and in New South Wales, so ought it to be in England. He had received particulars from various prisons, showing the great neglect and difficulties which the Catholic priests had to undergo who were obliged to attend to the spiritual and moral instruction of Catholic prisoners. They were required by their position to act really as Government officers. They were doing a service which the Government paid a Protestant chaplain largely for performing when it was rendered to Protestant prisoners. But in almost every prison the Catholic chaplain was not thought worthy of any remuneration; in others they received remuneration almost involving de-

1567
gradation. That state of things was very objectionable. He had read an extract from evidence given in 1847 by the Rev. Mr. Kingsmill, of whom he did not wish to speak except in terms of respect. But it was obvious that Mr. Kingsmill had got a very wrong notion of the duties which attached to his functions. He had published a book, in which he took notice of having made that invaluable discovery that the Catholic Church was Antichrist, and the Pope the Man of Sin. He had published that book in the character of chaplain (there was not the least objection to his publishing it in his personal character), and he expressed his rejoicing on account of persons being brought over to the service of the English Church who had lived so long in Ireland that they knew better than others how to deal with the Man of Sin and Antichrist. It was not meant to say that he put it in an offensive way; but he certainly had a wrong notion of his functions, and he acted on that wrong view as a man who was anxious to fulfil his duty. He evidently believed that his duty in the prison was to make proselytes, to convert the benighted Papists into the profession of the Protestant faith, and that nothing could be done for the moral improvement of Catholic prisoners till he had done the work of a controversialist. It was only recently that this fact happened at Pentonville prison. Last Easter twelvemonth the Catholic priest who was accustomed to attend that prison, made inquiry as to the number of Catholic prisoners, with the view of attending them for their Easter duties. He got a list of eighty. Some weeks before last Easter he was informed that such a list would not be furnished to him in future. He was to have a list only, it should seem, of those who were bold enough, in the face of temporal interest, to make a demand for the services of the priest. Last Easter he got a list, but it contained only fifteen names. He had moved for returns of the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively in all the prisons of the United Kingdom; but he would like to know whether the returns were to be made up on the principle of putting down all Roman Catholics, or on the other principle of inserting only those who had the courage to demand the services of a Roman Catholic clergyman? The subject which he had brought before the House was one of extreme interest, and if the Government were to take the management of all prisoners at
1568
home, it became of great and increasing importance. He should not presume to anticipate what answer the noble Lord would give to his appeal; but it was an appeal to which only one answer could be give among rational and fair-minded men—and that was an assent to the demand which he now made. He apologised for the time he had taken in making his statement, and he left it to the noble Lord to state what course he intended to pursue.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was sure the hon. Member who had just sat down did not need to make an apology to the House for having brought under their consideration a matter of such great interest and of such deep importance. For his own part, he had to thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which in private he had communicated the views he meant afterwards to state to the House. Perhaps, as regarded the difference to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted, between the proportion of Catholics and protestants, as appearing in the returns of prisons here, and the proportion which appeared in the Colonies, he was not sure whether he understood the statement exactly as the hon. Gentleman had put it; but if he understood it rightly, that difference might be accounted for by the fact that the convicts in the Colonies included all those who came from Ireland as well as those who came from England.
MR. LUCASsaid, in explanation, that the statement he had made was, that the Catholics coming to New South Wales from England were 15 per cent of the convicts thence, while the Protestants coining from Ireland were 10 per cent of the convicts thence.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, however that might be, he had taken precautions to prevent mistake on that point in future. He had issued directions that, on entry to prison, a prisoner should be called on to state to what religious persuasion he belonged. Therefore, the declaration of the prisoner on his arrival at the gaol would be taken as evidence whether he was a Protestant or a Catholic; or, if a Protestant, whether he was of the Church of England or a Presbyterian. Beyond that, he was ready to admit to the hon. Gentleman that the prisoner who made that declaration ought to know that nothing in regard to his comfort in gaol would depend on whether he declared himself of one religion or another; that he ought to be equally sure of receiving religious in-

1569
struction from a clergyman of his own creed, and equally sure that the testimony with regard to his conduct in prison, so far as his conduct depended on his religious instruction, should be given by an instructor of his own religion, and not be dependent upon the opinion of one who was hostile to his creed. He thought that this was a matter which really required only to be stated, in order that everybody might arrive at the same conclusion; for what was their object in the treatment of prisoners? Their object was, of course, reformation, as far as that reformation could be effected; and how could that reformation be adequately effected if religious consolation were given to a man by a clergyman of an opposite creed? In the first place, if a prisoner who was a Roman Catholic came into the prison and declared Himself a Protestant, thinking that that declaration might turn to his advantage, he began with an act of hypocrisy; and if a Protestant clergyman should proceed in his own way to administer instruction to him, the heart of that man would be hardened against such instruction, which would conflict with his originally imbibed opinions. They would therefore be scattering seed on a sterile soil, which would necessarily lead to no good result. On the other hand, if the prisoner, having declared himself a Catholic, had no instruction afforded him but that of Protestantism, the time which ought to be spent in religious instruction might be wasted in theological controversy—the clergyman, in endeavouring to convert the man to a different religion, would spend the time, which in all probability would be more profitably employed in attempting to give him that religions instruction which he was ready to take, and which was in accordance with the opinions in which he placed confidence and trust. It was therefore quite evident that they would be defeating their own object if they did not give to prisoners of all religious denominations instruction in that shape and from that quarter which would render it most useful to the purposes of moral and religious improvement. The hon. Gentleman had asked for certain returns, which he (Visct. Palmerston) should grant with great pleasure, and which would afford in detail all the data for the foundation of an improved system. As far as Government prisons were concerned, he was quite prepared to state that he should feel it to be his duty to take steps for carrying into effect the views which the hon.
1570
Gentleman had just now so properly expressed to the House—that was to say, that in every Government prison there should be religious instruction given to every Catholic and Dissenter, as well as to every member of the Church of England, and that the person who gave it should receive that treatment which was consistent with a due respect to his character, and such reward as might be adequate to the duties which he had to perform. He thought that this was a necessary ingredient in the improved system of convict treatment; and he quite agreed in thinking that this was the more essential in proportion as we kept our convicts at home, instead of sending them to our Colonies. In regard to county prisons, he was rather inclined to think that some legislative alteration might be necessary. He was not then quite prepared to say to what extent the State had power with regard to them; but, as far as he was informed, their power to sanction regulations applied only to the discipline of gaols, and did not apply to appointment and remuneration for duties such as those now in question; and, if that should be so, it would be his duty early next Session to prepare and submit to Parliament a measure for the purpose of placing religious instruction in county gaols on the same footing as religious instruction in prisons more immmediately under the control of the Government. He hoped that this statement would be satisfactory, not only to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), but also in like manner to the House at large. He was quite sure that in matters of this sort there was no difference between Protestants and Catholics as to what was the proper course to pursue, because it was quite obvious that, as in a country like Ireland, where the great proportion of the people were Catholics, provision ought to be made for the instruction of such prisoners as were Protestant; so in England, where the great proportion of the people were Protestants, provision ought also to be made in like manner for the instruction of such prisoners as happened to be Catholics. We ought not to make our gaols arenas of theological discussion, or schools of proselytism. They ought rather to be made places of reformation, and moral and religious improvement; and therefore, that the administration of religious instruction should be given in the manner to which persons had always been accustomed.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he hoped the noble

1571
Lord would bear in mind the principles which he had so satisfactorily announced relative to the reformation of juvenile offenders, not only in the prisons, but also in the workhouses throughout the United Kingdom.
Resolution agreed to; as was also Res. 9.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS ACTS CON- TINUANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYpresented a petition from a Sanitary Committee at Stoke Newington, praying that, as the Bill only continued the existing Commission for one year, such borrowing powers only should be given them as was necessary for the execution of works which were urgently demanded.
Lord DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that in point of fact the Commission expired on the 7th of August, and he wished, therefore, to inquire whether it was possible to continue a thing which had no existence?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his noble Friend must not be surprised to be informed that Parliament had the power of continuing an Act which had no existence. The Act of 48 Geo. c. 106, provided specially for cases of this sort. He might here state that, he had given notice that he should move an instruction to the Committee, which might appear an enlargement of the powers of the Commission, but which was, in point of fact, a restriction of them. By the law as it now stood the Commission had unlimited powers of borrowing. He originally proposed to restrict the power to 500,000 l., of which 100,000 l. was the sum already borrowed. A number of the metropolitan Members, however, having urged that their constituents were alarmed at the large amount of new debt to be contracted, he had desired the Commissioners to revise their estimates, and to strike out from the works which they had intended to do within the twelve months everything but that which was urgently necessary for the comfort of the inhabitants. The Commissioners had done so, and he had now to propose to diminish the borrowing powers of the Commission from 500,000 l. to 300,000 l., that was to say, the 100,000 l. formerly borrowed, and 200,000 l. additional. With respect to the sewerage at West Hackney, he begged to state to his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) that before the works were undertaken, he (Lord Palmerston) should be
1572
happy to receive a deputation from the people of West Hackney, composed of those who were most competent to form an opinion, and to judge of the matter, and to invite the Commissioners of Sewers to meet them at the Home Office for the purpose of having the matter discussed between them; and he could assure his hon. Friend that nothing should be undertaken which was not considered as adapted to relieve the district from the inconvenience of which the inhabitants loudly complained. With regard, also, to drainage works in other districts, if the inhabitants thought that they were not calculated to afford them relief, they would not be proceeded with. He knew that in many parts of the metropolis the greatest inconvenience was now suffered from the want of drainage; and that the reduction which he had thought it right to make, in deference to the wishes of the metropolitan Members, would still leave unaccomplished many works which were most urgently necessary; but if he should be able in the early part of next Session to reconstruct the Commission, and put it on a different footing, there would probably be time to make provision for those works without any material inconvenience being sustained meanwhile.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, if he rightly understood the noble Lord, he would take the opinion of the inhabitants of the district in which the outlay was to be made; but if the result were only to be that, after a conference of that nature, the opinion of the Committee was still to be maintained, then he should object to so much of the expense as would be occasioned by converting Hackney Brook into an arterial sewer.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if he found the people of West Hackney did not wish to improve their sewers, he did not apprehend the Commissioners would wish to force them.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the noble Lord was mistaken, in supposing that at present the Commissioners had power to raise money to an unlimited amount. He was quite aware of the clause in the 11 & 12 Vict. which appeared to have conveyed the impression to the noble Lord; but the noble Lord would find, upon inquiry, that the power of borrowing was so restricted and hampered by other clauses in the same Act, that, practically, the Commissioners had no such power as the noble Lord imagined. His noble Friend, therefore, instead of restricting the powers

1573
of the Commissioners, did, in point of fact, propose to give them powers which they did not possess. He must say, that he thought the noble Lord had pursued a course with reference to this Bill which was hardly fair towards the House, and was most unjust towards the inhabitants of the metropolis. Previous to the Easter recess, he (Sir B. Hall) asked the noble Lord what he intended to do with the irresponsible Commission of Sewers? The noble Lord stated frankly, that it was utterly impossible to answer the question until the great London Drainage Bill was disposed of. That Bill was disposed of on the 14th of June, when he again asked the noble Lord what course he intended to take. The noble Lord replied, that he intended to bring in a Continuance Bill. In pursuance of this statement, a Continuance Bill was brought in on the 14th of July, and read a first time. It was read a second time on the 18th of July, about two or three o'clock in the morning, and without the slightest opposition from the metropolitan Members, because they placed confidence in the assurance that was given them, that the Bill should be a mere Continuance Bill for one year, and they could not for one moment suppose that any clause would be proposed, empowering the Commissioners to raise money by mortgage on the rates of the metropolis. But no sooner was the Bill read a second time, than a clause was circulated, enabling the Commissioners to raise 500,000 l. by mortgage of the rates. This course of proceeding was not fair to the House or the metropolitan Members. He complained that the privilege of managing their own local affairs, which was enjoyed by the inhabitants of every borough in the kingdom, was denied to the inhabitants of the metropolis, who had no control over the expenditure of rates, levied by irresponsible Commissioners. He might state, with reference to the history of the Commissioners of Sewers, that in 1851, when the Act under which they were appointed expired, great discontent with regard to their proceedings existed in the metropolis, and a measure was eventually adopted, continuing the Commission for one year, and appointing a salaried Commissioner to preside over the body. The Metropolitan Sewers Act required the clerk of the Commissioners to keep a record of their proceedings, which was to be open to the inspection of the ratepayers. He must remind the House that the Commissioners possessed very extensive powers, for they
1574
were enabled to levy a taxation of about a quarter of a million annually, without any control on the part of the ratepayers, upon property of the annual value of about 9,500,000 l. He, as a ratepayer, applied at the office of the Commissioners to inspect the Minutes; but he found that there was no entry of the proceedings at the board meetings from the 11th of October, 1850, to the 13th of May, 1851. He asked for the manuscript Minutes of the proceedings of the Court, and he was shown rough papers, some of which were without date or signature. On the 11th of April, 1851, the Court had met and made a rate of 6d. in the pound; but that order had not been entered in the Minute-book on the 13th of May. It appeared, indeed, that only rough Minutes, or rather heads of Minutes, had been taken of the proceedings; and the secretary trusted, in a great measure, to his memory to draw them out. On the 29th of April, the Court determined upon borrowing 10,000 l., and such was their difficulty in obtaining it, that they were obliged to pay 5 per cent interest; but even that transaction bad not been entered in the proceedings. When he left the office the secretary said, "I admit that from January to the present time no Minute has been entered in conformity with the Statute," This was the manner in which the Commission, which it was now proposed to inflict upon the metropolis for another year, had discharged its duties. He (Sir B. Hall) was at the office for two hours and a half, and eight clerks, the secretary, and one of the legal advisers of the Commissioners, were employed in collecting the small amount of information which he obtained. In 1851, the noble Member for the City of London brought in a Bill to continue the Commission for one year, and giving power to the Government to appoint a salaried chairman; but the distrust which Parliament entertained of the Commissioners was shown by the fact, that a clause was inserted restricting them from levying a rate exceeding 3d. in the pound. In 1852 there was a change of Government—there was great anxiety to get through the Session that a dissolution might take place—and the then Chief Commissioner of Works brought in a Bill to continue the Commission, which gave the Board power to make a rate of 6d. in the pound, the noble Lord giving at the same time a positive pledge that a Bill should be brought in during the present Session to do away entirely with the exist-

1575
ing Commissioners, and establish a new Commission based on the representative principle. He would briefly state to the House the liabilities of the Commission. The new works in one year cost 11,750 l., and the expenses of management and supervision were 16,870 l. In 1850 the debt was 25,900 l.; and in 1851 it was 56,832 l., although the receipts had increased from 91,000 l. to 129,000 l. The debt had gone on gradually increasing, and at this moment, according to a late return, the debt and liabilities of the Commissioners amounted to no less than 174,196 l. In 1852 the new works and repairs cost 70,546 l., and the management and supervision cost 21,000 l., or 30 per cent upon the work done. In the half-year ending June last the expense of works and repairs was 31,454 l., and of management and supervision 12,000 l. He knew that in the case of works of this kind the supervision must be expensive; but works for which such large sums of money were paid ought to be properly executed. The Commissioners had executed only one great work, and that was the Victoria sewer, which was as great a nuisance to that part of London as the boards of health had been. The estimate of the surveyors for that sewer was 13,854 l., the contract price was 12,000 l., the actual cost was 28,000 l., besides which there were claims for compensation amounting to 16,400 l. According to the recent estimate of a person employed by the Commissioners themselves, this work, which was originally estimated at 13,854 l., would cost 59,823 l., or, deducting the compensation claimed by the Duke of Northumberland, 48,823 l. He (Sir B. Hall) had admitted that the expense of supervision must be great; but he would now show that the money had been wasted, and that the supervising engineers had either neglected their duty, or were wholly ignorant, for it appeared, from an examination of the levels in this sewer, that out of thirty-eight no less than thirty-seven had not been built according to the design. In another part of the sewer eight lengths had been examined, and in only one of those lengths had the work been constructed according to the original design. Another surveyor employed by the Commissioners had also reported that the Whitehall sewer was in an unsound and dangerous state, and expressed his opinion that there was no mode of rendering any of the sewers between Whitehall and the Thames perfectly safe without entirely reconstructing them. He
1576
(Sir B. Hall) thought, then, that the ratepayers of the metropolis had reason to complain that when these irresponsible Commissioners had completed works at an extravagant price, those works were perfectly useless and required entire reconstruction. A return before the House gave a sketch of the state of the sewers laid down by the Commissioners. A survey had been made of 122 pipe sewers, and out of that number sixty-nine were found to contain two and a half inches of deposit, while some were cracked, and others entirely broken; yet the Commissioners were still laying down these pipes, which were perfectly useless, at an immense cost to the ratepayers. He (Sir B. Hall) would ask the House to contrast the position in which the metropolis was placed with regard to the management of matters of this kind, with the position of provincial towns. To elucidate this he would instance the case of four corporate towns in the county of Dorset, and contrast them with four boroughs in the county of Middlesex. He would give the names of the boroughs, the number of houses paying duty, the amount of duty paid, and the population in each of these towns. They stood as follows:—

Houses paying duty.

Duty paid.

Population.

Poole

143

£126

9,255

Shaftesbury

55

59

9,404

Wareham

41

42

7,218

Bridport

165

201

7,566

404

£428

33,443

The inhabitants of these small boroughs were allowed by the Legislature to manage their own affairs. He would now turn to the county of Middlesex, and exhibit the case of four of the largest boroughs in the empire.

Houses paying duty.

Duty paid.

Population.

Marylebone

34,569

£76,835

370,957

Finsbury

27,208

42,534

323,772

Tower Hamlets

25,001

25,522

539,111

Westminster

20,146

67,396

241,611

106,924

£212,287

1,475,451

The inhabitants of those important boroughs had no voice with regard to the imposition or disposal of a large amount of taxation, which was entirely under the control of irresponsible commissioners. He thought this was an injustice of which the ratepayers of the metropolis were entitled to complain, and which the Government should take measures to remove. He regarded the proposal of the noble Home Secretary

1577
as very objectionable, but it had been materially modified since its first introduction; and he thought the assurance given by the noble Lord that the money would not be expended without some communication being made to the inhabitant ratepayers, was very satisfactory. If no new works were undertaken which were not absolutely necessary for the welfare and health of the inhabitants, and if some means were adopted of ascertaining the views of the inhabitants before such works were carried out, he thought some of the main objections to this measure were removed. But the injustice of not allowing the inhabitants of these great boroughs to manage their own affairs was so monstrous, that he must vote against the instructions to the Committee, for he could not sanction a proposal by which it was intended to permit an irresponsible Commission to levy 300,000 l. as a mortgage on the rates of the metropolis, and more especially so as that Commission had proved itself quite unequal to the discharge of the duties intrusted to it.
MR. PETOsaid, as he had been connected for two years with the Sewers Commission of the Metropolis, he wished to say a few words respecting this Bill. When that Commission was originally appointed, it consisted of thirty-two or thirty-three individuals, and there was a violent schism between them, one party headed by Mr. Chadwick being in favour of sumpts and pipe drains, and the other led by Mr. Phillips, advocating the plan of conveying the sewage by main drains so far below the metropolis that it should not be brought back again by the tide. The Board of Works, the then head of which was the Earl of Carlisle, appointed a Commission of practical men to investigate into the sewerage system in the metropolis, and, if possible, to propose an efficient plan for effecting that object in a complete and substantial manner. When he (Mr. Peto) was called upon to take a part in the affairs of that Commission, the Board was composed of practical men, and he had associated with him Mr. Robert Stephenson, Sir William Cubitt, Mr. Rendell, Sir John Burgoyne, Captain Veitch, Sir Henry de la Beche, and other eminent persons. They at once told the First Commissioner of Works that they could not consent to act, except on the express understanding that they were to undertake the formation of a plan to give a complete and efficient drainage to the metropolis; and to advise the Government as to the best mode of carrying that plan into execution. An under-ground
1578
survey of the metropolis had been previously ordered; and although it was not ready when they first took office, they afterwards found it of very essential service to them. At their first meeting they laid down certain rules upon which they should act in the formation of the plan they had in view; the first being, that the whole Sewage of the metropolis should be taken such a distance below London that it would be impossible for it ever to return. Their second principle was, that wherever they could form sewers in which the matter by its own gravitation and by proper flushing would be swept away, they would adopt them in preference to pumping; but that in other cases they would use pumps. The Commissioners bestowed the greatest labour and pains upon their plan, and when it was at length completed it received the unanimous sanction of the whole Board. They placed it before the Government, and they also laid it in the shape of a Report before Parliament; but up to the present moment not a single step had ever been taken for the purpose of carrying it into effect. The Commissioners feeling, therefore, that they were placed in a hopeless position, and that they would only be suspected of incompetence to fulfil their duties, placed their resignation in the hands of the Government, and the Commission ceased to exist. A temporary Commission was then appointed, consisting of men, many of them of the very highest character and talents; but placed in the situation they were, it was perfectly impossible that they should satisfactorily discharge their functions. Without being at all wedded to their plan, the members of the former Commission begged to assure the noble Lord that he might command their time at any period during the recess, and that the best advice they could give him on this difficult question they would always most cheefully render. He thought the metropolitan Members had good cause to be dissatisfied; but the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was a little in error with respect to the management charges. He (Mr. Peto) had taken particular notice of those charges, and he found that in one year, when the total expenditure amounted to 122,098 l., they were only 21,209 l., or 17½ per cent; and if it had not been for local superintendence of works, they would have been only 12 per cent. The fact was, those charges comprised a great many items besides the management of new works. As to the Victoria-street sewer, they had the statement of Mr. Simpson (upon which

1579
they might entirely rely) that they could not have selected a better line or a better outlet, though in its execution there had been much to be regretted. The Commissioners, however, were placed in a very unfortunate position. Mr. Forster, who had been appointed engineer-in-chief, was taken seriously ill, and died during the progress of the works, which presented many unforeseen difficulties; and he believed that the parties left to superintend them were not equal to the task. With respect to Mr. Forster himself, as he had had the entire management of the Kilsby tunnel, on the London and North Western Railway, and of the tubular bridge over the Menai Straits, the Commissioners Were surely quite justified in having originally appointed him. With reference to pipe sewers, to which allusions had been made by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), he must inform the House that the Commissioners with whom he (Mr. Peto) had acted, had at once condemned pipe drains under thoroughfares and places where there was much pressure. If they wished to see the results of dilettanti engineering, they could not have a more striking example than Croydon. The pipes used there, so far from conducting the sewage from the houses into the drains, had only conveyed the effluvia from the drains into the houses; and that which, according to Mr. Chadwick and others, was to have been a sort of Arcadia, was made a public pest-house. With respect to the present condition of the metropolis, nothing could be more painful. For sixteen hours out of every twenty-four, the whole district south of the Thames was one huge cesspool. Nothing could be the source of more anxiety to the Commissioners than the medical reports they had daily received from these and other bad localities, which they felt perfectly unable to remedy. In the north of the metropolis the case was not much better. While he was on the Commission, numbers of cases of typhoid fever, arising from insufficient drainage, and all of the most painful character, were continually coming under his notice; and the Commission was unable to do what was necessary even for giving temporary relief. The question was, what was to be done? He should advise his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to take up the question—no man was more able to do so—and, by applying his masculine mind to it, complete the conception of some plan by which the metropolis might be relieved from the stigma which at present attached to it.
1580
He believed that a course of proceeding might be devised which would enable the noble Lord to come before Parliament in the ensuing Session to ask for such a sum of money as would be necessary for effectually draining the whole of the metropolis. The present state of things was a disgrace to the country. The noblest works completed by the States of ancient times—by Rome, for instance—were those connected with the supply of water and the drainage of large towns. With regard to the sum of money which it was now proposed should be granted, he would suggest to his noble Friend not to allow the money to be spent without a certificate from the consulting engineer to the Commission, and Mr. Robert Stephenson, that the works were really required for objects of urgent necessity, and that the plan on which the works were to be carried out had been inquired into and accepted.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that there was no doubt the members of the present Commission of Sewers were men of eminent ability; but still when his hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) said that they were on that account entitled to confidence, he could not help calling the attention of the House to the infrequency of their attendance. Thirty-four Courts had been held during the years 1852 and 1853; out of these Sir John Burgoyne had only attended six, Mr. T. Hawes nine, Captain Veitch six, and Mr. L. Gordon two. Of fifty-five committee meetings held during the same time, Sir John Burgoyne, had attended eleven, Captain Veitch eight, and the other members in proportion. Now, if that was so, it was evident that the eminence of these gentlemen was not a sufficient reason for public confidence being reposed in the Commission, but that we must look to those who actually did the work. The plan which the hon. Member had so strongly recommended for effecting the drainage of the metropolis was not that which was now proposed. It was proposed under the former to carry the whole of the sewerage of the metropolis to such a distance below London that it could not be brought back by the tide; but by the present it was proposed to cover in and make use of Hackney Brook for the purpose. That, he thought, would prove to be quite ineffectual, and, as a practical man, acquainted with draining, he had no hesitation in saying that it would be found to be absurd. He believed firmly that no one out of that House had the slightest confidence in the present Board of the Sewers Commission,

1581
and he attributed a great deal of its blundering to Mr. Chadwick, in discharging the whole of the officers who were employed by the previous Commission, and substituting for them ill-informed men, who were quite ready to carry out all his own foolish designs. Another cause of the failure that had attended the efforts to effect good sewerage was the appointment of Commissions for brief periods. One set of Commissioners were superseded by another before they had time to carry out their own plans. Nothing at all, it seemed, was to be done for poor, miserable Lamboth, much as that district needed sewerage. 1n fact, nothing was to be done on the south side of the Thames, and the Commissioners had had the audacity to propose that, against the opinion of such a man as Mr. Robert Stephenson. But the great objection to these Commissions was that unfit men were appointed. They were mere lawyers, and how should lawyers know anything about sewerage? But in this world there was always some compensating good for every evil. Bad as this Commission was, badly as it was constituted—of men totally devoid of any practical knowledge, as their work showed—yet there was one man who was worse, and to be avoided in every way in this matter. They had known him in the agricultural districts for some time. He trusted that the present Commissioners—bad as they were, having by their works shown their total inability to grasp with the great work they had to achieve—yet he trusted they would beware of Mr. Chadwick. He was a pest wherever he went. He feared the noble Lord had been misled on this subject; he would not say whether by Mr. Chadwick or any one else. What was required was a great and proper scheme to be carried out over the whole metropolis, and not an attempt to effect the object by this sort of pettifogging drainage, which would do more harm than good. He should be most unwilling to grant the power asked for by the noble Lord to these men, to whom he would not intrust the laying out of one single sixpence.
MR. CHARLES S. BUTLERsaid, that as the question of the sewerage of the metropolis was of great importance to his constituents, he hoped that he might venture to trespass upon the indulgent forbearance of the House. He was sorry to say that the ratepayers of the Tower Hamlets had no confidence in the Commission of Sewers as
1582
at present constituted, and he must, therefore, protest against the proposed extension of their powers in order that they might raise 300,000 l. on the security of the rates. He thought it a grievance that every housekeeper in the metropolis should be taxed for the benefit of the very few who had sewerage, and it was unjust that rates should be levied on poor parishes, and expended in other localities. Tins grievance would not exist if the Commissioners of Sewers were elected by the ratepayers: when they should be so elected, he (Mr. Butler) would be willing to entrust them with ample borrowing powers. With the permission of the House, he would endeavour to show what had been done with reference to sewerage in some of the parishes in the densely populated borough of the Tower Hamlets. He would first explain the present position of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, the inhabitants of which, he had been informed, had paid sewers rates for nearly a century. Many of the leading thoroughfares were entirely destitute of sewers; in that parish there were thirty-six miles of densely populated streets, and the sewers extended only between six and seven miles, so that nearly thirty miles of streets were drained by means of cesspools. Now, in 1848, the Sanatory Commissioners reported, that "any delay in the abolition of cesspools is a delay in the removal of the most extensive sources of disease and mortality;" and, although five years had passed, positively nothing but a trifling work in a back street celled Collingwood-street had been done in that important parish, which, perhaps, more than any other in the metropolis, required vigilant attention, for, in 1849, there were 1,000 deaths from cholera and diarrhœa, principally caused (he would quote the language of his official correspondent) "by the want of drainage, which remains to this day in the some condition as at that dreadful time." Now, was it not lamentable that in the parish of Bethnal-green, containing 13,500 houses, with an industrial population of 90,193 inhabitants, nearly 60,000 should be without the means of efficient sewerage. Surely, some exertion might have been made by the Commissioners of Sewers after the last dreadful visitation of cholera. He feared that it would be found that rates levied on many poorer parishes had been expended in the sewerage of more wealthy localities; but he would turn to the adjoining parish of

1583
Stepney or Mile End Old Town: this parish contained 75,000 inhabitants, there were 20,000 houses, and twenty-five miles of streets, of which there were about one-fourth drained, one-fourth partially drained, and one-half entirely without drainage. There were sixty streets having sewerage, sixty partially drained, and 112 streets entirely without drainage. Now, only about 300 yards of sewers had been formed by the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers in Mile End Old Town, although they had by their last two rates raised from that hamlet alone no less than 8,000 l. beyond and in addition to their portion of the 12,000 l. handed over by the local Tower Hamlets Commission to the Metropolitan Commissioners. Would any person, having a knowledge of local management, assert that if the sum of 8,000 l. taken from his (Mr. Butler's) constituents of Mile End Old Town, had been expended by local commissioners, elected by and responsible to the ratepayers, that only 300 yards of sewers would have been formed, or that the parish would have been permitted to remain in its present state? He thought not. With the indulgence of the House, he would refer to a memorial that had recently been presented by his constituents of West Hackney to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He would, however, first mention that the parish of St. John, at Hackney, contained 9,502 houses, and 53,589 inhabitants; but the West Hackney, Stoke Newington, and Stamford Hill districts extended over an area of 11,000 acres, containing a population of 23,000, and rated to the poor at 110,000 l. Now what did these memorialists to the Secretary of State say? They complain that they had paid sewers' rate for 80 years; that on some occasions it had amounted to 1s. 6d. in the pound on the amount rated to the poor: that notwithstanding the heavy amounts they had from time to time contributed, they had no sewers within their district; and that they did not, nor did they ever, derive any benefit from the operations of the Commissioners of Sewers, but on the contrary they had been seriously injured by the conversion of the Hackney brook, once a clear stream, into an open sewer for the benefit of another district, that of Holloway. They state that they have no means of drainage other than into cesspools, which exist in such great numbers that the whole substratum had become impregnated with the elements of contagion and disease, and yet this district was
1584
rated equally with other districts having the benefit of covered sewers. He would not stop to remark upon this grievous state of things, but would read to the House an extract from Dr. Sutherland's Report to the Whitechapel Union of October, 1852. This Union, he might observe, contained about 9,000 houses, and between 60,000 and 70,000 inhabitants. Dr. Sutherland says—
"I have made an inspection of a considerable portion of Spitalfields, a part of Mile End New Town, most of the north part of Whitechapel; and have witnessed scenes that would have appeared almost incredible without personal examination. I have seen court after court, and house after house, which in a sanitary point of view are scarcely fit in their present state for the abode of man. The history of populous courts and neighbourhoods may be summed up in a very few words; bad paving, cleansing defective, no efficient drainage, cesspools or open privies over drains loaded with putrescent deposit. There is a high rate of mortality. Preventible zymotic disease is always cutting off its victims; great epidemics come and go at their will, and the ratepayers are taxed for consequences which might by prudence and foresight be averted."
Now he (Mr. Butler) would ask who were responsible for this fearful state of things? Were the Commissioners of Sewers? Who were to exercise this prudence and foresight? He insisted that it was the duty of the Government. He would not trespass on the time of the House by detailing the sewerage statistics of other parishes in the borough of the Tower Hamlets; it would be a repetition of the same sad tale, to the truth of which the Registrar General, in the weekly returns of mortality, abundantly testified, clearly evincing how large a proportion of deaths in the metropolis were due to imperfect drainage. He considered that it was impossible to overrate the importance of this question, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would introduce a comprehensive measure in the next Session. He felt bound, however, to say, that he should record his vote against any measure for perpetuating the present system: it was really too bad at the end of the Session, when so many Members had left town, that the noble Lord should, under cover of a Continuance Bill, ask Parliament to give these Commissioners power to raise and expend 300,000 l. What had they done to warrant such an extent of confidence? Had they performed works to an equal extent with the works executed by the local commissioners who were resident in the districts for which they acted? To his (Mr. Butler's) knowledge the local com-

1585
missioners had covered miles of open sewers in the Tower Hamlets during the last five years of their existence; and from the years 1838 to 1847 inclusive, the late Tower Hamlets' Commission executed fifteen miles of new works. He did not say that the old system was perfect; but the House would bear in mind that the local commissioners were acting under ancient, almost obsolete, statutes; they had difficulties to contend with which modern legislation had cleared away for their successors; nevertheless large works had been performed by them. Had the Metropolitan Commissioners been more industrious? He thought not. In 1847 a Commission was appointed, of which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was the chairman; it was called in the Tower Hamlets the Chadwickian Inquiry. He would not trouble the House by remarking upon the evidence; it was in consequence of the Report of this Commission that the Government superseded the several local commissioners, somewhat unceremoniously, considering that many of these gentlemen had been acting in the gratuitous performance of a public duty, and that, had they been allowed to remain in office one week longer, their commissions would have expired by efflux of time; but the Government of the day were so anxious to place the management of the sewerage of the metropolis in proper hands that they could not wait the week, and these local commissioners were accordingly sent to the right-about;—and who were the experienced and practical men that succeeded? The first was an hon. Baronet, Sir Edward North Buxton, for whom he (Mr. Butler) entertained the highest esteem, and he desired to speak of him in terms of great respect; but what did the hon. Baronet know about sewers? and what time could he, being then Member of that House, devote to the duties of a Commissioner of Sewers? Again, there was the Rev. William Stone, a highly respected minister of the Church, the rector of a densely-populated metropolitan parish, conscientiously active in the performance of his own sufficiently arduous duties. Now, if the question had been whether Mr. Stone should be appointed to a bishopric, he would have at once concurred in the propriety of the appointment; but to make that rev. gentleman a commissioner of sewers was really most ridiculous. The House would see that the effect of these appointments was, to throw the management into the hands of Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, gentlemen who had taken an active
1586
part on the Royal Commission, which recommended the supersedeas of the several local commissions. These gentlemen were superseded in turn, and eventually the present Commissioners were appointed. Having felt it to be his duty to speak of the past and present management in the language of complaint, he would now venture to suggest a plan for the future, which he thought would be approved by the great body of ratepayers. His scheme was to divide the metropolis into levels. District courts to be formed for each level, the ratepayers in the several parishes electing the Commissioners. The number of District Commissioners to be determined by the extent of the population. The District Commissioners to make rates upon all property within the level for the maintenance and extension of the drainage within their jurisdiction, but not for the formation of outlets. The District Commissioners to have power to communicate with the outlets under proper regulations, and to borrow money on the security of their rates. The several chairmen of the District Courts to have seats at the central or outlet commission. He further proposed the appointment of a central court of Commissioners, whose powers should be confined to the important duty of providing and maintaining proper outlets for the sewerage of the metropolis, with powers to make rates and to borrow money on their security; these powers were of course necessary to enable them to perform the extensive works so much required. He would not object to these Commissioners being appointed by Government, because it was necessary that they should possess great practical experience; but, as he before mentioned, the several district chairmen of the levels should have seats at that court, He trusted that the noble Lord would, during the recess, apply his gigantic mind to the maturing a comprehensive measure with reference to this important subject; for it must be obvious to all that one set of Commissioners could not properly attend to the local requirements of the enormous population, and at the same time mature and carry out a great scheme of outlets for the sewerage of the metropolis.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he must express his surprise that the great pains already lavished on this subject had not been attended with a more beneficial result, and trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department would turn his at-

1587
tention to the important subject of the formation of local boards.
MR. EVELYNsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) at the Mansion House, when the noble Lord had expressed a hope that the Thames would soon be as clear as the waters of Blandusia, and trusted the noble Lord would take immediate steps to free their parent river from its present pollution. He thought the noble Lord was particularly bound to do this, as permission had been refused to two private companies which had proposed to do so. If the necessary works were not commenced at once, he would suggest that a clause should be inserted to give to some private company the power of undertaking this highly necessary measure. He considered the Thames would never be freed from pollution except by the results of some private enterprise; and he would support any measure which would give to the metropolitan parishes the power of self-government. Nay, more, if no other Member did so, he would himself venture to bring forward a measure which would confer the power of self-government on all the towns of England.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he most strongly objected to any such instruction being given to the Committee as that which the noble Lord had proposed. The inhabitants of the metropolis had no objection to make any pecuniary sacrifice in order to provide for the public health of the population. Show them proper measures, and they would do what was required of them; but what they feared was, that they would be put to great expense without obtaining any corresponding benefit. They believed that all the talk about cholera and the public health was merely a mystification, and that after a large outlay they would find themselves in a worse condition than they were in before. He strongly suspected that if the proposed money were taken, the country would be burdened without receiving the slightest advantage, just as it was now burdened with the expense of an Army and a Fleet, which were of no use whatever, because they were never suffered to go where their services were required. So little confidence had the public in this Commission, that he believed, if the metropolis were polled, rather than assent to the proposition of the noble Lord, they would gladly give 50,000 l. to get rid of the Commissioners altogether. He admitted that the noble Lord had somewhat
1588
modified his plan; but, although what the noble Lord now proposed was a mitigation of the evil, he still believed that it would not meet the approbation of the public.
MR. MALINSsaid, it could not be doubted that the proceedings of the Commissioners of Sewers hitherto had resulted in a miserable failure. He was not indisposed, however, to give the noble Lord the power of raising 300,000 l., provided the House had an assurance that that money should be properly expended. But he did not understand that, up to this time, there had been any agreement as to the mode of drainage which was to be adopted. There were at present two systems under contemplation, and, as yet, neither had been determined upon. 300,000 l. would suffice to construct an immense amount of drainage, and he should be quite ready to grant that amount, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Pete) were acted upon, and the money were only to be laid out under the authority and sanction of such able and practical men as Mr. Stephenson and Sir William Cubitt. He trusted that we should now have a properly constituted Commission of Sewers; and, above all, he hoped that the noble Lord would not be led away into putting upon it merely "ornamental" names. It should not be a Commission composed of a large number, or of elements which could not work together, but should really consist of a few efficient practical, able men. Let the noble Lord first make up his mind whether the system to be adopted should be the deep system, or the shallow system; and, his mind once made up upon that subject, let it be carried into operation as speedily as possible, in order to secure to the inhabitants of the metropolis the necessary comforts of cleanliness and wholesomeness.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision in the Bill, as to monies borrowed or to be borrowed under the said Acts."
The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 32: Majority 39.
House in Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he had no wish upon that occasion to enter upon a long answer to all that he had heard. He was sure that at that hour of the night it would be undesirable that he should do so. He would merely say that he was desirous to act upon the suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon.

1589
Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Peto), and that he would take care that nothing should be done in the way of the employment of this money which was not approved by the consulting engineers of the Commission, Sir William Cubitt and Mr. Stephenson, on whose judgment he was persuaded both the House and the country might safely rely. He perfectly agreed, also, with those who said that nothing would be satisfactory until some general system of draining the metropolis should be decided upon, which should relieve the Thames from the ignominious duty of being the common sewer instead of the ornament of London. With that also might be combined the application of those side sewers, which in that respect would be the substitutes for the Thames, and he should hope that means might be adopted to convert those tunnels into what miners would call downcast furnaces, so that instead of all the bad air rushing up to the houses from the drains, it might be carried the other way, and the atmosphere thus be relieved from that source of pollution. He thought, upon the one hand, that the ratepayers had had good reason to complain that they had been left hitherto without relief; but, on the other hand, he assured the Committee that the Commissioners also had had reason to complain because they had been placed in the situation, being men of great ability, and seeing what ought to be done and anxious to do it, but they were unable to accomplish it because they had not the funds necessary to carry into execution the works which they knew to be desirable. The only wonder, he believed, was, that those Commissioners had not struck work altogether, and refused to be any longer apparently responsible for what was considered to be neglect, but what really was the impossibility to do that which they were asked to do. He should consider it his duty to see that no works were undertaken which were not in the first place approved by those two eminent men whose names he had mentioned; also, that the works should be of such a nature as to connect places that were not drained with existing outlets; and that all the works should be such as might be brought into keeping and harmony with any general system that might hereafter be adopted. He would only add that he believed there were about 2,000 miles of street in the metropolis; and he understood that there were only about 900 miles of drains. There were therefore at pre-
1590
sent 1,100 miles of street without drains; and, as Milton had described the evils of a populous city, when he said that it was a place where
"Houses thick and sewers annoy the air,"
he asked the Committee to consider what must be the annoyance where there were "houses thick" without any sewers at all; yet such was the condition of a great part of the metropolis.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYtrusted that the noble Lord would take care that no money should be laid out in any district without previous communication with the best informed persons in that district. He begged to state that he had voted in the minority against the noble Lord, because he feared that the money would not be expended as the noble Lord had since stated that it should be.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould suggest that the Commissioners of Sewers should at once be directed to have a plan prepared on which they should delineate their propositions, and that it should be put forth in such a manner as to be accessible to the ratepayers. He was convinced that this would prove a great facility to the operations of the noble Lord.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the noble Lord should be careful how he trusted Sir William Cubitt too much, because that gentleman had stated in evidence before a Committee of that House that the Thames was the best drain, and, in fact, the natural sewer, for the metropolis. He would prefer leaving the case in the hands of Mr. Stephenson alone.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Amended to reduce the borrowing powers of the Commissioners from 500,000 l. to 300,000 l.)
MR. PETOsaid, he would suggest that the expense of the formation of the sewers should be spread over a period of thirty or forty years, which might be said to be the natural life of a sewer. By this means the expense to the metropolis would be less than the actual cost of maintaining the present crazy sewers. He wished also to call the attention of the noble Lord to the unfair mode in which the rates were levied. For example, the inhabitants residing near Hyde Park and other districts in the outskirts of London, and who were mainly rich people, paid no sewers rate; while the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets and other districts through which these outlying places were drained, and who were

1591
mostly poor people, paid for their own drainage, and the drainage of the others besides.
VISCOUST PALMERSTONsaid, it was the intention of the Commissioners to raise money on annuities in the manner which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE DUTIES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he thought the House and the country were greatly indebted to the noble Lord the Home Secretary and to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) for the active part they had taken in promoting this measure. He considered, however, that some additional regulations were still necessary. He had frequently seen the lives of persons jeopardised from the practice of taking up or setting down passengers in the centre of the streets. He considered that the proprietors of public vehicles ought to be made responsible for the misconduct of their servants; and he believed if such a regulation were adopted they would not be very likely to hear of violence or insult on the part of the drivers. He thought it was desirable that drivers should be prohibited from sitting in their carriages, for he had frequently seen drivers smoking in their cabs, and the smell was not very pleasant, especially to women who might afterwards engage the vehicles. He would therefore beg to propose four clauses to remedy those defects.
MR. LOWEsaid, he could not consent to the clauses proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, which did not appear to him to come within the legitimate scope and meaning of the Bill. He considered that as the clauses, which were highly penal, would materially affect the interests of a large body of persons, they ought to have been brought forward when the Bill was in Committee. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that it was not right that omnibuses should set down passengers in the middle of the streets; but the police had power to prevent such a system, and that power was exercised every day in the metropolis with regard to all carriages, whether public or private. He must say the clauses were drawn in a very informal manner. They provided for the infliction of a penalty of 40 s., or one
1592
month's imprisonment, but they did not say who was to adjudicate. As the clauses stood, he apprehended that proceedings could not be taken before magistrates, but that the penalties must be sued for by the Attorney General in the Court of Queen's Bench. The second clause would entail great hardship, for if a driver got drunk and were discharged, the proprietor could not send out the carriage next day. The third clause was one of the most objectionable he ever saw. The fourth clause made the police judges upon the spot. In the plenitude of their wisdom, they were either to rectify the matter at the time, or make t report; but what was to be the consequence of making a report was not stated. They were also to act as referees; but whether with or without the consent of parties, did not appear.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had more confidence in the "plenitude of the wisdom of a police officer than in the wisdom of half the Treasury Bench. He would rather submit to his decision and impartiality than to the wise Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He was no lawyer, but he had put a plain common-sense proposal before the House. He had done his duty, and the responsibility must rest with the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control and the Government.
Clauses negatived.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to move a clause having reference to the new fares proposed by this Bill.
MR. LOWEsaid, he could not agree to the clause, which was liable, in the first place, to the objection that it was legislation of a too minute character, which ought to be left to some subordinate authority. The House had passed a law that the distances published in the book of fares, signed by the Commissioners of Police, should be conclusive, and that with regard to other distances they should be measured. The clause proposed that the magistrate should measure the distance by the Ordnance map. He might do so now. ["No!"] Yes, he might measure the map and give his opinion, and then if that were disputed, the parties must abide by the measurement. The rule of law was, that the best evidence, where it was procurable, should be taken, and it would not to be right to deprive a party of his appeal o actual measurement. The hon. Baronet had correctly anticipated that the magistrate might not know exactly where to begin his measurement; but the mode pro-

1593
posed of beginning with the first intersecting street or public building might be extremely unjust to the cabman, and might lead to his being wrongfully imprisoned for overcharge.
Clause negatived.
MR. F. SCULLYthen moved the insertion of the following clause:—
"That the proprietor of every hackney carriage or metropolitan stage carriage, licensed to ply for hire within the limits of this Act, who shall withdraw his carriage from hire for two consecutive days, or for any two days in one week, without just cause, of which the magistrate before whom the complaint is heard shall be the judge, shall be liable to a penalty of a sum not exceeding 20 s. in respect for every carriage for each day he shall so withdraw the same; and the licence of such proprietor shall be suspended or recalled and taken away at the discretion of the said commissioners of police: provided always, that it shall be lawful for such proprietor, upon giving ten days' notice to the commissioners of police, to withdraw his carriage from hire."
It would prevent the very great inconvenience to the public that occurred a short time since, when the strike took place, and would not operate unfairly to the proprietors or owners of cabs or carriages.
MR. FREWENsaid, he would admit that the greatest inconvenience had been sustained by the public during the late strike, particularly by persons arriving by railway from the country. But he was informed that the loss sustained by the cab proprietors in consequence of the strike was so great, that doubts were entertained whether they would ever try that experiment again. It had been calculated that the loss to the proprietors of cabs from the three days' strike amounted to 2,500 l. [Sir J. SHELLEY: 2,000 l. a day.] This, he thought, would be a sufficient caution to them how they struck work again.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he should oppose the clause, which he thought would have a tyrannical effect. It was, besides, an interference with free trade. Several cab proprietors had a number of cab licences, but it did not always suit their interests to continue the same number; and, if this clause passed, they would be unable to withdraw their cabs without ten days' notice, which would inflict a serious loss upon them. He saw no security that there would be any appeal; and, considering the manner in which magistrates had of late exercised their power, he could not consent to vote for this clause.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he entirely differed from his noble Friend. It must be recollected that the House had not only
1594
the cab proprietors to protect, but the public out of doors; and he must say that the cab and omnibus proprietors had shown they had more power than it was thought they possessed, and had exercised that power to the great inconvenience of the public, who could not protect themselves. He thought the proposed clause nothing more than a reasonable one, and should cordially support it.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he would add, that there was a third class of persons who needed protection, and that was the cab drivers. When the proprietors took their cabs off the stands, they deprived the drivers of their work and wages; and it was within his knowledge that many drivers (who were entirely dependent upon their masters) were very much annoyed as well as injured by the strike which had lately taken place.
MR. LOWEthought, recent events had shown that the proprietors of public carriages possessed a great and important power, with which it was not safe to intrust them. A more unwarrantable annoyance to the public than the recent cab strike could hardly be imagined. On the Monday those who represented the cab proprietors had seen his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Fitzroy), and had obtained from him assurances of concession on two points to which they attached much weight, and both of which had been since carried out. Notwithstanding, however, the assurances these persons obtained, they had not chosen to wait and see if they would be carried out, but "struck," and by withdrawing their vehicles produced the greatest possible inconvenience to the public, and much loss to the drivers. All they had got by the strike they had been promised before, and yet after it was all over they met together and congratulated each other upon the triumph they had achieved. He knew also that it had been in the contemplation of the omnibus proprietors, who could not pretend that they had any grievance, and who had the power of regulating their own fares, to strike, he supposed out of mere gaiety of heart, for the purpose of assisting the proprietors of cabs. Now, he did not want to take any measure in a retaliatory spirit; but he thought it was only just that the public should be protected from combinations like these, entered into not so much for the purpose of carrying any point, as of showing the power of the proprietors, and of producing public inconvenience. His hon. Friend the Sec-

1595
retary to the Treasury approved of the clause proposed by the hon. Member, and he therefore hoped the House would agree to it.
Clause added.
Mr. V. SCULLYmoved to substitute for Clause 13 the following clause:—
"Where any hackney carriage shall be discharged beyond the circumference of a circle the radius of which shall be four miles from Temple Bar, it shall be lawful for the driver of such carriage, in addition to the fare now directed to be paid under the Act of the present Session of Parliament, chap. 33, to charge a sum of 6d. per mile for each mile, or part of a mile, in respect of the distance between the place where he is so discharged and the nearest point of such circumference."
SIR WILLIAM CLAYseconded the Motion, but said he must complain that the East and West India Docks, and the important districts clustered around, were cut off from the circle of four miles which was proposed, while Hampstead-heath and part of Tooting-common were embraced within it. In his opinion it would be much more advantageous to have an ellipse than a circle.
MR. SPOONERwould suggest that there should be two points of departure—Charing-cross for the cabs going west, and St. Paul's for those going cast.
MR. LOWEsaid, he did not consider it necessary to reopen the question of the two centres, which had already been thoroughly discussed. He was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), provided several verbal amendments were made in it.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbrought up a clause to establish an appeal in certain cases. Though he condemned the recent strike of the cabmen, he thought that some palliation was to be found fur their conduct in the manner in which the previous Bill on this subject had been discussed. The consequence of that hasty and inconsiderate measure had been to give satisfaction to no one. It would have been much better if that Bill had been referred, as was proposed, to a Committee upstairs. He now proposed, that, in cases of refusal of licences, there should be an appeal from the decision of the Police Commissioner to the Quarter Sessions; but, to prevent any inconvenience, he thought that the refusal of the licence should be valid until the final decision of the appeal. He proposed further to give an appeal from the decision of the police magistrates. The want of this appeal was considered a peculiar grievance
1596
by the trade and by the drivers, and that feeling had been increased in consequence of a late decision, by which a cabman had been sent to prison because he could not pay down a certain sum to have a disputed distance measured. He knew that the case to which he alluded had been denied in that House, but he believed the fact was as he had stated it. The objection to the appeal was, that it would sometimes frustrate the ends of justice, because the cabmen would immediately appeal in every case from the adverse decisions of the magistrates; but the clause he proposed so fenced round the power of appeal that it would seldom be exercised. The cabman would have to give notice of his intention to appeal within twenty-four hours; he must also enter into recognisances for the payment of double the amount of the penalty and costs awarded against him; and he must be bound over to pay the reasonable expenses of all the witnesses in the case, together with any other costs. Although the power of appeal would be very seldom exercised under these circumstances, it would place a salutary check upon the decisions of magistrates. The omnibus proprietors, who also desired a power of appeal, had waited on him to ask his advice when the cab strike had taken place. He advised them to relinquish all intentions of striking, and to endeavour to induce the cabmen, if possible, to resume work. He also advised them to petition Parliament, and to lay their case before the Home Secretary. Now that the strike was at an end, he had consented to bring forward their case, as he considered that their demand fur a power of appeal was but reasonable. In the cases of licences to public-houses there was en appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Why, then, should there be no appeal in the cases of cab licences? He had copied these clauses, with regard to the appeals, out of an Act which had passed through the House for regulating hackney carriages in Dublin. Why was an appeal just in Ireland, and unjust in England? They were often asked for justice to Ireland. He now; asked for justice to London. He felt a great respect for Sir Richard Mayne, who, he was sure, would not feel hurt at there being an appeal given from his decision. A police magistrate had written to him on the subject of this Bill, and had argued that there ought not to be any appeal from a police magistrate to the Chief Commissioner of Police; but he had no intention to give such an appeal, and there was no ob-

1597
jection expressed to an appeal from a magistrate to any competent tribunal.
MR. LOWEsaid, he had strong objections to this clause. His first objection was, that this matter had been brought forward by the noble Lord in the Committee on the Hackney Carriage Bill, and then fully argued and negatived. And now, on the third reading of another Bill, at the end of the Session, the noble Lord came forward and asked the House to repeal that decision. But the case did not rest here. Let the House only think what the effect of this power of appeal would be. These gentlemen had already shown what they could do in the way of combination, and if the appeal were granted it would be the virtual repeal of everything done by Parliament for the regulation of the public conveyances. Everybody knew that there was great difficulty in inducing people to come forward and make complaints in the case of cabs and omnibuses, and that numerous delinquents in consequence escaped; but, if to this they added the appeal, the difficulty would be greatly increased of reaching a class of men not very observant of the law, and not very decorous in their conduct. It would be found that the appeal would be universal; for the proprietors of hackney carriages would form a fund, and, by appealing against every decision, secure themselves from punishment, for attempts to bring them up before the magistrates would soon cease to be made. He might state, that the general opinion of those who administered the law was against the appeal, and he thought their objections were well founded. The noble Lord objected to the decision being left with the police magistrates; but they were, nevertheless, as intelligent and learned a body of men as could be found; and he would not retort upon the noble Lord the argumentum ad hominem that the very gentleman who presided over the Court to which the appeal was to be made was the gentleman whose salary the noble Lord lately refused to raise some 300 l. a year.
MR. I. BUTTthought a strong case should be made out before they refused the right of appeal. He proposed that the magistrate should reduce the evidence to writing when an appeal was taken, and remit such evidence to the Court before which the appeal was to be heard.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be brought up."
The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 41: Majority 14.
Bill passed.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Land Tax Commissioners Names; Pilotage; South Sea and other Annuities, Provision for Payment, &c.
2a Eastern Union Railway; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Tenants Improvements Compensation (Ireland); Leasing Powers (Ireland); Merchant Shipping; Drainage of Lands (Ireland) Act Amendment; Poor Relief Act Continuance; Duties on Horses let for Hire; Passengers Act Amendment.
Reported.—Naval Coast Volunteers; Liberated Africans (Sierra Leone); Land Tax Redemption; Consolidated Annuities (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland).
3a Newspaper Stamp Duties; Belfast Municipal Boundaries; Registrar of the Privy Council; Crime and Outrage (Ireland).

EASTERN UNION RAILWAY BILL.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. After a brief reference to the early proceedings of the railway company, he stated that in 1851 their position was one almost of insolvency, and the simple contract creditors were about to take steps to sell the rails and stock, but some of the gentlemen largely interested in the preference shares endeavoured to make an arrangement to save the property. An agreement was accordingly entered into on the part of the preference shareholders to take 3 per cent instead of 6 per cent, and the simple con-
1498
tract creditors postponed further proceedings against the property of the company for three years. A Bill was introduced into Parliament to carry out this agreement, but the very persons who originated this agreement petitioned against the Bill; and the same thing occurred in 1852. It appeared to him that when one body of persons had performed their part of the stipulation, the other body had no right to come to Parliament and claim to be relieved from what they had promised to perform. This matter had been most carefully investigated in the House of Commons, and two Committees had reported in favour of the Bill. The preference shareholders alleged that they never gave their assent to the arrangement; but previously to the Bill coming before the House of Commons only two dissents were received.
Moved—"That the Bill be now read 2a."
LORD BEAUMONTobjected to the Bill. It contained a principle which their Lordships ought not to sanction. With the private arrangements of the parties he had nothing whatever to do, but merely with the merits of the Bill as it was now brought before the House. Their Lordships were asked to consent to the second reading of a Bill which took away property from persons to whom it had been guaranteed by Act of Parliament, which was theirs by the law of the land, and which they had security for. The parties who were promoting the Bill had no right whatever to deal with the property, and hence they came to Parliament to ask for powers to enable them to do so. Property of this description was often included in settlements, and if their Lordships sanctioned the second reading of the Bill, it would be the means of defeating the intention of the settlors. He should conclude by simply moving that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day three months."
The EARL of HARROWBYreminded the House, that, though the noble Lord spoke of this as being an interference by Parliament without the consent of the parties with property which was theirs by the law of the land, the actual property spoken of was in preference shares. Their Lordships, of course, knew that before the preference shareholders came the claims of the creditors, and they might easily judge what the value of the preference shares would have been had this concern come to total ruin. He said that the preference

1499
shareholders had themselves sought this arrangement, with a view to preventing that total ruin which they apprehended, and that they ought not now, after having tied the hands of other parties, to be allowed to turn against their own proposition. The Bill had been most minutely considered by a Committee of the other House, and had been carried unanimously by that Committee.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought that the reason given by the noble Earl for supporting the Bill was no reason at all. The noble Earl stated, that if the concern went to ruin, the property of the preference shareholders would be valueless. What would the noble Earl say to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who urged, as a reason for reducing the interest on a loan, that if the country were ruined the creditor would get nothing at all?
After a few words from Lord WYNFORD,
LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYsaid, that the rule always followed by their Lordships in dealing with Bills of this kind was not to pass such Bills, except with the consent of the parties affected by them. In the present case, so far from the requisite number of shareholders—four-fifths—having given their consent, he believed only one-third had expressed their assent. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would not sanction the second reading.
The EARL of YARBOROUGHsupported the second reading of the Bill, in order that it might go to a Select Committee. He thought their Lordships ought to know what proportion of the preference shareholders did originally agree to this arrangement.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwould vote for the second reading, but not with a view to break in upon any rights of the preferential creditors, but because, according to the statements that had been made, the preferential shareholders had themselves proposed the terms of a compromise from which they were now desirous of withdrawing.
The EARL of ALBEMARLEopposed the Bill.
After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT,
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 31; Not Content 14: Majority 17
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRE- LAND)—THE CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE, in moving the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, said, he should probably best consult the convenience of the House, and certainly accommodate the wishes of that large portion of noble Lords present, who, by birth and property, were connected with Ireland, if, in the few observations he should have to offer, he comprehended, in those observations, the other two Bills which followed it on the paper, namely, the Tenants Improvements Compensation (Ireland) Bill, and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill; not because the Bills, as forming one general code, ought not to be discussed separately, but because there was so much of a similar character in them that it would tend to simplify the discussion, and to convey a more accurate knowledge of their provisions. He should have been less disposed to do so, had not an attempt been made within the last few days to persuade the public that there was something of a communistic principle in these Bills—that they were tainted with something tending to the confiscation of property—and that their Lordships would be endangering the rights of property itself if they gave any countenance to them. He could only say for himself, and for every Member of Her Majesty's Government, that if there had been the slightest ground for suspicion that such a characteristic was justly attributable to these Bills, they would be the last to give them any countenance. What, then, was the origin of these Bills? He had seen a statement that morning that these Bills, being of a confiscatory character, had been brought in by a coalition Cabinet at the dictation of a certain number of Irish Members, who were represented to have some extraordinary influence with Her Majesty's Government; and that Her Majesty's Government, in obedience to them, had brought in and originated these measures. So far from that being the case, these Bills dated so far back as November last. They were introduced not by the coalition Cabinet, but by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General of the Government of which Lord Derby was at the head. They were brought before Parliament upon the responsibility of the Conservative Government of Lord Derby—that Government which proclaimed itself as a body antagonistic to any advance of that democratic element which was now supposed to be concentrated in these Bills.

1501
They were approved by that Cabinet, and proposed by them to the House of Commons. How came it, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) first became connected with the subject? He thought it was due to one so distinguished as the right hon. Gentleman to state the origin of these Bills. If the late Attorney General for Ireland, distinguished as he was in his profession, had not been actuated by high motives, he would have shrunk from grappling with a subject of such intricacy and difficulty. After successive Governments had failed to bring this matter to a satisfactory issue, the right hon. Gentleman, then an independent Member of Parliament, volunteered to take up the question in a large and general spirit, and through the instrumentality of gentlemen of great ability who were associated with him, he went into a most minute examination of the whole of the laws affecting landlords and tenants in Ireland, and performed the work, aided by those gentlemen, which the noble Lord on the cross benches suggested to the Government of 1850 as well worthy the labours of a Commission. He said that to the honour of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Napier)—he said it the more, because he spoke of a political opponent; and he should be unworthy of a seat in that House if, being opposed to the right hon. Gentleman in politics, he allowed him to be traduced and maligned without offering his testimony to time exertions he had made, and the anxious desire he had shown, to bring an intricate and difficult question to a satisfactory conclusion, with a due appreciation of and regard for the rights of all parties.
Their Lordships were forewarned last night of opposition to these Bills; and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) told the House that these Bills were not the same Bills which were introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and approved by the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member. He confessed he was never more astonished than when he heard that statement of the noble Earl, and he was prepared to show that the Bills were not only the same in every Parliamentary and recognised sense, but the same in the main and principal enactments; and, moreover, all the changes they had undergone in their passage through the other House were not of a more extensive character than were frequently made in Bills of an important character in passing through either House
1502
of Parliament. It was impossible for any man who recognised the justice and propriety of these Bills in November last, fairly to repudiate them now, and on the score of alterations to say that they were not the same Bills, and that therefore he was absolved from that assent which he had given in a former official capacity. A question was put by the noble Marquess (the Marguess of Clanricarde) last evening as to these Bills having been referred to the present Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown under the present Government; and he (the Duke of Newcastle) had answered that he understood these Bills had been referred to and approved by the present Lord Chancellor and the present law officers of the Crown. That answer he begged to repeat now; but his noble Friend rejoined by endeavouring to represent that they could not have been considered by them, because in the schedule of sixty Acts repealed by one of these measures, he found that five or six Acts of Parliament had been introduced into the schedule which were not in the original draft of the Bill. His noble Friend was undoubtedly correct in that statement; but it was the unavoidable consequence of one or two unimportant alterations in the body of the Bill; and his noble Friend would see, when a Bill was subjected to examination and alteration, having a schedule appended repealing a number of Acts, it was impossible the schedule could be completed until the Bill had passed its final stage. Of course, with regard to those five or six Acts of Parliament, the question of omitting them or continuing them in the schedule might be fairly raised; but his noble Friend was not justified in saying the Bills had not in their integrity been referred to and approved by the law officers of the Crown. Those were not the only authorities to whom these Bills had been referred. Before introducing them, the late Attorney General for Ireland referred them to the most able men in that country. They were referred to Baron Pennefather, than whom none was a higher authority either as a judge, a lawyer, or a landlord. They were referred to Baron Greene. They were referred to Mr. Longfield. They were referred to Mr. Commissioner Yardley and to Mr. Robert Holmes, the father of the Bar in Ireland, by whom they through were approved. Higher authorities than those he had named could not be quoted in that House. But not merely were these Bills referred to lawyers, however able,

1503
but to many practical men and to many landlords, to corroborate those legal opinions; and he had reason to believe that they were referred to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore), than whom no man was better acquainted with landed property in Ireland, or more capable of giving a sound opinion, not excepting even those who had much longer occupied scats in that House; and it was understood that the noble Earl had offered some valuable suggestions which were embodied in the Bills. When Her Majesty's Government acceded to office, they felt it was their bounden duty to aid, if possible, the exertions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and of the late Government, in bringing this question to a solution—that it was their bounden duty, notwithstanding the onerous labour which devolved upon them, and the important measures they were about to introduce, not to throw over these Bills, and discard them as not having been brought in by their own political party, but to render every assistance in their power to the right hon. Gentleman and his former Colleagues in bringing them to maturity. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland (Sir John Young), under those circumstances, undertook to persist in the inquiry before the Committee, and when the Bills had passed the House of Commons, he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it right that their Lordships should express their opinion upon them.
He might be fairly asked why he, of all men, who had certainly not a great deal of leisure time on his hands, should interfere in a subject in no way connected with the office which he had the honour to hold. The principal reason was not merely the sincere anxiety which he felt to promote measures which could in any way conduce to the interests of landed property in Ireland, and raise it from the depression under which it was labouring; but the fact of his having, whilst holding, though for a brief period, an official position in that country, originated a measure of the same description.
It was not necessary to recount a long and painful history of the complaints on this subject, and of the measures attempting to remedy the evils which were admitted to exist. He would not go back to the curious and interesting book of Sir John Davies in the time of Elizabeth. He would not quote the case of Spencer, or do more than allude to the long and earnest endeavours of Mr. Sharman Crawford, whilst he
1504
occupied a seat in the House of Commons, to find a solution to the difficulty—endeavours which were not mistaken in spirit, but mistaken in form. He would not refer to the measures taken by the Government of the day, in consequence of the frequent discussions in Parliament, which resulted in that interesting document, the Report of the Devon Commission. He would not quote, as he might do, many passages from the proceedings of the Committee which sat on Agricultural Customs in 1848. It would be sufficient to say that if the evils were recognised and extensive, the remedy was invariably found to be difficult, because the subject was encumbered with difficulties. Various attempts had been made by all parties to bring the question to issue. In 1845 a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by the noble Earl, not then present, then Lord Stanley. In the year following, he (the Duke of Newcastle) had the honour to introduce a Bill on the same subject; and in 1848 and 1850 two further Bills to settle the same question were introduced, but they were all equally unsuccessful. It was at that period, 1850, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) undertook to examine into and maturely consider the subject, which had resulted, as he had stated, in the Bills now before their Lordships. However desirable might be a settlement of the question as bearing on the future interests of Ireland, he believed no settlement could be satisfactory or of any value which did not maintain the rights of property inviolate. He could conceive nothing more tending to restrain the social improvement of any country, and the progress of civilisation, than any measure which had the slightest tendency to imperil in any way the rights of property, when on the integrity of those rights depended not merely the interests of the holders of the property, but the interests of every man, no matter what his condition in life might be. The allusion to these rights of property reminded him of the often-quoted sentence of Mr. Drummond, that "property had its duties as well as its rights." From the anomalous position of property in Ireland it too frequently happened that the duties and rights of property did not appertain to the same individuals. The position of property was such, that while the rights of property attached to and were enjoyed by the encumbrancers on the estates, the duties attached to the merely nominal holders—

1505
so that duties and rights were disassociated in a manner which must be prejudicial in every respect to the well-being of the country. He was quite aware that much abstract reasoning might be employed to show the inexpediency of any legislation on the relations of landlord and tenant, and it might be contended that such legislation was inconsistent with the doctrine of free trade. He was not disposed to dispute that position; but he said this, they were unfortunately not now in a position in which they could decide not to legislate between landlord and tenant; and when the noble Earl cheered that statement, he would remind him of what the Legislature had been doing in successive generations, not only with reference to landlord and tenant in Ireland, but in this country also. The Bills now on the table, and the second reading of which he should move, bore testimony to the fact that they had long been interfering between landlord and tenant. The schedule of one Bill contained sixty Acts which were to be repealed, and he was assured that no less than 200 Acts of Parliament were more or less concerned or referred to in these Bills. From the time of Edward IV. down to the present moment, the Statute-book laboured under the legislation interfering between landlord and tenant. Under such circumstances it was impossible to maintain the abstract doctrine of free trade between landlord and tenant, unless they were prepared to sweep away the whole of those laws, and set the question entirely free. He apprehended they could not do that without interfering with the law of property entailed. Looking at the law of entail as a valuable thing in the social system of this country, he had no hesitation in saying, that—looking to the greatly increased wealth of all classes of the community, and the great increase of population—it was necessary, if we wished to preserve the law of entail, to pass measures like that before the House for determining the relations of landlord and tenant; and he was of opinion that such a Bill would, as had been observed upon the succession duty, also have the effect of a strengthening, instead of weakening, the law, of entail. He thought no one would for a moment maintain that this was not a national object, if he could show that the improvement of land in Ireland was connected with legislation of this description; and he would frankly say he looked upon the present moment as decidedly opportune for settling this question. It might be true that the
1506
value of property in Ireland had increased, and was increasing; that the social prosperity of the people had increased in a proportionate ratio. It might be said that the cry which prevailed some time ago on this subject was no longer heard; but that might be owing to the spirit in which the question had been undertaken in the other House of Parliament; and if, from any cause, agitation had ceased, the absence of agitation was an argument in favour of, and not an argument against, legislation.
In accordance with his engagement to make as few observations as possible, he would proceed briefly to explain the leading provisions of these Bills; and as the Leasing Powers Bill was less connected with the others than the others were with one another, he would take that first. The Leasing Powers Bill might be divided into two parts. The one enabled the landlords and tenants between themselves to make sufficient leases. The second part enabled the same parties to make sufficient agreements for any special improvements which might be found desirable. The leading characteristic of the Bill was, that every plot of land in Ireland should have a living representative, if he might so express himself, who should have the power of so dealing with it as to bind the inheritance. Under the law as it now stood, every settlement, every mortgage, every judgment deed, was an insuperable bar to an effective sale of land. This evil had been remedied, as regarded the larger landed properties both in Ireland and in this country, by the process well known to their Lordships, of applying to Parliament for a private Bill; and one of the leading principles and objects of this Bill was to do by public enactment for smaller properties in Ireland that which was done for large properties by special private Acts. By the Leasing Powers Bill it was proposed to alter the law under which the present proprietors of landed property were enabled to grant leases. At present leasing powers in Ireland were very conflicting. A rector could only lease for one year, a bishop could grant for 21 years, and tenant in tail for 41 years. This Bill proposed to place all upon the same footing, and to enable each to grant agricultural leases for periods not exceeding 31 years, and for other periods in the cases of leases for other than agricultural purposes. Such were the main features of the Bill—a Bill which might well be called one both of consolidation and amendment, inasmuch as it

1507
consolidated no fewer than sixty Acts of Parliament, and amended them in several important respects. He had, he trusted, succeeded in briefly explaining its general purport. He would now pass on to the next Bill—the Landlord and Tenant Bill. This was a measure of so strictly a legal character, that he should prefer leaving the explanation of its technical provisions to his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack; but he would endeavour to describe its objects in a single sentence, by saying that it comprised one clear and convenient law, easy, if referents, upon all matters connected with the land, in solving the relative positions of landlord and tenant; and he could not but think, from the attention and consideration which had been given to the Bill, that it would prove greatly beneficial to landlords and tenants in Ireland. He might, as he had already alluded to the opinions of Baron Pennefather, state that that learned Judge had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the provisions of this measure. Let not noble Lords suppose that at his mature age Baron Pennefather had lost that vigour and elasticity of mind which characterised him forty years ago. This was certainly not the case; for he had pleasure in informing Lordships that he was just as capable now as he was then of exercising a sound judgment, with the advantage of possessing a more lengthened experience; and any noble Lord who had passed through the country where Baron Pennefather held property, would have cause to observe that he had been an improving landlord; and the approval of this learned person might surely be taken as a guarantee for the efficiency and safety of the Bill, even if no other arguments could be alleged in its favour. The Landlord and Tenant Bill was, in other words, a measure to facilitate contracts; it facilitated the enforcement of contracts upon both parties—a measure which, if it were duly and fairly carried out, would yield to none for value and importance, as effecting the morality and honesty of all classes in Ireland, and as encouraging punctuality—an essential ingredient in all transactions between man and man of a commercial character. The provisions of the Bill were very numerous; but if their Lordships should consent to its being committed, they could be explained and discussed in detail; it would, therefore, be unnecessary for him to do more than touch upon some of the most important. The Bill provided for a regis-
1508
try of leases and agreements. It contained an entirely new mode of legislating with regard to the prevention of waste; and especially it endeavoured to prevent a practice which had prevailed, and by which land had been greatly deteriorated—that of burning. Noble Lords connected with Ireland would be aware that the provisions of the Burning Act were of a highly penal character, and had been found to be practically ineffective. The object of the present proposal was to prevent rather than to punish, and he believed that it would be found to be more useful in practice than the existing Burning Act. The measure also contained provisions upon another subject, and one which had proved a fertile source of injury to Ireland—the practice of subletting. The system of subletting was one which ought to be suppressed, for under that system none of those great improvements so necessary for agricultural success could be carried out; and, in fact, on every estate where it prevailed, it formed an impassable barrier to all material improvement, and therefore he thought that any proposition which provided for putting an end to it could not but prove beneficial. The Bill also contained provisions with regard to improvements in cottages, not altogether dissimilar to those in a Bill brought in by his noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and which had been sent to the House of Commons a few days ago. The present measure also contained provisions with reference to distress and distraint, somewhat modifying the existing laws on that subject. The Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill proposed providing compensation for improvements effected by a tenant in the absence of any express contract with the landlord; while, where a contract existed, the case was provided for by the second of the two Bills to which he had already referred. He did not anticipate any very strong opposition to the clauses of this Bill, with the exception of those particular ones which had a retrospective operation, and especially the 14th clause. He felt persuaded that none of their Lordships would for a single moment dispute the position that it was most desirable, by legislation, to insure, if possible, the most complete security for the investment of capital, with a view of improving property; and he apprehended that to obtain that security was one of the most important points to be considered in framing a Bill like the one which he was now asking their Lord-

1509
ships to read a second time. He would frankly admit that the spirit in which the Government had taken up this measure was not from any very strong conviction with reference to its being the best method of legislation, but from the conviction that it was the best which had hitherto been proposed. He was also quite willing to admit that, although he approved most strongly of the present measure, he preferred, in some respects, a measure which he had had the honour of submitting to their Lordships in 1846; but as that proposal was not approved, he was must willing to give his assistance in producing any measure which appeared most probable to be able to deal with the peculiar case. While, however, he admitted that in some respects he preferred his own measure of 1846, he would at the same time allow that that proposal had very defective machinery, which would, from being too complicated, have been most probably inoperative; but he was by no means satisfied of the impossibility of rendering, that machinery more simple. He had heard it argued against a proposal like the present, that such legislation was partial—that it was for Ireland only; and no such measure existed either in this country or in Scotland. Now, he was quite willing to admit that no Bill like the present had been introduced for this country or for Scotland; but he entirely denied that the system which this Bill proposed to create in Ireland did not exist;—so far the contrary, he himself lived in a part of the country where the system of tenant-right prevailed to a great extent. It prevailed to a very large extent not merely in the midland and eastern districts of this country, but in the northern, and in parts of Scotland. He admitted it varied in different parishes; still the system prevailed; and, in fact, almost every provision of the 16th clause of this Bill existed in custom in many parts of this country and had the force of law. [A Noble LORD expressed his dissent.] He assured the noble Lord that this was the case; and in anticipation of the objection he had provided himself with proof of it. It had been judicially laid down that this custom had the force of law The case of Mousley v. Ludlam came before Justices Coleridge and Erle in the Court of Queen's Bench on 26th November, 1851, by way of appeal from the County Court of Derbyshire. It was an action by an outgoing tenant against his landlord, to recover 50 l. for having
1510
given up a farm, with the benefit of work done, manure spread, tiles and other material expended in and about the cultivation and improvement thereof, together with the stone posts, grass, herbage, crops, &c. The plaintiff was a yearly tenant, on the terms that he should use and cultivate his farm in a good and tenantable manner, according to the rules of good husbandry. The tenancy was determined by notice to quit given by the landlord. For drainage done two years, the tenant charged 5–7ths; for that done one year, 6–7ths. The improvements were made without the knowledge or consent of the landlord. The custom was proved that every outgoing tenant should be entitled to claim from the landlord compensation for works, though done without the landlord's knowledge or consent. It was contended for the landlord that the alleged custom could not be supported, as being unreasonable and bad. Mr. Justice Coleridge said, "It seems to me not an unreasonable custom that a tenant who is bound to use a farm in a good and tenantable manner, and according to the rules of good husbandry, should be at liberty on quitting his farm to charge his landlord with a portion of the expense of draining the land that requires drainage according to good husbandry, though the drainage be done without the landlord's knowledge or consent." Mr. Justice Erle, said, "If it be not unreasonable as a contract, I do not see that it is unreasonable as a custom." He quoted this ease merely to show their Lordships that there were customs prevailing in England having the force of law, and which no landlord could resist. This principle subsisted in France at the present time; it existed in the latter days of the Roman Empire, and had been engrafted on the Roman civil law. He was not now arguing that the principle was accompanied with proper restrictions in this Bill; but upon the question of principle he must repeat that it was applicable by custom in many parts of England and Scotland, that it was applicable in France, and that it had been adopted in the Roman Empire in its later years; he was therefore unable to understand how it could be considered so wholly inapplicable to Ireland as it was said to be. Indeed, there were circumstances in Ireland which appeared to render it more applicable to that country than either to England, Scotland, or even in some respects to France. In England and Scotland the landlords let farms, in Ireland they only let land. This was an

1511
additional reason for some legal provision of the kind. The Bill, however, evinced a perfect knowledge, on the part of its framers, of the difficulties of the question, and of the necessity for restrictions and precautions against frauds; and, therefore, if noble Lords would read the Bill carefully, they would find that it had been framed in the most careful manner. They would find—he was now speaking only of the prospective part of the measure—that no tenant could claim compensation for any improvements unless he had given notice to the landlord of his intention to execute such improvements. After the landlord had been served with notice of the intention to make improvements, he might, if he were able and willing—and he apprehended this would be the result in many cases—serve a counter notice upon the tenant that he would undertake the improvements himself; and under those circumstances, the landlord would be in a position, under the other Bill, to claim a percentage from the tenant for such improvements. He would not occupy their Lordships' time by dealing with the objections which had been made by persons who had not read the Bill carefully, to some of its provisions, on the ground that they were extravagant; but if they would take the trouble to look at the clauses they would find that many of the frightful evils which they anticipated had been carefully guarded against. When he was told that it would be in the power of the cottier tenant to make the landlord pay for any shed he might require, he referred such parties to the Bill, where they would find the case met. When he was told there would be cases where men occupying as tenants would erect cottages for the purpose of subletting them to the neighbouring population, and then claim compensation for such erection, he answered, that this case was met by special enactment, to say nothing of the general provision that claims could alone be made which tended to increase the agricultural value of the land. These were not the only securities provided by the Bill. No tenant who had executed an improvement under the sanction of his landlord could claim compensation if he was in arrear for rent, if he had sublet any portion of his land with out the consent of the landlord, or if he had broken any lease or agreement with the landlord, and if he had voluntarily abandoned possession of the property. Great care had been taken to provide for due notice being given to the landlord of the
1512
intended improvement; while, after the improvements had been executed, the tenant could not claim compensation if he were not entirely free from all default; in short, the only position in which a tenant could claim compensation, was in the case of his being arbitrarily dispossessed by the landlord. With these provisions, he did not think that fraud could easily be committed; but he would not dwell on that part of the question, but would at once pass to those clauses of the Bill which had a retrospective operation.
He admitted that retrospective legislation was in principle objectionable, and in the Bill which he introduced in 1806 no provision was inserted of this kind. But if a useful measure was in contemplation, here was a good deal to be said on both sides, and he invited noble Lords to consider the question fairly in Committee. They must not discard moral considerations. None of their Lordships, he was sure, would deny that where a tenant had expended his money in the improvement of a property, and he was dispossessed by the landlord, he had a moral right to compensation. It was this moral right that was recognised in this country, where the custom of tenant-right was not recognised; and this moral right generally operated as a sufficient security to the tenant. The moral right, then, being established, the Bill now before their Lordships merely converted it into a legal right; whilst careful restrictions had been introduced in order to meet the objections that might be made. He had certainly heard no reason hitherto why such provisions should not be introduced into the Bill; but on the part of the Government he should be ready, in Committee, to consider any suggestions for the improvement of the clauses. It was, of course, open for the consideration of their Lordships whether the retrospective clauses should be retained, and this would be a subject for fair discussion and argument. He had promised to refer to an observation made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), that these Bills were not the same as had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Lord Derby. If the noble Earl thought they were inconsistent with the measures he then approved, he was no doubt entitled to take the course he appeared to be meditating; but the noble Earl had no right to find a loop-hole for himself by a misrepresentation of the real facts of the case. He defied the noble Earl to prove the assertion he made last

1513
night, that the measures were not identical in principle with the Bills sanctioned by the Government of Lord Derby. If the noble Earl meant to say they were not, clause by clause and line by line, identical with the Bills introduced by Lord Derby's Government in November, he admitted such was the case; but the noble Earl could not maintain that he was justified, either by Parliamentary, official, or any other usage, in availing himself of that assertion to refuse his assent to the second reading of these Bills. Now, what were the alterations that were supposed to render the identity of the Bills no longer the same? In the Landlord and Tenant Bill the only material change was the exclusion of growing crops from the power of distraint. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, if this was a vital principle of the Bill, let them move its reintroduction into the Bill. The Tenants' Improvement Bill, as originally drawn by Mr. Napier, gave compensation to the tenant for improvements on and in the soil, on a principle different from that which at present stood in the Bill, since it gave compensation by terms of years. By an alteration in Committee the mode of computation had been simplified by an arrangement which, it would not be disputed, was an improvement, namely, that it should be by valuation at the time of the determination of the tenancy. The 14th clause was certainly altered; but in spirit and intention it remained the same. As originally introduced it did not contain the restriction now imposed by the proviso carried by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young), which greatly limited its operation, to the effect that no compensation should be given for improvements which was not claimed within twelve months of the passing of the Act. The principle of retrospective legislation was undoubtedly contained in the Bill introduced by the late Government; and it was impossible to deny that the peasantry of Ireland would consider this question, not in the same light as it was viewed and argued in that House, but as it was felt in their daily habits and intercourse of life; and it was the duty of Parliament to endeavour to settle the question in a social, as well as in a legal, point of view; and it was with this desire on the part of the Government that he called upon their Lordships to assent to the second reading of these Bills. He regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was not present, as he felt persuaded that that noble Earl
1514
would not depart, whatever others might do who previously served with him and generally sat beside him, from the assurance which he had given to his right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland, of his resolve to assist him to the utmost in carrying out the provisions of these Bills, and in obtaining a full and fair consideration of them in the House, of which he was one of the greatest ornaments. He felt convinced that if the noble Earl were present he would have exerted his influence to prevent any attempt to stop that consideration to which measures of this kind, after all the examination it had gone through, was so fairly entitled. He could not forget the course taken by the friends and associates of noble Lords opposite at the last election in Ireland, and the assurances which were given by Members of the other House of Parliament friendly to the late Government of the earnest desire to settle this question in a liberal spirit, and their desire afterwards expressed in the House of Commons to carry this Bill into effect. Remembering these things, he did regret that some of the associates of that Government should now band themselves together to oppose measures which, in their integrity and essence—whether right or wrong—were the same as those which they had previously sanctioned. He could not but believe that noble Lords opposite proposed to adopt a most unwise course upon this occasion; they were, in fact, following the same course which they pursued for so many years with reference to protection. For himself, he would say he was too sincere a friend to Ireland and to their Lordships not to hope that they might not be visited with those results which were likely to attend their indisposition to pass these Bills, and to fairly settle this question during the present Session. He never submitted any measures to the consideration of Parliament with a deeper conviction that it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to enter upon their discussion without reference to party feeling. [The Earl of MALMESBURY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl cheered as though he had some cause to complain of party feeling on the Ministerial side of the House in connexion with these Bills. He could assure the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government, eschewing party feeling, sought nothing by passing these Bills but the promotion of the peace and welfare of Ireland. If the Bills were passed into law, and succeeded,

1515
whose would be the credit? He had no hesitation in saying at once that it would be the credit, and justly so, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland; while if they were passed, and did not succeed, the reproach would be thrown upon the present Government for assisting in carrying them out. What, then, could be the party motives which could influence the Government in wishing to pass these Bills? Her Majesty's Government, by desiring to pass them, did honour to one who had done honour to the late Government, and whom noble Lords opposite were now anxious to discredit when he had suited their purpose, or now considered as no longer useful to them. Her Majesty's Government were ready to place the responsibility of settling this question to the credit of the late Government, if the proposed measures succeeded, with a certainty of blame to themselves if they did not. He would conclude by earnestly appealing to their Lordships to pass the second reading of the Bills, not the view of carrying through unconsidered the whole of the proposed enactments, but for the purpose of giving to the measures that fair consideration which they so well deserved.
In respect of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill it was moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he thought that if their Lordships wanted proofs of the danger of passing these Bills at the present moment, and of the difficulty of legislating at all on this subject, they would find them in the speech of the noble Duke, who, while he addressed the House but a very short time in explanation of the details of the measure, and said not one word on the effect the various clauses would have in Ireland, had in the latter portion of his address endeavoured to divert from them the attention of the House, and had introduced a personal question taxing noble Lords with their political antecedents, regardless of the danger of sacrificing the best interests of Ireland by precipitately passing these measures, so that the purposes of the moment were served. What necessity was there to have said one word about party motives? Why should the noble Duke have introduced the argumentum ad hominem instead of the argumentum ad rem, if not to place the opponents of these measures in a disagreeable position, and enforce their votes by an allusion to their personal
1516
position? Notwithstanding his strong objections to the Bills, he would recommend their Lordships to suffer the Bills now before them to be read a second time, and then to refer them to a Select Committee, with a view to the subject being fully considered, and these most important questions dealt with in the next Session of Parliament. The reasons for delay were obvious. There were some provisions in the present Bills so objectionable that it would be impossible to assent to them; their Lordships had now been sitting ten months, and at the end of such a Session, just as the House was about to rise, it was proposed to pass three of the most important Bills affecting the internal condition of Ireland that were ever proposed to Parliament. Nor could be fail to remark upon the absence on such an occasion of the noble Marquess so long the President of the Council—(the Marquess of Lansdowne), though he was aware of the cause of that absence—who was one of the greatest authorities in the Cabinet upon this question. And then, when he looked to the other side of the House, he missed a noble Earl who was the greatest authority on that side of the House, not because he was the leader of the party, but because he had been Chief Secretary for Ireland at one of the most critical moments in her history, and from the time he first entered Parliament to the present moment had taken a most active part in all matters affecting Ireland, and who was, moreover, a large Irish proprietor. Their Lordships had not the benefit and advantage of the authorities of these noble Lords, and this was an additional reason for delay. And how had the other House of Parliament dealt with these Bills? The House of Commons had had these Bills before them for the last ten months; and he wanted to know why they were not brought before this House until the month of August? Of course, he knew the Bills had received great attention in the other House during the time; that they had been before a Select Committee, and that alterations had been made both there and up to the last moment upon their various stages. Was this House, however, to be so treated, that they were to be told to pass in ten days Bills which had occupied the attention of the House of Commons for ten months? The state of the Session when their Lordships were called upon to take these measures into consideration, alone justified the delay which he now asked for. Allusion had been made

1517
by the noble Duke to the late Government having originated this measure; but the late Government had never made it a party question—they had laid the Bills on the table of the house for the consideration of Parliament. And, now, let them see if, all the time those Bills had been before the other House, they had received that care and attention which were absolutely necessary for safe legislation on such subjects. When a Bill professed to amend and consolidate the whole law of the land question, it ought to be considered with very great deliberation; and yet at the very last stage of the principal one of those three Bills, statutes were repealed and others re-enacted—not by one or two, but by the half-dozen—and not less than six Acts were taken out of the schedule one Bill, and five put into it. Under such circumstances, he did not care what learned persons had seen the measures, for it was evident that they required the greatest attention from their Lordships. Let their Lordships see what were some of those important Acts to which those schedules referred. There was an alteration even on the third reading, and the schedules had been totally altered since Mr. Napier had left London, and gone to Ireland. Further, would their Lordships believe that by this Bill the old law of replevin, which had caused such litigation in Ireland, had been re-enacted at the last moment? There were about 200 statutes altogether relating to this subject, about sixty of those statutes having reference to leasing powers, and yet the Leasing Powers Bill, which professed to repeal and consolidate the whole of them, did not touch by name any one of those statutes. But by the noble Duke's own account this Bill would leave 140 statutes loose upon the statutebooks of Ireland; and this Muse was asked to pass such a measure within ten days of the end of the Session! There had been a very excellent Bill passed in 1845 upon the subject of leases, under which a great many leases had been entered into; he had been informed by an extensive land agent that he had been party to upwards of 200. This Act was repealed by the present legislation. He had no to doubt this had been done by misapprehension and mistake, but it would produce a general violation of contracts with regard to leases which had been entered into under it. It repealed also the Act of 1832, which had reference to subletting, making no saving clause respecting the leases,
1518
made under the operation of that Act, and accordingly the whole faith by which they had been contracted was broken. There was another Act also, the Act of Estoppel, and if this Bill were passed the common law would be revived, and every tenant would be at liberty to cut down as much timber as he pleased upon the land held by him. One of the most popular writers of the day had enunciated, in the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce," that the great principle of British law was to make work for itself, and that principle was certainly observed in these Bills. Was it not a monstrous principle to lay down, that if a house were not in good repair, the landlord was not to get his rent? Did anybody hear before of such an enactment, or of making the personal qualification and character of the tenant a question in adjudication? And yet from no cottier holder, not an agricultural labourer, could you recover rent under one of the clauses? These and other points required, be considered, the most minute attention of a Select Committee. Of the three Bills, that which he viewed with the least disfavour was the Leasing Powers Bill; but then what was called the Leasing Powers Bill was also a Tenants' Compensation Bill, the two subjects being mixed up in a most wonderful manner. Such a Bill as the Tenants' Compensation Bill—such a total violation and disregard of all contracts—was never before, he believed, submitted to Parliament, nor had he ever heard of any Government having ventured to propose such a measure as was intended to be carried out in the retrospective clauses of the Bill. The noble Duke absolutely allowed a tenant to make every kind of improvement he pleased, contrary to the will of the landlord, and the latter was to be bound to pay the former for these improvements whenever the tenant pleased. The noble Duke, indeed, said there were certain sets-off and securities, which he described; but the only set-off the landlord could really bring in on balancing accounts was the damage done to these very improvements, without the slightest reference to other dilapidations or injuries to land, or to buildings. Did they ever hear the like of that before? The noble Duke would lead their Lordships to believe this Bill only sought to niche law that which was the custom in this country; but he quite failed in doing so. Would their Lordships believe it, that there was no limitation for

1519
time at all in this Bill, though the cases which the noble Duke relied on, and the judgment of the learned persons he had quoted, showed clearly that there was always such a limitation in this country, whenever compensation for improvements was granted? He said, then, that these Bills required close examination in all their details. Now, what would be the effect of their being carried into a law? What had the effect of them been in Ireland already? He had received, among many others, a letter from a gallant officer with whom he was totally unacquainted, which stated the following case:—In 1784 an ancestor of the writer made a lease by which twenty-seven acres of arable land were leased with a large tract of mountain land at the low rent of 13 l. a year, with the express object of having the latter improved. The lease was now nearly run out, and the writer said he expected that the tenant, having for so many years enjoyed all the benefit of this land at such a rent, would, should these Bills pass into law, seek to make him pay for the whole of the improvements made since the year 1784, although the lease was intended to be, and was, full compensation for those improvements. He had also received a letter from a friend of his, in which he said he had just withdrawn from a transaction in the Encumbered Estates Court, in which 30,000 l. worth of property was involved, "lest," said he, "I should purchase with it seventy or eighty lawsuits."
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: If the noble Marquess would only take the trouble look to the 4th and 5th lines of the 5th clause of the Bill, he would see that the case he had described in such glowing terms could not possibly occur.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: Well, that was a matter they could discuss in Committee, but their Lordships had this fact, that 30,000 l. worth of property had been offered for sale, but that the trustee about to purchase it had very properly withdrawn his offer on account of the probability that this Bill would pass. They had before them a Bill for the continuance of the Encumbered Estates Court. What was the use of forcing sales when they were deteriorating property and deterring persons from vesting their money in Irish property by passing such Bills as this? If they passed, there would be a mass of litigation and confusion in Ireland such as never had been seen in any country before. No noble Lord connected with Ireland could
1520
deny it. So far from the tenantry being benefited by these measures, they would be injured, and au end would be put to all improvements whatever. He ventured to assert that if the Bills passed, the tenantry of Ireland would be kept in many places under a notice to quit from quarter to quarter, and the hanging gale would be always hung in terrorem over their heads, for fear that they should take advantage of the clauses of this Bill. It was well known that in many places they were ready prepared for the passing of this Bill, and it would be a signal of the greatest confusion and social disturbance. He humbly implored their Lordships not to go on any further with these Bills at present. The question was one of the greatest gravity and importance. Let them remember how carefully and delicately it had been handled on former occasions. It was fully a year subsequent to the close of the Devon Commission before a Bill was introduced to deal with a small portion of the subject, and was rejected; and since that time various other measures, down to the Bill of Sir William Somerville, had been proposed, but without success. For the sake of their own characters, he asked the noble Duke and the Government not to attempt to force these Bills through Parliament at such a period of the Session. If they were to have any such thing as party at all, and if it was true that party was necessary in order to rule, on what party in Ireland could Government expect to rest if they dealt with property in this reckless way? This ought to be to no question of party for the Ministry one way or another. It touched nearly and deeply the whole question of the loyalty and confidence of the landed proprietors of Ireland in the Government of this country. If they saw real property in Ireland was treated in a way in which no man in his senses would think of treating real property in England or Scotland, he wanted to know what was to secure their attachment to the Crown, and their obedience to its supremacy? Let their Lordships have the whole of the Bills carefully examined by a Select Committee before passing them. When the Bills were read a second time, he would make the Motion to refer them to a Select Committee which stood in his name.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that he should not have risen at the time he did, nor have attempted to follow the noble Duke, because he felt it would be more respectful to the Members of their

1521
Lordships' House who came from Ireland to give them the priority in this debate, which concerned them so nearly and so deeply; but he rose because, with more astonishment than he had ever felt since he had been a Member of their Lordships' House, and that was now twelve years—with an astonishment which must have been shared by most of their Lordships, he had heard a Minister of the Crown, on introducing a measure of a very important nature, containing nothing that could possibly excite choler and passion in any one of their Lordships—instead of making one of those calm and dignified statements which he had no doubt the noble Duke was well able to make if he chose—but, evading the subject on which he called the House to decide and judge, he suddenly made a charge—a rush, as it were—at a single Member of the House—without any provocation whatever—before he had opened his mouth on the subject, on which he had never in his life indeed spoken; and, without showing any reason for it—as, indeed, he was incapable of doing—he assumed that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was going at once viciously and with the greatest ferocity to resist all these Bills, and to—he took down the noble Duke's words, that there might be no mistake on the subject—find loopholes to blind the House—to blink the subject—to traduce and malign Mr. Napier—and, in a word, to discharge himself of all the responsibility which attached to him, and which he still felt, as one who had been a Minister of the Government to which he (Mr. Napier) had belonged. The noble Duke assumed all that—God knows why—for, as he said, he had never uttered a sentence on the subject. Last night he merely had all asked the noble Duke if those Bills, which he said had been referred to the present law officers of the Crown, had been laid before them before or after they had passed through the Committee of the House of Commons. That was all he said, and—
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: My Lords, the noble Earl distinctly said—and I am in the recollection of your Lordships when I say so—that they were not the same Bills.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: And they were not the same Bills—he repeated it—they were not, and he was ready to prove it. That the noble Duke should have made this charge, and should have used words scarcely proper to be uttered in the heat of an excited debate, only
1522
showed that the noble Duke was not yet acquainted with the first duty of a Minister of the Crown, which was not to provoke needless passion, and not to make an unprovoked attack on one for supposed intentions he did not entertain. But he knew the noble Duke to be so fond of antagonism in every shape and form, and to be so firmly convinced that a person who had been once in office was in such an unfortunate position when out of office, that every method and means should be tried by the unhappy gentleman to succeed to it again, that he imagined every one else to be actuated by the same motives. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) at once disclaimed all such notions and all such means. He disclaimed utterly that he had any wish to obtain once more the office he had unworthily filled by factious or unfair means—he told the noble Duke he did not envy him his place, and he only hoped he might keep it with greater case than he kept his temper. The question before the House was, whether the Bills now on the table were the same Bills which Mr. Napier had sanctioned; which had been approved by the Government at the time they introduced them; and which they would have made every attempt to pass through Parliament had they remained in office? When a private individual brought in a Bill to Parliament he would not be so arrogant or pedantic as to adhere to every word of it; but he did not hesitate to say that the principle of the Bills introduced by the late Government was different from the principle of the Bills now before the House. The noble Duke assumed that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was going to abandon his former colleagues, and above all Mr. Napier, by opposing these Bills in the mass. But when the noble Duke talked of his (the Earl of Malmesbury's) late colleagues, he would ask him what was the principle of the noble Duke's colleagues with respect to this question? Was it the principle of Mr. Sharman Crawford and of Mr. Keogh, the noble Duke's intimate friend? He thought the noble Duke would find there was a much greater difference between the principle of these Gentlemen and his own, than there was between him (the Earl of Malmesbury) and Mr. Napier. He would keep to the point of refuting the charge the noble Duke had made, that he had abandoned the former intentions of the Government to which he belonged, and was now destroying the Bill of Mr. Napier.

1523
Now, as to the Leasing Powers Bill, he was free to confess it had not been so much altered during its passage through the House of Commons as to require him to ask their Lordships not to go into Committee upon it, though he would much prefer a Select Committee of their Lordships, if that was not out of the question at that period of the Session; but as to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, they had so much altered the spirit and intentions of Mr. Napier and the late Government—they had so garbled and changed it, that, though he was ready to consent to the Committee, there were many clauses which must be amended. When the noble Duke said, with all the vehemence and passion that he had displayed on that occasion, that none of those Bills had been altered, and that they were the very Bills of the late Government in spirit and intention, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could only say that the third Bill, namely, the Tenants Compensation Bill, was the complete reverse of all that Mr. Napier's Bill was—that there was hardly a part of it for which Mr. Napier was responsible, or which he knew as his own. Would the noble Duke take his authority for that fact? [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: Certainly not.] The noble Duke said he certainly would not take his authority. Whose, then, would he take? [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I will take the authority of Mr. Napier.] He at once accepted the noble Duke's reference to that authority. He had a letter in his hand in which the writer, talking of the Tenants' Compensation Bill, said, it was despatched by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, "and several clauses muddled together—in fact, it became a raft to which every one tried to tie a plank, and on which no one would venture to put to sea when finished." It was Mr. Napier who spoke thus of the Bill. [The Duke NEWCASTLE: What is the date of that letter?] It was dated last Thursday evening. That was Mr. Napier's description of what had passed in the Committee of the House of Commons with respect to that Bill. It was totally different both in form and substance from the Bill he had introduced. As to the other Bill, Mr. Napier wrote—"It is quite open to your Lordship to exercise your independent judgment upon it, for this is not the Bill in substance or form which I introduced." He understood the noble Duke said he would take Mr. Napier's authority, and there he had it—
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: All I can say is, that a letter of the same date, which I will place in your Lordships' hands, if you please, from Mr. Napier, led me to infer Mr. Napier had a different opinion.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: He was quite ready to give the noble Duke the advantage of admitting that though Mr. Napier declared he was at liberty, as his former colleague, to act independently with respect to this Bill, because it was different from that he had sanctioned, his (Mr. Napier's) private opinion was, that this Bill should pass. But he had answered the noble Duke's challenge, that it was the same Bill Mr. Napier brought before the late Cabinet, and which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was now going to abandon. It was his duty to be responsible for anything he had introduced as Minister; and he was the last man to desert any colleague, and least of all so distinguished and amiable a man as Mr. Napier; but was he bound to follow Mr. Napier for all the rest of his life through the Committees of the House of Commons? As long as he had been his colleague, he was ready to take the responsibility of all Mr. Napier's acts, but no further. When he used this language, he was told by the noble Duke that he would probably act in contradistinction to the manner in which Lord Derby would have acted were he not unfortunately absent; but he had that noble Earl's authority to say that he took the same view of the case. If his noble Friend had been present, he would have proposed what he (the Earl of Malmesbury) now proposed—that their Lordships should allow two of the Bills to go into Committee, but reject in toto the Tenants Compensation Bill, as one with which his noble Friend would have nothing to do, being, according to Mr. Napier's own showing, entirely different from the Bill introduced by the late Government.
The Earl of RODENsaid, he was totally unconnected with party on either side of the House; but, being interested in the welfare of Ireland, he felt bound to offer a few observations on a subject of such deep importance to that country as the present. Having attentively listened to the noble Duke's exposition of the provisions of these Bills, he confessed he felt indignation that one of the measures—the Tenants Compensation Bill—so disgraceful and unjust to the holders of property in Ireland, should have passed the House of Commons. Such a measure,

1525
he was certain, would never have been proposed to be adopted for England or Scotland; or, if proposed, would have been immediately scouted by every individual, probably, in their Lordships' House. It was nothing to him to be told that the Bill was Mr. Napier's Bill. No man had a greater respect for that learned Gentleman than he had; but from the first that moment he heard that. Mr. Napier had undertaken to propose such a measure as a panacea for all the evils complained of with respect to tenant right, and which would be satisfactory to all parties, he felt that that undertaking was perfectly illusory; and he considered that a measure which contained so unjust a provision as the retrospective clause which had been alluded to, ought to meet with no one's approbation. Were those clauses to be passed, the greatest injustice would be inflicted on the landowner, for he would be made to pay for improvements which had formed the very consideration in many cases on which he had let his land at a low rent. He was extremely sorry to learn from the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) that he did nut intend to oppose the second reading of those Bills. He (the Earl of Roden) thought the honest course to pursue, when a bad measure was introduced into that House or elsewhere, was to oppose it at once, and to come at once to a decision upon its principle. He should think it his duty to take their Lordships' opinion as to the second reading of those Bills. Considering that their Lordships' House had never had an opportunity of inquiring into the details of the measures of his noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) now under consideration, thought the straightforward course for their Lordships to pursue was to reject Motion for the second reading of the whole of them.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, he was sorry that these Bills had come before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session, and that the Government should have reserved them to be brought into Parliament altogether. However, as their Lordships had been driven to consider them together, it was with great satisfaction that he had heard the course which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) proposed to take on this occasion. With respect to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and the Leasing Powers Bill, he was not able to discover any great discrepancy between them and the draughts
1526
originally drawn by Mr. Napier. There had certainly been alterations made, but they were not of such a nature as to justify any decided opposition to them on that ground. The Tenants Compensation Bill had, however, been so much altered, that perhaps it might not be altogether just to call it Mr. Napier's Bill. He thought, at that period of the Session, they would not be able to give a fair consideration to the Tenants Compensation Bill; but with respect to the other two Bills—the Landlord and Tenant Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill—he thought they were not of such a character as to prevent their Lordships dealing with them at once, late in the Session though it was. He knew they were called Landlords' Bills; but the first contained provisions which were fully as much for the advantage of the tenant as the landlord; and with regard to the second he might observe, that there was at the present time a most anxious desire on the part of scientific persons to search for mines in Ireland; and to his own knowledge there were persons of experience in different parts of the country who were endeavouring to ascertain how they could employ their capital in mining operations; and it was most desirable that their Lordships, by the Leasing Powers Bill, should confer on tenants for life in that country the means of enabling those individuals to carry on their pursuits. He hoped they would adopt the proposal of the noble Earl, who stated that he had the authority of the head of the great party on the other side of the House for expressing the opinions he had delivered. He hoped their Lordships would give to two of those Bills at least a second reading, and allow them to go into Committee; at the same time their Lordships might likewise hold out the expectation that early in next Session they would give a full consideration to the third of those Bills, to which the minds of the people of Ireland were so anxiously directed. Until the matter was set at rest agitation would not subside in Ireland. It they thought the question was at rest because nothing had been said on the subject for the last few months, they were mistaken. The reason why the feeling on the subject was suppressed during the interval, was because it was known that the Bills were under the consideration of a Select Committee of the other House, and there was a desire to give time to the House of Commons to consider the subject. It should be observed that their

1527
Lordships' House was a House of landlords, where the tenant had no representative whatever; and if they threw aside all the measures on which the time of the Committee of the House of Commons had been expended for the last six months, it would not only be a gross injustice to the people of Ireland, but an insult to the Committee of the House of Commons. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had put some of his objections in a way that astonished him. The noble Marquess had said that the Bill proposed to give full compensation to the tenant, if the building he had erected was in good repair, although he might have wasted the land and left it in a state of dilapidation. The Bill, on the contrary, particularly guarded against such a grievance by declaring that, in reference to compensation, the state in which the land was left was one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. Again, the noble Marquess gave their Lordships to understand that if a tenant let his house get out of repair, he would save so much rent, although that provision only referred to labourers' cottages, and would come into operation only the landlord neglecting to keep them in repair, as by the Bill he was bound to do. With respect to timber property to which the noble Marquess had referred, he (the Earl of Wicklow) considered that no provision of the Bill was stronger for the for protection of property than the provision in respect to the kind of property he had just mentioned. The cheers which followed the speech of the noble Marquess proved to him that their Lordships had not read the Bill with much attention. The noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) said he was not connected with party on either side; neither had he (the Earl of Wicklow) party affection so strong as to induce him to support the Bill as a Ministerial measure if he thought it was fraught with all the objections that had been urged against it; but he was not apprehensive of danger from this Bill if the objections were taken in an open and fair manner for the purpose of going into Committee upon them. The retrospective clause as at present existing, was one to which he could never give his assent; but, at the same time, he was not opposed to a retrospective provision of some kind; on the contrary, he would like to see a well-considered and well-guarded provision of a retrospective character adopted. He would suppose the case of a tenant there who had improved and drained his farm,
1528
and built a good house upon it, trusting to his landlord's sense of justice, the landlord perhaps not having given his consent in writing, though he had ocular demonstration of what the tenant was doing, and never said anything to impede him; and suppose that tenant voted against the landlord at an election, would it not be a gross and monstrous injustice that on that account he should be served with an ejectment, and compelled to quit his farm? He would not say that was the general practice, but instances of that kind had occurred. Would it not be monstrous, when they were passing laws with respect to landlord and tenant, if they did not guard against a case of that kind? Or suppose the landlord wanted to consolidate his property, and to get that farm to add to another, would it not be a monstrous injustice that all the improvements made by the tenant, and tacitly sanctioned by the landlord himself, should be lost? It was against evils of that kind that he thought a retrospective clause would be effective, and to that extent he thought a retrospective clause would be desirable. It was said that a retrospective clause in the third Bill, as now drawn, was very objectionable; and that which appeared to be its greatest objection was that which the noble Duke said had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. It was said that it was intended to prevent litigation, and that the retrospective clause would not have operation unless where the tenant gave notice to the landlord within the next twelve months of his intention to apply for compensation. He (the Earl of Wicklow) thought a clause of that kind to be one of the most mischievous that could be introduced; for the result would be that every man, with a lease or without a lease, who had expended anything at any period of time in the improvement of the land, however he might have derived all the advantages contemplated by that improvement, would have a chance hereafter, at the termination of his tenancy, which otherwise he would not have, of receiving compensation; and he would, as a matter of course, give notice within the twelve months of his intention to apply for that compensation. The consequence would be that every tenant throughout the kingdom would register an account of his expenditure in the improvement of his farm—that immediately He would suppose the case of a tenant there would be a protest against the demand on the part of the landlord—and

1529
that the whole country, from one end to the other, would be embroiled by dissensions between landlords and tenants. So far as that Bill was concerned, if they went into Committee, he trusted they would make very material alterations in that particular part of it. He hoped their Lordships would not, by rejecting the proposal of the noble Earl opposite, go into Committee on the first two Bills on the paper, excite a feeling in that country that that House would not accede to the reasonable demands of the people, for by that means irreparable mischief might be done.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject, without the slightest reference to party, for in truth there never was a question which could be considered less a party question. It was impossible for any one who had been connected with the late Government to deny the necessity that existed for taking some steps on this subject; and that they had resolved to lay before Parliament Bills for the same general purpose and for the same general object:—for that Government certainly did intend to consolidate the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and they also intended to introduce a Bill to meet that which was so much pressed for—compensation to tenants. He could not, therefore, consider the present Government as open to the slightest blame in bringing forward those measures that had come from the other House, any more than the late Government would have been in similar circumstances. But still, it was a question whether the Bills in their present shape were such as should be passed by the House. As regarded the great question of compensation, he considered himself bound to endeavour to effect what would be serviceable to Ireland on that question; but, certainly, he had never bound himself to any clause whatever as regarded past compensation. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: There was such a clause in the Bill as introduced by the late Government.] The noble Duke said there was such a clause in the Bill as originally brought in. All he could say was, that he would have exercised the right of judgment on that subject, and he might observe that it was always fully intended that that portion of the question should be left clear and open for discussion. Just as the noble Duke himself had expressed his disapprobation of a particular part of the measures, and stated what he had formerly proposed to do in reference to the same point, he (Lord
1530
St. Leonards) would not now say a single word that he would not have uttered if he had still occupied the place of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. There was in addition to the Bills now before them another measure—namely, the Land Improvement Bill—which stood for a third reading, and the four Bills together would form a code of law as between landlord and tenant; and a blessed consummation to Ireland it would be if they could pass those laws with safety and a due attention to the interests of all concerned. He should begin with the Landlord and Tenant Bill, in which the law of landlord and tenant had been consolidated with great learning and labour, and to reject that Bill would be entirely out of the question. If the Government on their own responsibility would say this was a Bill for which they would be answerable—that it had been prepared with so much care as not to require to be referred to a Select Committee, then those noble Lords who had confidence in the Government would be content to take the Bill as it stood; but other noble Lords might naturally say they ought to have an opportunity of forming an opinion of the particular measure. For himself he could declare that if the Government were prepared to say that the measure was framed with so much care that it was fit to go at once to a Committee of the whole House, be would not oppose that proposition. Then he would come to the second Bill, with respect to the Leasing Powers. A more important Bill was never before Parliament; and he was prepared at once to say, that to attempt to go through that Bill in the then state of the House would be a simple mockery. Some of the clauses were entirely new; some were copied from other Acts; and some were a sort of commentary upon them. It was not simply a Bill relating to the powers of leasing, but it conferred extensive and enlarged powers in regard to compensation and the extension of terms originally granted in lieu of improvement. Under its provisions a lease of an extensive description and for a long term was to be given; and superadded to that the most extensive provisions for giving compensation at the end of the term, and frequently extending the term for a great number of years in lieu of improvements. What improvements? Why, the improvements in respect of which the original extraordinary term was granted to him. In England, a man having got a lease of a farm for thirty, forty, fifty, or sixty years,

1531
calculated the gains and losses, and formed an opinion of the sort of a house he could venture to erect on such a lease. The duration of the lease was the consideration for making the improvements; but here the landlord was not only called upon to give that consideration, but was also called upon at the expiration of the term to pay for the improvements in money, or by the extension of the time for which the lease was originally granted; and that he (Lord St. Leonards) considered was not only a contradiction in terms, but a violation of all principle. He did not say the Bill could not be made to work for the benefit and advantage of Ireland by the exercise of great care and caution: but he would represent to their Lordships that in the present state of the Bill it was not a fit measure to pass the House. He thought it should go to a Select Committee, and that it should there receive the most elaborate examination and consideration. As to the Tenant Compensation Bill, which was intended to come in aid of the Lands Improvement Bill, which now stood for the third reading, he should not object to it on a moderate scale and on fair grounds; but he must consider how it was to be done. He was pledged to a certain extent under the late Government to a measure of compensation, and he held himself now and for ever pledged to the same extent, and if a Bill could be framed to protect the just rights of property on the one hand, and the just expectations of the tenant on the other, he should be prepared to consider it; but, he was bound to say that he thought the proposition entirely objectionable, because no rights of property could be safe, if they passed this Bill, with reference to compensation for past improvements. Let them see what its effects might be on a purchaser of a property. By such a measure they would shift the burden from the landlord, who had the benefit of the improvements, to the shoulders of the purchaser, who ought not to bear it. They would strike at the root of all property, and all the blessings of property, properly understood, would pass away, if they allowed themselves to pass a law like that. There never was a Bill laid upon the table of the of House that would cause so much litigation. For example, a tenant from wear to year, on receiving notice to quit, might serve notice of waking improvements, and though he should be forced out before all the improvements were executed, be would be entitled to demand compen-
1532
sation from the landlord for all he had done. In the next place, there was this great singularity in the measure, that the power of the tenant was merely permissive; there was no obligation on the tenant to make the improvements of which he had given notice; and whenever, therefore, the tenant chose to annoy and perplex the landlord, he might do so by serving notice of making improvements, 'though he had no intention of ever carrying them into effect. The landlord might, if he pleased, execute the improvements of which the tenant gave notice, but he must execute them just as the tenant required; if not—the old story—he must go before the assistant barrister. But if the landlord should elect to make the improvements, he must execute them within three months; and among other things which he would be obliged to do within that limited period was to convert bog into arable or pasture land. The bare allusion to that circumstance showed how necessary it was that Bills of this nature should undergo careful consideration. Suppose the landlord to have made the improvements, the tenant might object to the expense, and carry the case before the assistant barrister, without whose intervention it seemed impossible to do anything in Ireland. Suppose the assistant barrister should decide against the tenant, he might then appeal to the Judge of assize, and if the Jude should also decide against him, he might then give up possession. Let not their Lordships, for the sake of preventing what was called a "collision" with the other House, or for the sake of popularity, or on account of a pressure from without, pass imperfect measures like these. Their Lordships would consider and amend them if the opportunity of doing so were afforded them. It had never fallen to his lot to see business conducted with greater ability than in the Select Committees of their Lordships' House; and he would go further, and express his conviction that if the people at large were aware of the able manner in which the real business of the country was transacted in that house, they would feel that they owed their Lordships a deep debt of gratitude.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he confessed it was with some concern he observed the feeling which seemed to prevail among their Lordships with respect to these Bills; for he had hoped that after the abortive labour of ten years the moment had arrived when it was possible to bring this

1533
difficult and exciting question to a satisfactory conclusion. There could be no doubt of the fact that these Bills—whether they retained precisely their original form or not—were substantially the same with those introduced by the late Government, and that they had been taken up by the present Government; and these circumstances naturally inspired him with a hope that they would form such a settlement as would, in the opinion of their Lordships generally, be satisfactory. He perceived the reverse to be the case, and he could not but see, from the tone the discussion had taken, that a majority of their Lordships were of a different opinion. He wished it to be understood most specifically that in taking up these Bills the Government had no other object in view than the benefit of the country for which they were intended; and as he saw a large number of noble Peers opposite connected with Ireland, he begged to assure them, one and all, that Her Majesty's Government had no other object—that they could have no other object—than that which he was sure brought them here—to promote the substantial and permanent good of the country. That being the case—without entering into the details of these measures, but looking at the view which had been expressed generally by their Lordships, and which he believed he was right in supposing, was the opinion of the majority of the House, he felt it would be in vain for him to attempt to press these measures on the consideration of the House in the present Session. He therefore was prepared to assent to the proposition which bad been made early in the evening by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), that the Bills should be read a second time, and not be further proceeded with during the present Session. He believed their Lordships would do wisely to assent to the second reading; for, if they did not, he feared they might give rise to much misconstruction of their motives. But if their Lordships would consent to the second reading of these Bills, lie, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was prepared to promise that at the earliest period of next Session, the whole subject should be taken into consideration—probably in that House in the first instance—with the view of seeing whether they could not at last arrive at a final and satisfactory settlement of this very difficult and long-agitated question. Their lordships would remember that these Bills had
1534
been before the other House eight or nine months; that they had occupied the continued attention of that House—they had been examined by a Select Committee, and that the greatest pains had been taken to make them as free from objection as possible. It was not, therefore, any want of attention that was required to bring them to a more perfect state, But he was prepared to say this—that if the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leopards) would give to the future investigation of the subject the same wide and just view which he had exhibited that night, he should entertain great hopes of a favourable issue. He would abstain from discussing the merits of the Bills; but he thought the proposition made by the noble Marquess ought to be satisfactory, and that their Lordships should accept the second reading upon the understanding which he had ventured to express.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, the noble Earl at the head of the Government had, in the course which he adopted, shown the judgment which might have been expected from his great experience. Having been a Member of the late Government, and fully cognisant of the principles on which the Bills were founded, he was quite as anxious as the noble Earl himself for the settlement of the question. With pleasure he had heard the noble Earl announce that at an early period of the next Session he would bring the question forward, and submit to their Lordships Bills analogous to those now before them. Before resuming his seat, he must call the noble Earl's attention to the inconvenience and injury which resulted from bringing important business before their Lordships at a late period of the Session. The remedy for the evil was to originate more measures in that House.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREexpressed his gratification at the prospect of a settlement of the question next Session; and, with reference to an allusion made to him by the Duke of Newcastle, explained that Mr. Napier did not submit the Bills to his consideration, but that, having seen them, he had expressed a general approval of their principle.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, that under the circumstances, he would not proceed with his Motion for referring the Bills to a Select Committee.
Bill read 2a.
Then the Tenants Improvement Com-

1535
pensation (Ireland) Bill, and the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill, were respectively read 2a.
House adjourned to Thursday next.