Sitting of 9 March 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°County Court Extension Act Amendment; Exchequer Bills (£1,750,000.)
2° Marine Mutiny.
3° Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000).

THAMES IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BROTHERTONMoved that the Bill be read a second time on Tuesday, the 2nd of May.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was his intention to Move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be postponed till that day six months. The Bill was one of the most extraordinary character. It proposed to establish a body of Commissioners—gentlemen entirely unknown to public fame, and who wished to be self-constituted—empowering them to take possession of the whole bed of the Thames from London-bridge to Westminster, together with all the enormously valuable property lying upon the banks of the river between these points, and to construct embankments—one of them to be a railway—upon both sides of the water. Moreover, it proposed to do that without any funds whatever, there being not one word in the Bill of the means by which this great work was to be completed. The

549
details of the measure were also highly objectionable. For example, one of its provisions was that, within three months after the passing of the Act, parties having claims to the bed of the river should give notice to the Master of the Rolls, and that if such notice should not be given their claims would be considered entirely foreclosed. The Master of the Rolls very naturally objected to have that duty cast upon him; and altogether the Bill was of so novel and objectionable a character that he trusted the House would consent to its being postponed till that day six months.
Amendment proposed to leave out the words "Tuesday, the 2nd day of May next." in order to add the words "this day six months" instead thereof.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, the reason why the promoters of the Bill wished the second reading deferred till the 2nd of May was to allow the engineer an opportunity of returning from abroad, and of making such explanations as he might consider necessary. Certainly, the Bill had considerable merits, and he believed the inhabitants on both banks of the Thames had no objection to it whatever. The proposed embankments would be a very great improvement, and he understood the entire project arose out of the evidence taken before the Committee of 1852. He believed that, if the provisions of the Bill were to be carried into effect, not only would one side of the Thames have the convenience of a railway, and the other be supplied with an embankment—which, he might state, in passing, would not interfere with the ornamental parts of the river bank, such as the Temple gardens—but the river itself would be better cleansed, its course would be made more uniform in breadth, and the navigation on the whole would be greatly improved. He hoped, therefore, the House would not reject the Bill without further consideration, especially since the Government entertained a friendly feeling towards it.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the view of the Government was this—while they thought the Bill very objectionable in its present shape, they had no objection to its being postponed till the 2nd of May.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he considered the Bill as one of a most arbitrary nature. It proposed to appoint arbiters to assess what they might deem the improved value of the property on both sides of the Thames, after the Commissioners should have diverted it to their own purpose, and then to come upon
550
the owners of the property for the price of the improved value. Besides, the whole of the trade and commerce of the river was to be limited to four hours out of the twenty-four; he trusted, therefore, the House would reject it.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it would be useless to postpone the Bill till the 2nd of May, because he understood there was no likelihood of any new arrangement being made, and the owners of property on the banks of the river were naturally anxious to have the matter settled at once.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put and negatived.
Words added:— Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to:—Bill put off for six months.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose pursuant to notice, to present a petition, which was numerously signed by residents of Vancouver's Island, each of whom stated their place of abode, their profession, and the nature of their connexion with the Island, and he, therefore, had as much reason to believe as any person presenting a petition could have, that the signatures were authentic, and that the petition actually proceeded from a considerable body of the most respectable inhabitants of the Island. The petition stated that the grant of the Island to the Hudson's Bay Company for five years was about to expire, and it complained that many persons were prevented from settling in the Island by the high price of land, and the want of a better and more settled form of government; it prayed that the Island might be taken under the Imperial Government, that a Governor might be appointed by this country, and proper Courts of Justice established; it suggested the form in which the petitioners would desire to have the Executive and the Legislative Council established; and it concluded by praying that the Legislature would give its earnest attention to provide a remedy for the evils complained of. He would also take that opportunity of asking the hon. Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the connexion between the Hudson's Bay Company and Vancouver's Island had yet terminated; and whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to establish a new form of Government in the Colony of Vancouver's Island when that connexion has ceased?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that the connexion between the Company and the Island was not about to terminate, nor was it likely to do so, for the Government had no power to remove the Company, unless it could be shown that no settlement was established in the Island, and that, he thought, was disproved by the petition the right hon. Gentleman himself had just presented. The Company were merely proprietors of the Island in trust for the settlers; but it was by no means indispensable that there should be any connexion between the Company and the Governor of the Island. It was true the commission of Governor was now held by an agent of the Company, but it was open to the Imperial Government to appoint an officer independent of the Company if they pleased.

PROMOTIONS IN THE ORDNANCE OFFICE.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the clerk of the Ordnance whether, previous to the promotion of Mr. Samuel Silver Garret over the heads of ten gentlemen of senior standing in the Ordnance Office, any examination was instituted to test his superior qualification; and if not, whether his name had been duly submitted to the Master General to authorise so unusual a proceeding; and, further, whether Mr. Garret, being a practising conveyancer, does not transact professional business at the Ordnance Office during the hours allotted to the public service?
MR. MONSELLsaid, before proceeding to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Antrim, he thought it only just to the ten gentlemen over whose head Mr. Garret had been promoted to state publicly to the House what the gentlemen referred to were already well aware of, namely, that it was not on account of their inefficiency or want of zeal, but on account of the superior zeal and the superior efficiency of Mr. Garret to discharge the duties of the situation he now held. The first question asked by the hon. Member for Antrim was, whether, previous to the promotion of Mr. Garret over the heads of ten gentlemen of senior standing in the Ordnance Office, any examination was instituted to test his superior qualification? He begged to inform the hon. Gentleman, that with regard to promotion in the Ordnance Office, it was not the practice to have any previous examination, but promotion was granted on the chief clerk's
552
certificate of fitness. Mr. Garret's talent, energy, and habits of business had been already sufficiently tested, they had come under the notice of his superior officers, and he was now rewarded. The second question of the hon. Gentleman was, whether the name of Mr. Garret had been duly submitted to the Master General to authorise so unusual a proceeding? The promotion of officers in the Board of Ordnance was made without first submitting it to the Master General. Though the clerk to the Ordnance had the undivided responsibility of making the appointments, he begged to inform the hon. Member for Antrim that Lord Raglan, the Master General, had authorised him to state, that he entirely concurred in and approved the course he (Mr. Monsell) had taken in promoting Mr. Garret. The third question of the hon. Gentleman was, whether Mr. Garret, being a practising conveyancer, did not transact professional business at the Ordnance Office during the hours allotted to the public service? Mr. Garret conscientiously affirmed that he did not, though he had occasionally answered during such hours legal questions put to him by clerks in the office, but none other. The official duties and correspondence of this branch of the service were never in arrear, and they were of too exorbitant a nature to admit of interruption by transacting professional business during the hours allotted to the public service. Mr. Garret had ever felt that the public service was a matter of paramount importance, and had frequently been ready to volunteer assistance when not absolutely called upon. During the last twenty-one years, Mr. Garret's absence on leave had not averaged eight days annually, though the period allowed was thirty-three days. The hon. Member for Antrim would have been saved the trouble of putting these questions if he had taken the trouble to look at the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Board of Ordnance, which had been presented to Parliament, and in which the Committee expressed their satisfaction at the principle of selecting efficient officers for promotion in the place of promotion by seniority.

MINISTERS' MONEY, &c. (IRELAND).
MR. FAGANsaid, that since 1847, when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, he had on five different occasions brought the question of "Ministers' Money" under its attention, with the view

553
to its abolition. He then rose for the sixth time to make a similar Motion. He did so, with the same desire that ever animated him, namely, to avoid all sectarian discussion—not to wound the religious susceptibilities of any Member—to steer clear of everything which would produce irritation or strife. It was not necessary for his purpose. He was there the advocate as well for the Protestant clergyman, who received the obnoxious stipend, as for the Roman Catholics and Dissenters who were forced to pay that anomalous and unjust impost. He called it "anomalous and unjust" advisedly. Was it not an anomaly, that eight towns in Ireland should alone be subjected to this imposition? Why should Cork be liable to it, and Belfast free? Why should Limerick be compelled to pay it, and Londonderry exempt? Why should the inhabitants of Waterford be subject to the odious impost, and the town of Enniskillen escape? Why should Kilkenny, Clonmel, Drogheda, and Kinsale, be forced to maintain by taxation the Protestant minister, and the towns in Ulster be exempted? And this anomaly is to be continued, and his Motion, which was to get rid of it, was to be resisted. An anomaly somewhat similar exists in Scotland; but the Government brought in a measure, which professed to get rid of it, and would have got rid of it, did the substitute which was proposed meet the views of the Dissenters? In the city of London this anomalous tax exists, but it exists founded on an agreement between the clergy and their parishioners, so far back as the year 1200, as a substitute for the oblations which on festival days it was then the custom to make at the churches, for the support of the clergy. In Ireland, then, the anomaly exists in all its deformity, for there it is upheld, and there it is accompanied by injustice. Can anything be more unjust than that the eight most Catholic towns should be subjected to pay a tax for the support of the Protestant incumbent, while the Protestant towns of Ulster and elsewhere should be exempted from its imposition? Nay, more—that the poor Catholics in these Catholic towns should pay more in proportion to their means than their Protestant fellow-citizens? Can anything be more unjust than to force a man against his conscience to pay for the support of a minister with whom he held no religious communion, and who was in the habit from his pulpit of denouncing the religious doctrines of those who supported him? But he would
554
not on that point express further any opinion of his own. Being a Roman Catholic, and conscientiously dissenting from the doctrines of the Established Church, he might be considered prejudiced. He would rather quote to the House the opinions of a staunch Churchman—a Member of that House—the heir to the honours and name of Derby. He meant the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). That noble Lord's father abolished church rates in Ireland, and he, following in his footsteps, proposed in a very able pamphlet to free the Dissenters from the imposition. Let him quote to the House a few passages from that brochure expressive of the noble Lord's opinion of the injustice of coercing parties who dissent from the Church of England, to pay for her support. In the extracts he would venture to substitute ministers' money for church rates, and the case of injustice he was endeavouring to make out would be fully established from the lips of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says:—
"It can scarcely be said that a churchman taxed for the support of his own church, while attending its duties and profiting by its instructions, is thereby exposed to any injustice. With the Dissenter the case is different. He pays that others may profit by the payment extorted from him."
He further observes:—
"It is probably the wish of every one—it is certainly the wish of every Conservative to remove from our legal and social system whatever tends to break up the community into hostile sections, whenever such removal can be effected without involving the sacrifice of important national interests. In the present instance, by the exemption of Dissenters from church rates—(read ministers' money)—no national interest will be sacrificed—a very trifling pecuniary loss will be inflicted on the church establishment—the church will gain in return the respect, or at least the neutrality, of numerous classes now arrayed in bitter hostility against her—a prominent cause of dissensions and heart-burnings everywhere felt, but felt more especially in provincial cities and boroughs, will disappear; and from the English Statute-book, the stigma of an ancient and still existing injustice will be washed out. The clergy of the establishment will no longer be driven to choose painfully between their sense of professional duty, leading them to seek the enforcement of the law, and their desire to maintain peace, which can only be done by letting the law rest in abeyance. * * Local agitators will lose their best stock in trade—a grievance, and a mark of inferiority, at once invidious and unprofitable assumed by one religious denomination over another, will have ceased to exist."
Again, the noble Lord says:—
"The vast amount of the revenues enjoyed by the establishment is not, as far as I know, contained in any statistical return, but they are gene-

555
rally understood to fall little short of five millions yearly. Is a sacrifice of one-fiftieth of this sum (namely, the amount of church rates paid by Dissenters) too much to make if not to justice, yet to a policy of pacification."
It was the same amount of sacrifice—onefiftieth of the Irish Church revenues, which he (Mr. Fagan) asked the Church to make, if not to justice, yet to a policy of pacification. The noble Lord then makes this strong allusion:—"To me, at least, the claim of the Nonconformists to be exempted from ecclesiastical taxation, appears unanswerable." Thus, from the pen of the noble Lord, he had fully proved the injustice of taxing Roman Catholics and Dissenters for the support of the clergy of the Established Church. Well then, the injustice being admitted, why is it continued? There are, as far as he could ascertain, but two objections to its abolition. The first is, that the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, where it is proposed to find a substitute, are not adequate for the purpose, and scarcely adequate for the purposes for which that commission was instituted; and the second is, that the church ought not to be called upon to make a present of their property in ministers' money to individual owners of house property. He would apply himself to the first objection, in the first instance, and here he would read a passage from the report of the Select Committee on ministers' money, which sat in the year 1848:—
"Your committee think it incumbent upon them to state that an augmentation of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may be rendered available as a substitute for ministers' money, and recommend that, with that view, an amendment of the Church Temporalities Act may be made. Your committee are aware that the adoption of this measure will involve the interposition of a new trust, and the postponement or relinquishment of some of the ulterior objects contemplated by the Church Temporalities Act; but any objection founded on the displacement of the original objects of the Church Temporalities Act will be more than countervailed by the great advantages which, in a social, moral, and religious view, will arise from the removal of an obstacle to those feelings of amity and goodwill, which it will be essentially conducive to the general interest of the country to encourage between the working Protestant clergy and the great body of the community, amongst whom, in the cities and towns of Ireland, their duties are usefully and honourably performed."
Now what was the state of these funds, as compared to the present time, in 1848, when that recommendation was made by a committee of that House? He would first take the three great sources of permanent revenue, see estates, suspended
556
dignities and benefices, and the tax upon bishopries and benefices:—

1848

1853

See estates,

£32,683

£61,521

Suspended dignities and benefices,

11,531

16,609

Tax on bishoprics and benefices,

7,541

10,157

Total,

£51,574

£88,287

or nearly 37,000 l. a year increase without including the increase caused by the recent death of the Archbishop of Armagh. Again, he would take the entire permanent revenue of the Commissioners including, together with the three sources he had already stated, dividends from the funds, interest on perpetuity mortgages, the payment of 4,239 l. a year from the see of Derry, and private subscriptions for church buildings. This permanent revenue was estimated by the Commissioners in 1848 at 71,574 l.; and in 1852 it came to 90,677 l., and last year to 101,869 l., being an increase of 31,000 l. a year since 1848, and of 11,000 l. in one year from 1852 to 1853. Besides this, the debt to the Government in 1848 was 40,000 l., and for years back the Commissioners appropriated to its payment 10,000 l. a year—that debt is now discharged. The Commissioners not only were enabled to purchase into the funds 44,000 l., but also to pay over 20,000 l. to the Government. Thus then there will be in future 10,000 l. a year more than heretofore available for the purposes of the Church Temporalities Act, or over 40,000 l. a year more now than in 1848, when a Select Committee recommended the Protestant ministers in these eight towns to be paid, as the Dublin curates now are, out of these ecclesiastical funds. In 1848 Mr. Quin, the able Ecclesiastical Commissioner, estimated the full future increase of their revenues at the sum of 44,857 l. This included a sum of 18,744 l. which he expected to be realised when the sales of perpetuities were completed. Now, the income from that source amounts but to 2,200 l. a year, and therefore, according to Mr. Quin's calculation, there is over 16,000 l. to come in from that source. Indeed there is more than 600,000 l. in money value yet unsold, and here he would refer to another recommendation of the Select Committee. It is thus:—
"The large item of 18,744 l. in his, Mr. Quin's, estimate will be the result of the sale of land, which the tenants of episcopal estates are empowered to purchase. Its realisation depends at

557
present upon the disposition of the tenants to buy, and is therefore in some degree contingent. But by an alteration of the law, and by holding out inducements to purchase, or by putting up the land to public and general sale, the contemplated increase might be readily accelerated."
Now, following up that recommendation, he had year after year endeavoured to point out how by altering the mode of estimating the purchase of these perpetuities, and by giving a large bonus to purchasers, that enormous sum which, yet outstanding, and without benefit to any one, could be speedily brought in instead by the following amount of 3,000 l., which is now the annual sum allowed for sales of perpetuities, instead of 40,000 l. as formerly. However, he now abandoned to the Commissioners themselves, or to the Government, that part of the question. It was no longer necessary for this purpose. The funds were now amply sufficient as they stood—they were 40,000 l. a year at the disposal of the Commissioners, more than in 1848—and all that he sought to place on them was about from 12,000 l. to 14,000 l. a year. He, therefore, would not trouble the House with that complicated branch of the inquiry. It may be said, and indeed is said, that though the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have so enormously increased, that still they are not adequate for their present purposes without this new appropriation. Well, all he would say to that statement was, that it appeared to him inconsistent with the fact that the Commissioners were every year making large purchases into the funds, and also inconsistent with the fact that the expenditure in 1847 was 67,677 l., whereas, in 1852, with an enormous increase of revenue, the expenditure fell down to 54,214 l. It is true that last year (1853) it reached 80,000.; but the Commissioners state that enormous outlay was incurred with the view to economy in future years, and that for the future it will, in consequence, be largely diminished. And again comes the question, is all the expenditure easily and prudently incurred? With that branch of the subject he was not acquainted; but he had received a letter from a gentleman, a magistrate of the county of Cork, and a Protestant, in which he pointed out that it was owing to the Commissioners having built churches sixtravagantly large and in the most expensve manner. It is not unreasonable to impose that the same system is pursued through Ireland, and if it is, it is easy to account for the want of funds by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He hoped he had now satisfied the House that there
558
were ample funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for all the purposes of the Church Temporalities Act and for ministers' money in addition. He had shown them how, since 1848, when a Select Committee had recommended a substitute for that tax to be found in these funds—how they had increased over 31,000 l. a year—nay, over 41,000 l. for the purposes of expenditure—while from 12,000 l. to 14,000 l. would be the utmost of the increase of expenditure arising from the abolition of ministers' money. He had shown them how the expenditure had lessened, while the revenue had increased—and how money unemployed was vested in the Government securities—and he gave his authority for suggesting the inquiry, whether the expenditure just now was not extravagant and wasteful. He would now come to the second objection—namely, that the church had no right to be asked to make a present of its property to the owners or occupiers of house property in those eight corporate towns, who either purchased, or built, or tenanted these houses, with a foreknowledge of this tax, had their calculations accordingly. Well, this kind of argument would tell against any Legislative improvement whatever, because there is scarcely anything, of the kind ever effected without injuring or wronging individuals; and if no real public good was ever achieved, because it benefited some at the expense of others, nothing would ever be done. The very Church Temporalities Act itself, which took possession of the property of ten bishops' sees—that taxed the beneficed clergy—and the perpetuities of bishops' leases—took possession of suspended livings—would never have been passed, because it made a present of 70,000 l. a year church rates to the owners of house properties in Ireland. The tithe rent charge as a substitution of tithe composition, which was equally secured on the land, would never have been law, because it made a present to the landlord of one quarter of what belongs to the Church. If that argument held good, church rates wold never be abolished in this country; and yet Lord Althorp proposed their abolition, and proposed a portion of the land tax and of the church lands as a substitute. Sir Robert Peel was for giving those rates to the owners and occupiers of house property, and placing them on the Consolidated Fund, and Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, carried a resolution to the effect that in lieu of church

559
rates "a permanent and adequate provision should be made out of an increased value to be given to the church lands." Why even the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a present of nearly one-half the ministers' money tax, to the owners of house property, in some of the towns subject to the tax. Thus he would dispose of the second objection with this further observation, that most of the house property belongs to Roman Catholics. According to Lord Stanley and every lover of justice they had a claim for this exemption. Again, it should be recollected, that the Ministers' Money Act was passed by the most violent anti-Catholic Parliament that ever sat—a Parliament elected purposely for hostile purposes against the property of Roman Catholics; and so much was the iniquity of this act felt, that in a few years after James the Second's Parliament, after his abdication, and when he was de facto ruler of Ireland, repealed it. He was anxious, before he sat down to say a few words on the Bill announced by the Government last Session. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Young) would believe what he now stated, for he was aware that he (Mr. Fagan) had incurred some odium for having expressed his determination to give that Bill a second reading with a view to amending it in Committee. Now he assured his right hon. Friend that, without a single exception, every town affected by that tax was for the rejection in toto of that Bill. Why then, it might be asked, was he (Mr. Fagan) for giving it a second reading? Because, as the Bill proposed to relieve the poorer classes from the tax, he did not feel he was justified in keeping the tax on them, the more particularly as he knew it would in no way lessen his chance of success in striving to get rid of the entire; and, even if that Bill had passed into a law, he would at this very moment have been moving for total repeal and he ventured to say that he would have had as large a division as he should have that night, because the principle was the same whether 15,000 l. or 5,000 l. was the amount of the tax, or whether or not the poor were exempted. The dissenting body in that House, and those for religious equality, were the parties from whom he expected success, and by them he would have been supported on principle whether the poor were free from the imposition or not. On the other hand, so long as the Tories, who were for not giving up a penny, though they may alter the incidence of the tax, united with the Government, nothing would
560
be got but what the Government desired. That was a different question from the conversion of the tithe composition into tithe rent charge. In that case he fully admitted that but for that conversion, tithes would stand the national shock another year; and though he always appreciated Mr. O'Connell's humane and patriotic motives for the course he took, he was still persuaded that, with the excitement then produced by a whole people in arms against it, the system could not have continued. But the matter is different with ministers' money. In that case there never was any popular excitement, and the Bill of last year would not have removed a single person from the existing agitation. These were his reasons for the course he intended to have pursued last year. However, he was not sorry that the Bill had not passed, because he felt a hope the Government would take a more liberal view of the subject. Their Bill of last year would never get rid of the discussion in that House or out of doors; it would never prevent the heart-burning and irritation that existed. It was said that the Home Secretary (Lord Palmerston) was about to take up the question of church rates in England. With what consistency could that be done, while the equally odious impost was pursued in Catholic Ireland? He would appeal to his right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary of Ireland. He did not speak of him because he was present, or because he was a member of the Government, or because he had received from him in his public capacity much of courtesy and attention; but he spoke of him independently of those considerations, and he fearlessly expressed his conviction that there never was a better Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would follow his own impulses. There was no better Irishman, or one more anxious for the welfare of Ireland; and though he knew he was an ardent churchman, still if left to his own feelings, he would remove this grievance, and take away this crusher from the establishment. He appealed to him earnestly and warmly at length to accede to the petitions of his countrymen, and allow this odious tax to be abolished. He appealed to the Government not to reject this proposition. He knew that its rejection would not prevent the Irish people rallying round their sovereign at this juncture. It would be absurd of him to make such a statement. But, this he knew, that all these denials of justice without cause were deeply injurious. One-fourth of the sailors

561
of their navy, being Roman Catholics, were prevented worshipping God according to their consciences on ship-board, and were denied when dying for their country the consolations of religion, because it was said none but the State religion could be recognised in the navy. Again the temporalities of the Church of Ireland could not be interfered with, because it was part and parcel of the Church of England. Well, these were the reasons alleged by statesmen for these denials of justice. But what reason would be given for preserving this paltry tax to irritate and annoy? None whatever, of any kind or substance. He appealed, then, to the Government to adopt his proposition. He appealed to the great party opposite, who, when in power, advised Her Majesty, in Her Speech from the Throne, to call on Parliament to redress the great grievances of Ireland. Here was a just and proven grievance; and, if they were sincere, he demanded their votes in favour of his Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would second the Motion, because, should any objection be taken to his hon. Friend the Mover, being a Roman Catholic, the same objection could not be taken to him (Mr. Hume). Ever since he entered the walls of that House this had been one of the constant themes of complaint on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The existence of church-rates and ministers' money in Ireland depended entirely on the same principles, and ought to have been abolished at the same time. He thought, if ever there had been a means through which religion had been made the cause of disunion in a country, the present grievance was one. Instead of religion bringing peace upon earth and goodwill among men, they had, for a paltry sum of a few pounds, kept a perpetual blister, as he might call it, upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The Irish church-rates were removed, from the conviction that it was absolutely necessary to do away with every cause of discontent in religious matters, and he thought that that man would prove the greatest friend to the Established Church who could show that, as there were means to remove church-rates, so there might be to remove this tax. A tax to be just ought to be general; but this was confined to a few towns; and, surely, if it could be shown that injustice was heaped on the head of Roman Catholics, the sooner they could remove it the better; the longer it continued, the greater was the disgrace. It had been most unwisely continued, and how they could think
562
of removing church-rates and leaving this was to him most surprising. Neither side of the House, when in power, had the courage to act honestly. He would appeal, therefore, to the House to act independently. It was not a party question. It was a question whether Ireland should be at peace with England, and whether an insignificant cause of discontent should be continued when there were ample funds for its removal. It was a badge of servitude—it was a badge of oppression—and ought to be removed, and he appealed to those who were friends to the Irish Church to remove it. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show, by supporting this Motion, that he was desirous of placing the Roman Catholics on an equal footing with the rest of the community.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the Law relating to the Rate or Tax called 'Ministers' Money' in Ireland, with a view to repeal the same; and further, to provide a substitute therefor out of the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as a provision for the Protestant Ministers in certain corporate towns in Ireland, in lieu of the annual sums now received by them under and by virtue of the Act 17 & 18 Chas. II. c. 7."
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must state in explanation of the notice he had placed on the paper, to move as an Amendment that the Acts relating to ministers' money be read, that it arose purely from the forms of the House. The hon. Member for Limerick had moved, as a necessary preliminary to the abolition of the impost, that the House resolve itself into Committee, and it would have been open for him to have seconded the Motion, and, when in Committee, to have explained any difference of opinion between them; but he thought it better, by the terms of the notice, to indicate that difference of opinion, and he would state at once the views which he should have humbly to suggest for the guidance of the House in opposition to the views of his hon. Friend, and then proceed to explain the provisions of a Bill which he should be prepared to introduce upon the subject. He had listened to his hon. Friend with all the attention which was due to his interesting statement, and to the earnestness with which he had advocated this question, and he should endeavour to follow his example, and, in the course of the observations it would be his duty to make to the House, to avoid giving utterance to anything like irritating expressions. His hon. Friend had pointed

563
out the grievances which resulted from the present state of the law in reference to the ministers' money. Those grievances were admitted upon all hands, and had been acknowledged upon many occasions. The tax applied to eight towns in Ireland, and, the valuation upon which it was levied having been founded, in the first instance, upon erroneous principles, had become in the course of time more and more unequal and unjust, inasmuch as houses which were originally let at a high rent, but had fallen into decay, were still assessed at the higher rate, without reference to the depreciation which had taken place in their value. Then the mass of the occupiers of these houses were Roman Catholics; and he could conceive that whether the burden fell upon persons or upon property, Roman Catholic occupiers would regard it as a great grievance to be obliged to pay it while their own Church remained unendowed. But, as the matter stood at present, the clergy of these towns had to look to this tax for the maintenance of themselves and families, and they must either give up that upon which their maintenance, in part at least, depended, or, if they considered it to the interests of their successors, and of the Church, that they should, at all events, collect it, they were obliged in many instances, to obtain it from very poor people, and even in many cases to recover it by distress. No doubt great grievances resulted from such a state of things as this, and they had often been admitted and deplored. But then the question arose, "Why has no remedy been applied?" The reason, he thought, why no remedy had been applied was this, that although the amount was so small, amounting to no more than 15,000 l. a year, the principle of the inviolability of property was involved; for it was impossible to take it away without violating property, and spreading considerable alarm among persons attached to the Church. If this property were taken away, it would be asked, what would remain inviolable? Then, on the other hand, there were other parties who would accept nothing less than the total and entire abolition of the tax. The question had been pressed very often upon successive Administrations, and attention had been given to it with a view of endeavouring to find a substitute, but as yet no substitute had been found, and the proposal to repeal it without a substitute was one which no Minister had ever yet ventured to make. He could not assent to the validity of any argument in favour of such a
564
proposition, based upon the amount of property possessed by the Protestant Church; because that would be tantamount to saying that a debtor might claim to be excused from payment of his debt, by saying to his creditor, "I am a poor man, and you a rich one, and therefore I won't pay you: you may make it up as well as you can." One substitute suggested had been the transfer of the tax from the occupiers of houses to the owners; but it had been found quite impossible to do that with success, because the owners of houses were almost as numerous as the occupiers. It was a very good arrangement with respect to the tithe commutation; because the lands of a parish were frequently in the hands of two or three proprietors, while the tithe payers might amount to several hundreds. It was different, however, with respect to the house property; the number of the immediate lessors would render the successful adoption of such a course impracticable, even if it were possible to find them, which in many cases it would not be; nor would it, if sanctioned by the Legislature, obviate the complaints which were made under the existing state of things. The next course suggested was to abolish the tax, and to reimburse the Church and the clergy out of the Consolidated Fund, He need hardly say that that was a proposition which was not likely to meet with much favour in that House. The last suggestion was that made by the late Mr. Spiel, and carried by him in Committee, but not by a very large majority, that a substitute should be provided out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the funds of the Church, and this suggestion amounted to saying to the Church, "We will take so much from you, and leave you to find a substitute as best you can." His hon. Friend had gone into a long argument to prove that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had ample funds at their disposal for all purposes. That statement he was not prepared to admit. The funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been given them for several purposes, among others for the building of churches; now, many of those churches were not yet built. In reference, therefore, to a remark that churches had been unnecessarily built, he thought he could clearly show that such was not the case, and he would refer his hon. Friend (Mr. Fagan) to the very last Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which would tend to correct that impres-

565
sion. It appeared from that Report that ten churches had been built in part by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that towards the erection of those churches they had received upwards of 6,000 l. from private sources. He believed that the amount expended by the Commissioners upon these churches had been very much overrated, and that, instead of being anything like 5,000 l. upon a single church, 800 l. would be much nearer the mark. But to show that these funds were not ample for all purposes, be would turn to the next page of the Report, where it was stated that thirteen churches had been built entirely from private sources; and that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had given no assistance towards them, because they had not been able to do it. The next paragraph stated as follows:—
"The Commissioners continue to receive applications for aid toward the building of chapels of ease in unions of parishes, or in parishes of large extent, where the mother churches are not sufficient to accommodate the parishioners who might resort thither for divine worship, or where they are at an inconvenient distance from a great number of the inhabitants. In answer to these applications, many of which are of a very pressing nature, they have been obliged to state that it will not be in their power, tinder the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act, 3 & 4 Will. IV, chap. 37, to aid in the erection of such churches or chapels until there shall be a surplus fund at their disposal, after provision shall have been made for the several other church works mentioned in the 63rd section of the Act, and for which, according to the estimate now before them, a suns exceeding 200,000 l. would be required. We have, however, the satisfaction to state that, in some of these cases, churches are being erected through the liberality of individuals, or by means of subscriptions raised in the respective unions or parishes, or elsewhere; and where such could not be accomplished, the Commissioners have, in many instances, granted the usual requisites for the celebration of divine service in schoolhouses, or other places licensed for the purpose."
In no cases, with the exception of two or three very poor parishes, had the Commissioners given assistance towards building churches, unless private funds were contributed to some extent, and in many they had been obliged to decline aid altogether. The Report stated:—
"The sum of 2,500 l., set apart for the enlargement of churches, has been distributed among twenty-nine cases, the contributions from private sources in aid thereof being 2,367 l. 6s. 11 d.; and the sum of 1,500 l. for inside painting and colouring among 112 cases, the parishioners in each undertaking to defray half the cost of the work."
Now, he really thought that, in that state of affairs, it was scarcely right or well-
566
grounded to say that the Commissioners had funds in their hands to apply to other purposes. Let him remind them also, that, in addition to the building and repairing of churches, there was one great trust which had been given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which had not been touched at all; it was that trust which had enabled the Church Temporalities Act to pass through Parliament without opposition. It was one of the objects contemplated by that Act that parishes of large income should be heavily taxed, in order that those of small income might be benefited by an increase of the means available for the religious instruction of the people. Now, really this was a matter of so much importance that he must dwell upon it for a moment; for it was a question of considerable moment, whether great and settled arrangements made by that House and by Parliament should be disturbed prematurely, and before an opportunity had been afforded of carrying them into effect. In explaining to the House of Commons the provisions of the Church Temporalities Bill, in the year 1833, Lord Althorp said:—
"Now, I apprehend that, however great the differences of opinion may be as to the right of Parliament to apply the property of the Church to the purposes of the State, both those who think that they have a right to apply it to such purposes, and those who think that they have no right so to apply it—all will agree in thinking that the first claim upon the property of the Church is the claim of the Church itself. No parties are likely to dissent from this opinion, but those who either think that there ought to be no Church Establishment at all, or those who think that a different Church ought to be established in Ireland. With the exception of those who entertain these opinions, it will be generally agreed that the present property of the Church Establishment ought to be applied in the first place to the purposes which may be necessary for extending the benefits of the Church to the people of Ireland Are these purposes sufficiently provided for as matters now stand? We have heard frequently of benefices in which no duty is performed at all, or where there is no church, or where there is no resident minister. We have heard these statements frequently made; but it is also well known that there are many places where there are congregations in which there is a difficulty in the due performance of public worship, and that the working clergy, while their superiors enjoy large revenues, have very inadequate incomes, and are frequently placed in the most distressing circumstances. There are 200 livings in Ireland, which are of less value than 100 l. a year. While this is the case, where there are Protestant congregations, who require to be provided with the means of attending divine worship, it cannot surely be said by any one that the Church of Ireland itself ought not to have the first claim on the property of the Church."—[3 Hansard xv. 568.]

567
This was the opinion put forward by Lord Althorp, in order to carry the Church Temporalities Act; it was acquiesced in by Sir Robert Peel, and by the operation of that Act ten sees were suppressed, and the proceeds of them were applied to the payment of the church cess in Ireland. Now, the church cess in those days amounted to 70,000 l., and his hon. Friend had shown, by a reference to the accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that the amount which had come into their hands up to this time had amounted to no more than 61,000 l. a year, which was 10,000 l. a year short of the amount of the church cess given up in 1833. But Lord Althorp had said that at that time, in the year 1833, there were 200 livings in Ireland of less value than 100 l. a year. This was before the tithes were commuted, and before the passing of the Poor Law, by which the clergy were assessed to the poor rate both as occupiers and owners, a tax which amounted to 10 per cent of their incomes. There were, therefore, a greater number of livings of less value than 100 l. a year at this time than there were in 1833. He thought, then, it could not be said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had in their hands ample and abundant funds which could be applied in lieu of ministers' money. They had not yet been able to build a sufficient number of churches, and in very few cases had they been able to increase the stipends of the poorer clergy. Looking at the frequency with which this question had been brought forward, sometimes by hon. Members for Dublin, but more usually by bon. Members for Cork, he had thought it might be advisable to try the experiment of offering some compromise to the consideration of the House. He (Sir J. Young) would therefore beg leave to submit to them this proposition, that after the 10th of next October all houses rated at and under 10 l. per annum should be totally exempt; that no house in future should be liable to the tax; that means should be taken to ascertain, with respect to those tenements and houses which had been in past times liable, what amount they had paid, and that they should be liable to that amount and no more; and that there should also be a power of redemption at a fixed rate; that the funds so accruing, whether from the rate annually levied or from the redemption money, should be paid into the general funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who should pay their stipends to
568
the clergymen in these eight towns; so that in future these clergymen would have nothing to do with the assessment management or collection of the rate. His hon. Friend would, perhaps, say that this was not a very extensive proposal. It might not be a very extensive proposal in the opinion of those who wished for the entire abolition of the tax; but when he was told that the present law was mischievous, because of its bringing the clergy into conflict with the people, he might fairly call upon the House to look at the number of persons who would be withdrawn from these unseemly and injurious contests, if this proposal should be carried out. In Dublin, 3–7ths of the houses would be exempt; in Cork, 4 out of 5; in Clonmel, 8 out of 9; in Drogheda, 10 out of 11; in Kilkenny, 10 out of 13; in Kinsale, 6 out of 7; in Limerick, 13 out of 14; and in Waterford, 9 out of 12. The greater part of the population—and especially of the Roman Catholic population—would thus be withdrawn from the operation of the tax, and from the contests which arose out of its collection. The poorer classes would have the benefit of the exemption, and those who would remain liable would be only those who were in comparatively easy and comfortable circumstances, while the clergy would be exempt from all litigation and obloquy in their parishes. He believed that this measure would be found sufficiently extensive to meet all the requirements of the case, although he knew that as a measure of compromise it would not satisfy those who held very strong opinions on either side. It must, however, be remembered that houses had been taken subject to the tax, and that really, if they gave it up, they would be making the householder a present of the amount, a proposition which he did not think could be seriously defended. He was fortified by the opinions of gentlemen whose names, if he could mention them to the House, would justly carry with them great authority, not as politicians or partisans on one side or the other, but as men thoroughly acquainted with the state and circumstances of these towns and of those who resided in them. They held that the reasonable requirements of the case would be met by the arrangement he proposed to make. The objection which was made to the present state of things, upon the ground that houses which had fallen into decay continued to be highly taxed, would be altogether got rid Of, and the clergy

569
would be saved the necessity of resorting to a grievous remedy in order to obtain the means of subsistence, because such portion of the tax as continued to be levied would be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the amounts which would be payable to the clergy would be paid by the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The tax would no longer be demanded from the poor, and he thought that all parties would be benefited by the change. He made this proposition, knowing, as he had said, that, being a compromise, it was liable to be objected to on each side, but in the same spirit which would animate him if he were called in to arbitrate between two parties for whom he had great respect, and whose mutual goodwill and harmonious action were of great importance to their neighbourhood; and he believed that if the House would give to it a favourable consideration, it would go far to remove those causes of enmity which had so long prevailed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words the Acts relating to Ministers' Money in Ireland, and the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Act, be now read,' instead thereof."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, it was impossible not to perceive and to share in the pain which the right hon. Gentleman felt in being obliged to propose a compromise of this kind. Five-sixths of the population of Ireland were separatists from the Established Church, and the Protestant Dissenters, including the Presbyterians, were alone equal in number to the members of that Church. The amount of the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland, according to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), was 600,000 l. a-year, and yet it was now proposed to make a compromise of 15,000 l. a-year, as if that luxurious Church, which was gorged with wealth, could not afford the loss of so small a sum. This, it must be remembered, was not a question of property, but of a tax which was levied principally upon Roman Catholics in order to add to the wealth of a rich Establishment. It had been condemned by a Select Committee of that House, and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that successive Administrations had pledged themselves to its abandonment. Dr. Higgin, the present Bishop of Derry, of whom Lancashire was justly proud, when Dean of
570
Limerick, one of the places subject to this tax, had written thus:—
"I know not where the burden can be placed, save and except where it ought to have been placed when the Church Temporalities Act was passed—namely, on the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and on the same principle on which they make payments for curates in small livings, they ought to provide for the clergymen whose misfortune it is to have their incomes, in all or in part, dependent upon ministers' money."
He went on to state that there were funds from that source not then immediately available, but which have been since released, which were sufficient, and might be used for this purpose. They had, then, a Church with a revenue of 600,000 l. a-year, and with funds perfectly at liberty, which might be appropriated to the payment of those clergymen in whose behalf this tax was now levied. Why did they not; therefore, at once abolish it? They had had, very lately, a declaration of Protestant feeling in that House. Now, there was not a more earnest Protestant than himself; but he considered that the first act of Protestantism ought to be to do justice to the Roman Catholic population. Could they expect the Roman Catholics of Ireland to submit to pay this tax, or to acquiesce in the sale of their goods and chattels for the support of Protestant clergymen? There was another reason which he would urge upon the House. Catholics or Protestants, they all professed to be Christians, and he would ask whether, in insisting on the maintenance of this tax, they were advancing that cause which they professed to love and honour, or were acting in accordance with the revealed will of Him whom they professed to love and honour? It was unjust to make any man pay, by force of law, for the maintenance of principles which he did not profess or believe. This tax was imposed at a period which would be ever memorable in the history of this country—in the reign of Charles the Second—a period when acts were committed for which we might well be ashamed.
"Those were days," says the eloquent and right hon. Member for Edinburgh, "never to be recalled without a blush, the days of servitude without loyalty and sensuality without love; of dwarfish talents and gigantic vices; the paradise of cold hearts and narrow minds; the golden age of the coward, the bigot, and the slave. The King cringed to his rival, that he might trample on his people; sunk into a Viceroy of France, and pocketed, with complacent infamy, her degrading insults, and her more degrading gold. The caresses of harlots, and the jests of buffoons, regulated the measures of a Government, which had just ability enough to deceive, and just religion enough to

571
persecute. The principles of liberty were the jest of every grinning courtier, and the anathema maranatha of every fawning dean. In every high place, worship was paid to Charles and James, Belial and Moloch, and England propitiated those obscene and cruel idols with the blood of her best and bravest children. Crime succeeded to crime, and disgrace to disgrace, till the race, accursed of God and man, was a second time driven forth to wander on the face of the earth, and to be a byword and a shaking of the head to the nations."
In these times of degradation this shameful tax was imposed on Catholics and Dissenters, for the support of the Church of a minority of the people. He trusted that the House would submit to no compromise, but abolish the imposition altogether. The tax was opposed to every principle upon which they could hope to give peace to Ireland, or to get a fair hearing for Protestantism; above all, it militated against Christianity itself, and the sooner it was taken from the Statute-book the better would it be for them all.
MR. MAGUIRE, said, he thought it incumbent on all who desired to promote peace in Ireland and uphold the principles of civil and religious liberty, firmly but respectfully to decline the proposition of the Government, which ran directly counter to the wishes of the people of Ireland. He could distinctly answer for it, and he would call upon the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fagan) to support his assertion, that there was not a Protestant lay gentleman in the city of Cork who was not most anxious to have this question set at rest for ever. He was perfectly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young) should propose to introduce the same Bill which he perfectly well knew was rejected last year by every town in Ireland in which ministers' money was now paid. He really thought that the very decided expression of opinion in Ireland in reference to this proposition ought to have had some little weight. Last year that opinion had been pronounced in a more public and popular manner than it had been this year; but they had had during the present Session petitions from the corporations of Dublin and Limerick, and, he believed, Waterford, and he knew Cork, all emphatically protesting against the tax, and praying for its total abolition. Any State provision was distinctly, solemnly, and emphatically repudiated by the Catholic Bishops some time since, when a proposition of that sort was before them. They asked, not that, but simply justice, to which surely they were entitled; yet the Government, regardless of their claim, came forward at last only
572
to offer a most paltry compromise, which it was as unworthy of them to propose as it would be of the Catholics of Ireland to accept. He believed that the people of Ireland had great cause to complain of the manner in which questions affecting their interests were treated in that House. The case, however, was very different with matters interesting the people of Scotland, and of that they had a very striking instance last year, when the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate introduced a Bill which was called the Annuity Tax Bill, showing how respectfully deferential the Government were to the Report of a Select Committee when Scottish interests were in question. In Ireland, however, although every Government since 1847 had made promises on the subject of this tax, no thing had been done as yet beyond offering the people of Ireland a miserable Bill, which was nothing more than a paltry compromise, unworthy of the English Government to offer, and degrading to the Irish representatives to accept. For the Bill introduced last year by the Government conferred no benefit whatever upon the tax-payers of Ireland, and left the obnoxious principle of the existing law exactly where it found it. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) had, indeed, informed the House that it conferred an immense boon upon the payers of the tax of ministers' money in freeing all houses under the value of 10 l. from the payment of it. Now, that was a statement which was very industriously circulated, and had had some weight with many; amongst others, with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), whose good sense was not altogether, as he (Mr. Maguire) was sorry to say, proof against its influence. But how did the case stand? The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that 8,000 houses in the city of Cork would be relieved from the tax. Now so far from that being true, he himself had been informed by the chairman of the Cork Union, that in that city there were no less than 5,113 houses valued at between 1l. and 2l.; of that number there were 3,469 houses valued at only 1l.; and that the number valued up to 5l. were 7,877. Now in all these cases it was very well known that a complete exemption from the payment of the tax was already enjoyed through the forbearance and delicacy of the Protestant clergymen themselves, who were well aware that the poverty of the occupants wholly prevented the possibility of the tax being collected. Was it not, then, a mockery to say that

573
the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve 8,000 householders from the payment of the tax—when it was allowed on all hands that they were never called on to pay it? He was prepared to state most emphatically that under the Bill in question not 1,000 houses would be relieved from the obnoxious impost. Archdeacon Kyle, whose views ought to be allowed some weight, stated before the Select Committee of 1852, that, in his case, "he had given distinct orders to his collector never to ask any one to pay the tax who was unable to do so." In fact, he (Mr. Maguire) would say at once, that no clergyman could incur the scandal of requiring payment in the case of the wretched requiring holders he had been just speaking of. And Ire would just ask the attention of the House to this fact. For some nine or ten years back the different corporations of Ireland had been memorialising Parliament on the subject of the tax; but in the face of that fact, in order to perpetuate the tax, or, rather, to use the peculiar phraseology of the Rev. Mr. Holly, one of the witnesses before the Committee, in order to "cover and disguise the tax," the right hon. Gentleman would compel, by his Bill, those very corporations to become the imposers of the tax, the collectors of it, and even the distrainers of it. Now, was that fair? Hon. Gentlemen in that House were very fond of saying they wished to put an end to strifes between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and here they saw Her Majesty's Government, instead of leaving this question to agitators on the platform, introducing its discussion into the very Council Board. The right hon. Gentleman declared in his Bill that whenever the amount of money collected under this tax did not reach to eighty per cent of what it was at present, that the deficiency was to be made good out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But he (Mr. Maguire) could not for the life of him discover why the right hon. Baronet, if he was consistent with his own principle, was not prepared to go further. On some occasions, no doubt, that deficiency would amount, in all probability, to forty per cent of the tax; and why, therefore, not say at once that you are prepared to throw the whole of the impost upon the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? And there was another anomaly in this Bill which Her Majesty's Ministers would have the people of Ireland regard as such a boon. Although it would appear from the returns of Encumbered Estates
574
Court, that during the last three years seventeen years' purchase was a very high rate of purchase for land in Ireland, and that in some cases it had been as low as eleven and twelve years, the right hon. Baronet, by the 6th section of his Bill, permitted that any householder might compromise for the tax by the payment of a sum sixteen times the amount of the annual payment. Successive Governments, as he had said before, had promised to redress the injustice of this impost; and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London stated upon the 30th of May, 1850, that
"The question of ministers' money was under the consideration of the Government, and that there was a plan by which it was hoped the grievance would be remedied."—[3 Hansard, cxi. 486.]
And what was that "grievance," he (Mr. Maguire) would ask? Why, he would tell them; it was the compelling the Church of the majority to support the Church of the minority—it was the forcing people of one persuasion to contribute to the demands of people of another persuasion. They had not yet seen the redemption of the noble Lord's promise; and now, when they had waited so long for the removal of this grievance, they were asked either to go on paying as heretofore, or to redeem at once by paying sixteen times the annual value of the tax. There was a strong feeling against this tax, and the feeling was one of principle—of principle shared in by Protestant clergy and laity, and appreciated by them as much as by the Catholics, who were aggrieved. [The hon. Member, in proof of this assertion, quoted the evidence of various Protestant clergymen who had professed themselves ashamed and unwilling to receive money for religious purposes which was extorted from men who must always give it with ill-will.] To prove to the House that the grievance was such as he had just been describing, he would state that in the city of Cork, according to the census of 1834, the Protestant population stood at 15,000 as against 79,000 Catholics; while in the parish of St. Paul, in the same city, the Protestants numbered 900 and the Catholics 5,000; and in St. Anne's, Shandon, there were 3,500 Protestants and 20,000 Catholics. Again, the population of Kinsale, in 1834, numbered 1,070 Protestants and 5,334 Catholics; Clonmel, 1,700 Protestants and 15,000 Catholics; Limerick, 4,500 Protestants and 50,000 Catholics; while in the city of Waterford there were only 4,253 Protestants as against upwards of 23,000 Catholics. Now, he would wish to

575
know how would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite like to live under such a state of things? Would they pay the tax? Would it be not most inconsonant with their pride to endure such an injustice for an hour? They ought not, therefore, to inflict it on others. The tax ought to be put on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a course which would cause no offence to any one. In that way an end would be put to a grievance, which, otherwise, would give rise constantly to complaint, and which certainly would never be considered satisfactorily dealt with while such makeshifts as the present were all that was given in answer to the Irish Catholics' earnest appeals. As regarded the actual benefit done, he pronounced it very small; and as regarded the matter of principle, he said that there was this difficulty—if you exempted the man under 10 l., why did you put it on the man above? Was not a tax for a religion not his own as great an outrage to the Catholic who occupied a 12 l. house, as to the Catholic who occupied a 6l. house? On a former occasion some of the hon. Members now on the Treasury bench voted for the abolition of this tax. The hon. Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. B. Osborne) was in favour of abolishing it without finding a substitute. The hon. Clerk to the Ordnance (Mr. Monsell) said that an early opportunity ought to be taken for removing the impost. And the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) expressed a hope that the House would force on the attention of the Government the necessity of removing an impost which was insulting and obnoxious to the Roman Catholics, whilst it did no good to Protestants. After the expression of such opinions, he thought he had a right to calculate on the votes of those Members in favour of the Motion. He earnestly wished Protestants and Catholics to meet together in harmony, which they would soon do if the rulers of the country would legislate in a proper spirit. He begged those hon. Members who had the interest of Ireland at heart to refuse their assent to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and he had no hesitation in saying that he should consider himself guilty of a violation of duty if be consented to so mean a compromise. He believed there was sufficient good sense and honour in that House to encourage any Minister who would have the courage to deal with the subject in a liberal spirit, and he had no doubt that, if the hon. Members on the Treasury bench to whom he had
576
alluded would act on their professions, the House would support them. If the Government wished to encourage a good feeling in Ireland—if they wished to make the people of Ireland loyal—if they wished them to lay aside religious differences, they must act in a different spirit from that which had hitherto been manifested. Unless they were prepared to do so, the table of the House would be covered with petitions, and the excitement would become much more extended than it was at the present moment.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, that this tax of ministers' money must have one of two objects, either it was to secure a good living for the ministers, or to promote the cure of souls. If it was the former, he thought it was wrong, because those who were taxed did not require the services of the ministers. If, on the other hand, it was to save the souls of Christians, he did not think it was going the right way to obtain that object to take money from a man against his will. The notorious Joseph Ady when he applied to parties told them that if they would send him a certain sum of money he would tell them something to their advantage, but here the ministers did not ask for the money, they demanded, they seized upon it, and then said, "if you will come and listen to us you will hear something to your advantage." Now that was not the way to promote Christianity, at all events it was not the way the Founder of Christianity and his disciples promoted it, and he thought the best thing the House of Commons could do was to abolish the tax altogether. He should give his vote with all his heart in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork.
MR. NAPIERsaid, however the rights of the clergy might be interfered with by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Young), he felt himself bound in honour and in consistency to support it, because when he sat on the Ministerial side of the House he had given a pledge that he would consider this subject, and had intimated his willingness to propose a settlement of this question, which he thought substantially coincided with the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. He confessed he was one of those who were opposed to any Government provision or charge for Roman Catholic priests. It was satisfactory to him to believe that he held this view in accordance with the Roman Catholic representatives in that House. It was not, however, his wish to involve this question with any collateral or irrele-

577
vant matters, but to confine it to what he thought was the real point to be considered. The nature of the provision was stated in what was called the Act of Settlement. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, as to the spirit in which the ministers of the Church should preach the Gospel; but he apprehended that it was always intended that some provision should be made for their support. It was not the fault of Charles II. that Englishmen were invited over at that time to introduce trade into Ireland. The property of those towns in Ireland upon which this impost was placed was then forfeited to the Crown, which made such conditions in respect to it as it thought just and fitting. He thought that it was both wise and politic of the Crown at that time to impose a charge upon those towns for the permanent provision of the ministers of the Established Church. That charge was part of the original arrangement, and those who afterwards took those houses took them subject to this charge. The property belonged to the Crown, and it had a right to make its own settlements. If he were to buy an estate in Ireland under the Encumbered Estates Court Act, and were to find that the population on that estate had all emigrated, and then, in order to obtain a new tenantry, he were to make a charge upon the estate to provide for the maintenance of clergymen to instruct them if they came, the person who had the reversion to that estate could not on any just ground refuse to pay that charge, because the clergymen so provided for were of a religion differing from his own. Such appeared to him to be the exact case with regard to the charge for ministers' money. He would admit that there might be some grievance in the mode in which the charge was levied, not by personal demand, but there was remedy by distress. In the case of the occupiers of small houses clergymen did not like to get a collector to distrain upon the furniture, and it was well known that they in many instances gave away the rate rather than do so. He could confidently appeal, even to the Roman Catholic Members of that House, for confirmation, when he stated that there was no body of men who discharged their duties more conscientiously or more efficiently than the Protestant clergymen in Ireland; it was also admitted that they had a right to their income, and he did not see upon what ground there could be objection to this charge. A few years ago, when a Com-
578
mittee of that House was appointed to consider this question, Mr. Reynolds, the late Member for Dublin, and who was one of the Members of it, proposed that in their Report they should recommend a Bill to be brought in by which the claim of the Protestant clergy should be charged upon the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Committee were equally divided upon the point, there being three in favour of the proposition and three against it. The late Mr. Sheil, however, gave his casting vote against the proposition, thus negativing the very identical proposition now made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan). Now, he would ask the House how was the Ecclesiastical Commission fund made up? It was made up by the taxation of the larger incomes of the clergy for the purpose of contributing to the smaller ones. The beneficed clergy, on an average, had only about 200 l. a year—a sum which surely could not be considered extravagant for the support of a gentleman of education and ability. It was out of this ecclesiastical fund that the hon. Member for Cork proposed to pay the clergy. The contributions amounted to something like 15 per cent. And what did the hon. Member propose to do? Why, he actually proposed to pay these town clergymen from that fund, in order to make a present to the proprietors of houses of this impost that was charged upon them. And who were those proprietors? They were rich landlords, the great proportion of whom were Protestants. He would ask the House whether the Protestant clergy had not as good a right to their property as any other man in the community? The Government proposed to exempt from this charge all small houses under the value of 10 l. Now, this was a point upon which a great difficulty arose. It would take from the clergy something like 25 per cent, and give to the proprietors of those houses the opportunity of redeeming them. The proposition of the hon. Member for Cork was one that was opposed to justice and sound policy. The Church Temporalities Act, which abolished church-rates in Ireland, expressly saved ministers' money. The late Mr. O'Connell, who was in the House at the time, and was a good lawyer, must have admitted the justice of such a provision, for he made no objection to it, probably from the fact of his believing that it involved a question of property. The Church Temporalities Act was drawn up with great care. He would ask the House

579
whether they were prepared to unsettle that Act? They were told from time to time that, if they made this concession that was asked for by the hon. Member for Cork, they would have peace in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Napier) was as great a lover of peace as any one; but he never could indulge in such sickly sentimentality. In his opinion, it was impossible where they had two antagonistic Churches but there must be ever a great opposition between what was considered truth on the one side and error on the other. He wished to maintain good feeling towards all, but, at the same time, he was quite prepared to state his opinions upon the subject. It was stated that the people of Dublin were greatly against this tax. Why, the people of Dublin, as well as the people elsewhere, were always against paying money if they could avoid doing so. An Irishman was well known to have strong objections to the payment of money. The operation, no doubt, was most unpleasant, if it could not be got over. Now, as to the charge called ministers' money, if they were to get rid of it at all, they must get rid of it upon a principle of justice. The fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was far too low to discharge the trusts that had been provided by Act of Parliament. They could not do anything towards the building of churches. They could not give more than 1,000 l. a year to the augmentation of small benefices. Nor had they been able to satisfy the recommendation for the repairs of churches. The Commissioners said that they would require 200,000 l. before they could get a surplus applicable to these cases. It appeared, indeed, that the cost of repair of the church exhausted the sum now in hand, he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member's sense of justice whether, in that state of things, it would be right to adopt the course he now proposed. On the other hand, according to the right hon. Baronet's (Sir J. Young's) proposition, if the funds went on improving, in a short time they might have such an amount as would enable them to effect an equitable redemption of the tax. With regard to the comparative number of Protestants and Catholics, that, he did not think, had anything to do with the question. On a former night the hon. Member for Cork stated that five-eighths of the population of Ireland were Roman Catholics. But let it be remembered that the proportion varied in different places. In some parts of the country the great majo-
580
rity consisted of Protestants, as was the case, for example, with portions of the city of Dublin. Be that as it might, however, he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite always took this view of the question, and had this idea uppermost in their minds—he meant the great value of the voluntary principle. His (Mr. Napier's) answer to that was, that there was room enough for voluntary effort. Calculate the Church alone. They took property subject to this charge. What was the difference whether they paid that charge to the Protestant clergyman or the Protestant landlord? Then there was room enough outside the Church for the efforts of voluntaryism. But what he complained of was, that hon. Gentlemen wanted to make their voluntary system compulsory. He should be glad to see the voluntary system working in harmony with the Established Church, but he did object to being compelled to adept that system. His voluntaryism was permissive in its nature—not, what hon. Gentlemen would make it, compulsory. The only charge which had yet been brought against the clergy, so far as he could discover, was, that they were Protestants. Their conduct was unexceptionable, and they had a legal right to their income, which was confirmed to them at the time of the settlement of the Church Temporalities Act. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) now proposed to make an arrangement to which, for peace sake, he (Mr. Napier) did not object, although he still thought it an infringement on their rights. And, with the view of settling the question, he conceived the House would act wisely by adopting the proposition. In the course of a little time he had no doubt the charge would be redeemed by the Protestant proprietors, and thus the question would be got rid of on a principle which would not interfere with the rights of property.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he was of opinion that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had delivered a most persuasive speech for negativing his own Amendment, and, for the very reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had advanced, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) should vote in favour of the original Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the property of the Protestant Church should not be interfered with, and yet his own Bill would be a direct infringement of the principle he thus laid down, by depriving these clergymen of 25 per cent of their income, and exonerating from the tax a great

581
majority of the houses now paying it. It was also said that the fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was not more than sufficient for the repair of old and the erection of new churches. Certainly, if they complied with every demand they might receive from any minister to build a new church, four times the amount of their present property would probably not be sufficient for the purpose; but, how was the circumstance of their having vested in the public funds a sum of about 40,000 l. of surplus money consistent with the representation that they had no sums at their disposal? The right hon. Baronet advocated the Church of the rich minority, endowed more richly than any other church in Europe, and with respect to which Sidney Smith said, the distribution of its funds made it the Church of bishops and beggars. Let the House, however, take into consideration likewise the case of the poor majority, who, by voluntary subscriptions collected from, among others, the poorest of the poorest, raised large sums to build their own churches. With regard to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, he had never witnessed so much inconsistency compressed into so small a space. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to tax the country for the support of the Roman Catholic Church, and yet he is perfectly willing to tax the Roman Catholics of Ireland fur the support of the Church of the rich minority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the property of these corporate towns so taxed became after the rebellion of 1641 Protestant property; and that the Protestants had a right to tax their own property. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's fact, however, was an historic delusion without any foundation. No doubt, at the period when might was right, Roman Catholics could not be mayors, councillors, or hold other corporate offices, but the property remained the same, and never was heard a more unfounded statement than that the property of these towns was confiscated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that people took the property subject to the charge, and therefore had no right to complain; but, according to the authority of Lord Campbell, as appeared from a speech delivered in that House, this charge, like that of church-rates, was a personal charge, imposed upon an individual in respect to the property he held. He denied, too, the statement of
582
the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that household property in Ireland mainly belonged to Protestants, and he would also state, on the authority of a gentleman who had had experience in the revising courts, that the greater portion of house property was in the hands of Roman Catholics. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to be relieved from this tax, it would always be in his power voluntarily to pay it; but he maintained that it never was Church property, and in trying to abolish it they were not interfering with Church property. At a time when injustice was daily perpetrated, and when the Legislature did not represent the people, they were oppressed by an unjust demand, and surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that any lapse of time could make that which was wrong just.
MR. POTTERsaid, he certainly could not help expressing surprise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the representative of the University of Dublin should have given his consent to a proposition of the Secretary for Ireland which would take 25 per cent from the incomes of Protestant clergymen. He did not think those persons should be the sufferers; but that the money should be supplied from other sources, and he was of opinion that Trinity College, Dublin, might very well contribute something for the purpose from its large revenues.
MR. COWANsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald) in considering the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) as contradictory and inconsistent, and he would ask if this tax were a grievance, as it had been fairly admitted to be, was it not one of the first duties of the House of Commons to redress that grievance? With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he considered it to be wholly inconsistent within itself. He did not know of anything more destructive of the interests of anything country than class legislation. Without detaining the House with any further remarks, be would conclude by expressing a hope that if justice were dune to Ireland, it would also be done to Scotland in respect to the subject of the annuity tax, and he more especially demanded justice for the city of Edinburgh.
Question put, "That the wards proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 88, Noes 103: Majority 15.
Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to:—Acts read; Committee thereupon To-morrow.

JUDGMENT EXECUTION, ETC.
MR. COWAN presented a petition from the Scottish Trade Protection Society, Edinburgh, praying the House to pass a law making it competent for the judgments of all the civil courts, whether in Scotland, England, or Ireland, to be endorsed by any judge having concurrent jurisdiction in those countries, respectively, and that execution thereupon issue in all respects as if the judgment had been pronounced and the warrant granted by the concurring court.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would now beg to move—
"For leave to bring in a Bill to enable Execution to issue in any part of the United Kingdom under a Judgment obtained in any Court in England, Scotland, or Ireland, and to amend the Law as to the Service of Process in the United Kingdom."
It was no small satisfaction to him to find that on this occasion he received the support of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in Edinburgh. He would shortly state to the House what the law on the subject was at present, and what were the evils that flowed from it. If a plaintiff obtained a judgment in the common-law courts of England, Scotland, or Ireland, he could not obtain the benefit of that judgment in either of the two other countries without bringing an action upon the judgment and finding security for costs. He was thus put to expense and delay in obtaining that satisfaction which a court of law had already decided he was entitled to. The injustice of this had been partially admitted by an Act of George III., which gave immediate effect to a judgment obtained in the Court of Chancery for the payment of money equally in Ireland, England, and Scotland; and at a later period the same rule was adopted in the Winding-up Act. Twenty years ago, Judge Best, afterwards Lord Wynford, proposed to amend the law in respect to judgments obtained in the common-law courts, but, from some cause, the proposition was not adopted. Indeed, Lord Wynford wished to extend the principle to the case of defendants residing in foreign countries. Cases of hardship under the present law could be quoted without number. In one instance, a judgment for 30,000 l. was obtained against a party
584
in Ireland; the party came to England; the plaintiff then sued him in England, and again obtained judgment; but by that time the party had gone to France. The plaintiff then sued him in France, and also obtained judgment; but before he could execute it the debtor had gone to Vienna. Without multiplying instances, this was sufficient to show the evil of the existing law. The principle of the Bill he swished to introduce was, that a party who had obtained judgment for the payment of money, whether in a common-law court, or in a Court of Chancery, or in the Court of Session in Scotland, should be allowed to register an extract of that judgment in the other courts in the United Kingdom, certified by the seal of the court in which such judgment had been obtained; that such party should then be allowed to make an affidavit that the judgment so registered was still unsatisfied, and that the party against whom it had been obtained was residing within the jurisdiction of the court where the judgment had been registered. Upon this being done, he proposed that the judgment should have immediate effect within that jurisdiction as if the judgment had been obtained in such court in the first instance. He would further propose that there should be no power of disputing the judgment so registered, except in the original court in which the judgment was obtained. By a further provision of the Bill it was also proposed to enact that a plaintiff might sue his debtor either where, he was resident or where the cause of action arose. If the House should allow the Bill to be introduced, he should be perfectly ready, after the second reading, to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee upstairs.
MR. COWANseconded the Motion.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he most cordially approved the object of the Bill. It was, certainly, a step forward, and he hoped it would not be a final step in the direction of putting things in a much fairer state between the two countries. It was most unfortunately true that at present the two countries dealt with the judgments of each other as if they were the judgments of foreign courts. So far, therefore, as the execution of an English judgment in Scotland, or a Scotch judgment in England, was concerned, he most readily agreed with the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. But with regard to his second proposition—namely, that of a plaintiff pursuing his debtor into a jurisdiction other

585
than that in which the cause of action had arisen, he was not sure that his hon. and learned Friend would not find himself involved in some difficulty. However, he congratulated his hon. and learned Friend on having entered upon this subject, and so far as he could give him any assistance, he would most readily do so.
MR. NAPIER: On the part of Ireland, I say—Ditto.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: And on the part of England, I also say—Ditto.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Craufurd, Mr. Dunlop, and Mr. Napier.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL BOROUGH.
MR. HUMEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of the inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull, presented on the 27th of February, and to move that the Report of the Chief Commissioner be laid before the House. The facts of the case were, of course, known to hon. Members, as the petition had been printed with the votes. He grounded his Motion on what was the practice observed by the House with regard to its own Committees. It had often happened that a well-considered Report was prepared by the Chairman, and submitted to the Committee; but that afterwards either the whole Report was turned into a few words, or it was so altered by the majority of the Committee that the House, on having the Report presented to it, was left in total ignorance of what really had passed in Committee, or what the evidence was that had been given before it. A standing order was therefore established to this effect—that a minority in every Committee should have an opportunity of stating what was their opinion. A majority of the Committee might overrule that opinion by an Amendment, but it was ordered that the document prepared by the minority should be appended at the end of the Report. This would enable the House to know what were the opinions of the minority as well as of the majority. It was with a view to effect the same object in the case of the Commission of Inquiry at Kingston-upon-Hull, that the petition from the inhabitants of that town had been entrusted to him. He wished, therefore, that the Report of the Chief Commissioner (Mr. Flood), which had been sent into the Home Office, should be laid on the table of the
586
House, in order that the House might have every opportunity of arriving at a knowledge of all the facts of this case.
MR. FITZROYsaid, there could be no possible objection to laying this Report on the table, although, after the extraordinary expense which had already been incurred in producing the Report and the evidence in this case, the hon. Member would not ask that this second Report should be printed. Of course it must be taken just for what it was worth. It could scarcely be called the Report of the Chief Commissioner, because at the time the Report was made Mr. Flood was not a Commissioner at all.
Motion agreed to.
Address for "Copy of Report of Mr. Solley Flood, upon the existence and extent of corrupt practices at the last Elections for the Borough of Kingston upon Hull."

NEW WRITS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would now move the postponement of the issue of writs to those boroughs that had been the subject of inquiry before a Commission. He did not propose to postpone the issuing of those writs for the period of which he had given notice, but till to-morrow se'nnight—that was to say, Friday, the 17th of March. The reason he took that course was, that the House was not yet in a condition to judge whether the writs ought to be issued or not. With regard to all the boroughs except Tynemouth, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was ready and prepared to deal with them by Bills which he would bring before the House on Monday next. It was also desirable, before the writs were issued, that the House should decide upon the Bill which he had had the honour to introduce, and another Bill which was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), because if it was the intention of the House to proceed with a Bill for preventing bribery and corruption, then it would be desirable to postpone the issue of those writs till such a measure should have passed the House. With regard to Tynemouth, the Report on that borough had not yet been delivered. He believed it would be in the course of to-morrow; but, as far as he had been able to look at it, it appeared to him to differ somewhat from the case of other boroughs. However, the House would be in a condition to judge for itself

587
when the Report, with the evidence, was laid before it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he saw no objection to the Motion of the noble Lord; in fact, he thought it was the best course that could be taken, as it was desirable to see the Bills of the hon. and learned Attorney General before deciding upon the issue of the writs. But he thought no time should be lost in bringing forward those Bills, which he expected to have been introduced, as they were on the paper.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: That was a mistake of the clerk; they were meant for Monday.
MR. DISRAELI: Then, of course, his observation fell to the ground; but he would remind the noble Lord that the Income Tax Bill was fixed for Monday. That was a very important matter, but he hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to secure time for both.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered,
"That no Warrants for New Writs for Barnstaple, Cambridge, Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, Maldon, and Tynemouth, be issued before Friday the 17th day of March."

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) who had charge of the Bill, not to press it at this moment. He had, on a former occasion, assured the hon. and learned Member that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, and that some scheme on the subject would be submitted to the House in the course of the present Session. Since giving that assurance, he had taken occasion to communicate with his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and also with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, and had used every effort to obtain all the information possible, and he hoped shortly to be able to submit to the Government a scheme for a measure on the subject, with a view of proceeding with it this Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that the subject was best left in the hands of the Government, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that he was losing no time. He hoped the second reading would not now be pressed.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought that, after these very explicit assurances of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would be justified in acceding to his request, as he had no other motive than to remove a great evil, which he thought would best be done by complying with his hon. and learned Friend's wish.
Second reading deferred till Thursday, 30th March.
The House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Coasting Trade; Commons Inclosure.

MANNING THE NAVY.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had given his noble Friend at the head of the Government notice of his intention of putting a question to him with respect to certain returns in extension of those ordered by the House of Commons, in connection with a most important subject—the manning of the Navy. He saw in the papers connected with the Navy Estimates a return from April to January last of the number of men voted and the number borne; and what he desired was a continuation of that return for the month of February; and likewise that the coast guard and the pensioners who had been called into service, as well as the marines, should in that return be distinguished from those entered as able seamen. It appeared that, between the months of April and January last, 5,030 men were added to the Navy, including both seamen and marines; but there were no certain means of distinguish-
516
ing how many were seamen and how many were marines. He saw, however, that 2,223 marines were engaged in the financial year ending the 30th of November; and he thought be might assume, for the purpose of comparison, that the enlistment proceeded at the same average rate per month from the end of November to the end of January. He found that the marines engaged for the ten months amounted to 1,939, leaving only 3,091 seamen as the increase added to the Navy in the course of the ten months. When he (the Earl of Ellenborough) was connected with the Navy, it appeared to him that the annual increase of the Navy, without any extraordinary effort, was about 7,000 men; therefore in the ten months there should have been added to the Navy 5,800, whereas only 3,091 men had been added in the course of that period. Now, he thought, under the very peculiar circumstances of the present times, which one would have supposed would have induced seamen to come forward to engage in Her Majesty's service, there was some defect in the course of conduct taken by the Government. If, from whatever cause, the Crown abandoned for the present at least the exercise of its undoubted prerogative and entered the seamen's labour market on equal terms with the merchant, the Crown must outbid the merchant, or the merchant would get the men and the Crown would not. He had read with great interest a little pamphlet published by a most excellent officer, Lieutenant Brown, of the Registration of Seamen Department, which showed that in the course of the year the able seamen in the Queen's service received somewhat more than the able seamen in the merchant service; because in the merchant service the men were only employed nine months in the year, whilst those in the Queen's service were employed twelve. But then the men in the merchant service had what they considered the great advantage of three months' liberty in the course of the year, which liberty was of necessity refused to the able-bodied seamen of the Queen's service. It seemed, therefore, to be necessary, if we wished to obtain good seamen, that something should be offered to the seamen which would counterbalance the three months' liberty allowed in the merchant service. They had been told that there were no men to be had. If that was true, there must have been the greatest possible delusion or exaggeration in all the state-

517
ments they had heard for many years, of the vast increase in the mercantile marine in consequence of the various alterations in the law respecting navigation and trade. Exaggeration and deception no doubt there must have been from the inaccurate manner in which the accounts had been made out. He had no doubt there were men, and that they were to be got—but then they were only to be got for what they were worth. If the Crown would not give the seamen what they were worth in the market, it was contrary to reason to suppose that the men would give themselves for less. They had heard something of the fitting of transports for the conveyance of cavalry horses to Turkey; and he thought he might just as well go and see these ships himself. He went on board one yesterday, and he was perfectly struck with the fine appearance of the crew. He never saw such men in the merchant service before. He asked how long they had been engaged? The answer was, about eleven days only, since the engagement of the vessel. He also went on board an adjoining vessel, for which a crew of forty men had been engaged, equally as good as those which he had just before had occasion to admire; and he was told there was not the slightest difficulty in getting men, and that they were to be had at the ordinary market price, and not under. If, then, it was intended to consult the public feeling and the feeling of the mariners, by leaving them, as far as could be done without injury to the public interest, the freedom of selecting which service they should enter, and if, too, economy in the expenditure for the public service was to be regarded, it would become necessary to revise both the Ordnance and Miscellaneous Estimates. He did not think there could be a Committee of either House of Parliament who would not find in two hours the means of reducing the Ordnance Estimates by 200,000 l., by the postponement of charges which could be brought forward at another time. Again, with respect to the Miscellaneous Estimates, which had grown to so enormous an amount within the last twelve or thirteen years, it was his belief that 300,000 l. might in the same way be postponed; and with half a million in hand, we might in three weeks man our fleet with the very best sailors in England. But there was one thing necessary above all others, and that was, that the British Navy should be manned by British seamen, and not by landsmen—not by men
518
who did not know what rope to haul upon—not by men who could not go aloft—but by men who could fight their ships as their ships were fought at St. Vincent, at the Nile, and at Trafalgar. It was our duty, if we would protect the shores of England from attack and desolation—if we would maintain our superiority in this war, as we had maintained it in former wars on the seas—to man the Navy as it ought to be manned, cost what it might in feeling or in money; by which means we would place in the hands of the gallant officer by whom it was to be commanded, the most efficient instrument for maintaining the interests and the honour of the country. He wished to know whether there would be any objection on the part of the Government so to extend the return in question as to include the month of February; and to distinguish in it both with respect to the Coast Guard, the Pensioners, and the Marines, and those entered as able-bodied Seamen?
The EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that there could be no objection to give the returns moved for by the noble Earl; but the noble Earl in moving for them had taken occasion to make various observations, to which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) considered he had great reason to object, and against which he begged most emphatically to protest, but to make which, he presumed, the present returns had been moved for. He denied that the British fleet, which was shortly to sail for the Baltic, was in any way imperfectly or inadequately manned, which the inference to be drawn from the noble Earl's observations might naturally lead the country to suppose; on the contrary, he was enabled to affirm, on an authority and testimony much more to be depended on in this matter than the noble Earl's, that the British fleet which was destined to leave this country for the Baltic was well and efficiently manned, and in every respect properly equipped for the successful accomplishment of the great purposes for which it was intended. One remarkable feature about this fleet was, that there was not a single "pressed man on board," which was a most favourable and gratifying feature when compared with former years; and another thing to be remembered was, that in order efficiently to man our fleet we had not swept our gaols. With respect to the coastguard men, it was but just to them to say that in every requisite they were seamen and experienced men, and

519
that the proportion of them to other seamen in the present fleet would not be more than usual. There might be some landsmen, also, among the seamen, but not more, certainly, than there were on former occasions; and, generally speaking, of this fleet it might be said that ablebodied and efficient seamen had been selected. This fleet would sail, in fact, as well manned and equipped for war as any fleet that ever left these shores. Having thought it his duty to reply to the inferences which might be drawn from the observations of the noble Earl, he would go a step further and say that he really could not see the advantage to be derived from such observations, even supposing them to be correct—which they were not—and he could not see by what force of reasoning they could be justified, or in what way they could advance any particular views the noble Earl might entertain. He had no objection to have the returns asked for continued up to the period the noble Earl wished; but, at the same time, he could not help entering his protest against the course the noble Earl had adopted, and the inference that might be drawn from his remarks; and be begged in conclusion to assure the House, on the very best authority, that the condition of our fleets was never more perfect and efficient than at the present time.
The EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHexplained, that the only object he had in view in making these observations, was to expose to the Government what appeared to him to be a danger, in order to induce them to take such steps as might be found desirable to remedy it.
Account showing the number of seamen and marines respectively more or less borne than voted, in each month from April, 1853, to February, 1854, both inclusive: distinguishing such seamen as have been transferred from the coast-guard, or have been called in from the pension lists,
Ordered to be laid before the House.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—RETURNS OF POPULATION AND FRANCHISE.
EARL GREY, in rising to move an Address for certain Returns connected with Population and the Franchise, said that it seemed to him obvious that the same returns which had been ordered by the House of Commons on the 15th February last, in reference to the Government measure of Parliamentary Reform, should be laid before their Lordships' House. In moving
520
for these returns, he hoped that, as he was not in the House on Friday last, he should be permitted to make a few remarks in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) on that evening, in answer to certain questions put to him by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) opposite, in reference to the measure introduced into the other House for the amendment of the representation of the people in Parliament. He would preface the remarks he was about to make by saying, he had learnt with sincere pleasure that the Government had decided upon deferring the second reading of that measure at all events until the 27th April, for he was persuaded that, in deciding not to press that Bill at the present time, the Government had yielded to a necessity to which it was their duty to yield. He must say they had only done what he had expected from them; for, notwithstanding the very discouraging answer he received when he ventured, at an earlier period of the Session, to recommend that the Bill should be deferred, he confidently anticipated, from his knowledge of the character of his noble Friend who had charge of the measure in the other House, that when he came calmly to consider the probable effect of urging the Bill forward at the present time, he would abstain from doing so. He rejoiced to find that, in forming that opinion of his noble Friend's judgment and patriotism, he had not been deceived. He hoped he was equally in the right, notwithstanding the terms in which the announcement of the Government had been made, in supposing that, although the Bill was nominally deferred until the 27th of April, it was not intended to persevere with it then, unless the objections to its now being proceeded with should have been by that time removed. It appeared to him that those objections would not be removed unless the state of the country was very different from that which we had every reason to believe it would be. He knew it had been said that there was no objection to bringing in a measure of this kind at the commencement of a war, and he could well conceive cases in which no solid objection could be urged to great constitutional changes in time of war. These changes might be of such urgent necessity that they could not safely be postponed, and there might be reasons in the internal circumstances of the country why they should be brought forward. He thought this was the case in all those instances which had been cited as

521
showing that there was no objection to the course which Her Majesty's Government had taken. It was true that both the Union with Scotland and the Union with Ireland had been carried in time of war, though these measures involved a great change in the representation, and the disfranchisement of many places which previously returned Members to the Parliaments of Scotland and of Ireland. A measure had also been proposed, but not carried, for amending the representation of England and Wales at the w beginning of the revolutionary war with France. But it was well known that all those measures were considered to be of urgent necessity when they were brought forward, and that, on the other hand, the difficulties which we apprehended now were not likely to arise. He certainly thought it would have been better if the Government had at once deferred the further consideration of this Bill till another Session; at the same time he would be indisposed to offer any objection to its postponement to the 27th of April, if it was understood that it would then only be proceeded with in the event of the circumstances of the country being by that time entirely altered. He thought the abandonment of the measure would have been a more judicious course, because, considering the character of the Bill, considering the many interests it would affect and the many provisions it contained, it seemed to him that the second reading of such a measure at so late a period as the 27th of April, even if it should be pressed with all the despatch that was possible, would not enable it to receive all that full and deliberate consideration which it ought to receive, and without which he trusted there would be no attempt to force it through their Lordships' House. In the meantime, however, what he intended to urge was that they should come to the understanding that the measure would not be brought forward at the time specified, unless the objections which now existed were removed. He certainly could not consider that the proper time for effecting a great constitutional change like this, if the dispute in which we were now involved with Russia should not be by that time adjusted. If the only objection to consider this measure had been a difficulty with regard to mere taxes, he should have seen very little occasion for deferring it, because he could not believe there would be greater difficulty in getting taxes to defray the expenses of the war,
522
than there had been found in obtaining votes to authorise incurring these expenses. That, therefore, formed no part of his reason for wishing the postponement of the measure. The great reason for wishing that this Bill should not be proceeded with at the moment of an opening war was, that if the measure were pressed forward for consideration, they would run the risk of weakening the hands of the executive Government—perhaps, of paralysing them—at a time when it was of peculiar importance that the hands of the Government should be strengthened to enable them to conduct with vigour the war on which we were entering, and to enable them to command the confidence of those foreign Powers with whom they must act, either in conducting that war or in negotiating to bring it to an end. Let their Lordships compare the circumstances under which the present Bill was brought in with those that existed in 1831–32. Their Lordships would remember the enthusiasm with which the measure of the Government of that day was supported by the country, and the power which the support of public opinion gave to the Government in the course they were pursuing; and they would agree with him when he said that nothing could form a greater contrast to the apathy and indifference with which the present proposal had been received. They knew that not only had that proposal been received with apathy, but that, had the second reading of the Bill been proceeded with on the day originally intended, it was highly doubtful, to say the least, whether such a Motion would have been carried. Now, it required no argument to prove that in the present state of affairs it would be dangerous to the interests of the country if the Ministers should needlessly expose themselves to a Parliamentary defeat. If, after encountering such a defeat, they should be willing still to conduct the affairs of the country, they would find their authority impaired and their powers diminished; while, on the other hand, no one could doubt that, in the actual state of our foreign relations and of parties at home, a change of Administration and a prolonged Ministerial crisis would be attended with great difficulty and danger. The Government had no right to expose their Sovereign, Parliament, and the country to such a state of things by forcing on the discussion of a measure at a time so very inopportune, not only in the opinion of the opponents of the measure, but of the great

523
majority of its supporters. He owned he had heard with great surprise that it was held by some of the opponents of the Government, and also by some of their supporters, that they were bound in honour to persevere with this measure, in consequence of a pledge they had formerly given on the subject. That was an opinion altogether unreasonable. He could not conceive how public men could possibly be bound by promises made in one state of public affairs to proceed with measures in a totally altered state of affairs, when it became obvious that by doing so they might be acting injuriously towards the country. The honour and duty of public men could not possibly be at variance with each other, and it was the obvious duty of all, men engaged in public affairs, and, above all, of those who were in the service of the Crown, to adopt that course which was best for the safety and the interests of the country. Instead, therefore, of their honour being pledged to persevere in that which in the altered circumstances might be injurious to the country, their honour and their duty were both on the other side, and a very heavy responsibility would rest on the Ministers, both collectively and individually, if, having failed in averting the war—he would not say whether by their fault or otherwise, for on that point it was unnecessary to give any opinion—but, having failed in averting the war, they were to leave undone anything that was in their power to diminish, as far as possible, the difficulties and dangers with which that war might be attended. He should also desire to see this measure postponed to another year, because, while the Bill which had been laid on the table of the other House contained much that he highly approved, it was impossible to conceal his opinion that, as a whole, the measure was not so well digested and matured that Parliament could properly pass it in its present shape. It seemed to him that its provisions involved many principles which, if right, ought to be carried further; and this applied more especially to the extensive disfranchisement of places now enjoying the right of returning Members of Parliament for the purpose of transferring that right to other bodies. They could not but feel that the original Reform Bill, by disfranchising so many small places, gave a great blow to prescription as a ground on which that right should be continued to various cities and towns which at present enjoyed it; but if, after that event, a se-
524
cond blow was given to the principle of prescription, and they were again further to disfranchise small constituencies and transfer the right of representation to others, it seemed to him impossible to doubt that, with regard to those small constituencies to whom the right of returning Members would remain, prescription would form but a very insecure basis on which they could keep their right. If, therefore, this arrangement was to be proposed and carried out, it would have been far safer that a larger and more complete reconstruction of our electoral system should be effected. He thought so, because, in common with the authors of the original Reform Bill, he believed that almost the very first requisite of a safe measure on this subject was that it should hold out a reasonable prospect of settling, at least for some considerable time, the question to which it related. It would be in the recollection of those who attended to what passed with respect to the original Reform Bill, that one of the chief reasons assigned by the authors of the measure for its extent was, that they hoped by the largeness of the measure to avert the necessity of again dealing with the subject for as long a period as in human legislation it was possible to look forward. And it seemed to him that the result had justified the foresight and wisdom of those by whom that reason was given, because, while the measure carried in 1832 had been successful in greatly improving the constitution of the House of Commons as an instrument of legislation, and for securing good government, that measure, after an existence of twenty-two years, still remained substantially unaltered. It appeared to bins that the present measure was framed on precisely the opposite principle, and was drawn up in such a manner as positively insured, if it were to pass in its present shape, that further changes must again be forced on the attention of Parliament almost as soon as the new scheme could have been brought into operation. He did not see, when such principles were admitted, that it would be possible to refuse to go further; and he was the more confirmed in that opinion because he observed that by far the largest proportion of those who had given the measure anything like a hearty support had declared that they did so because they considered it as an instalment of the measures they hoped to obtain. These he thought very important considerations, and

525
it would be no small advantage, in his opinion, that the measure should now be delayed, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject, and of submitting hereafter to Parliament a better digested and more matured plan for accomplishing the object they had in view; and—what was hardly less material—public opinion would also have the opportunity of forming itself upon it. On all questions of this kind the Government and Parliament could only act with success by following, rather than going in advance of, public opinion. All the leading provisions of the measure proposed in 1831 had been for forty years, and even longer, under the consideration of the public, and the country had been prepared for them by ample discussion; but the present Bill contained many provisions of a different character, which had not been so considered, and which were imperfectly understood. The truth was, that the public had, till very lately, so little contemplated seriously the probability of any great change in our internal constitution, and the real difficulties of the changes had been so little considered, that he believed there were few men who were actually prepared to give a definite opinion on the subject. After what had occurred, however, men's minds would be directed to this important question. Inquiring and reflecting persons would, no doubt, give expression to their opinions through the press; by the conflict of opinion truth would be elicited, and the public would be better prepared for considering with advantage such a measure as Parliament ought to pass. For these reasons, he greatly rejoiced that the Government had deferred for some time, at least, any further proceeding with this Bill; and he hoped, unless there was a great change in the circumstances of the country, greater than could be anticipated at that moment, that the measure would be still further deferred. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the returns.
The EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he need scarcely say that there could be no objection to produce the returns moved for by the noble Earl; nor did he mean to complain of the course which the noble Earl had taken on the present occasion; for he had always great pleasure in hearing his noble Friend, even when he differed from him. But the noble Earl would permit him to say that, on this occasion he did think that he had extended his obser-
526
vations beyond the strict bounds of regularity; for to discuss in this House whether a measure before the other House of Parliament shall be read on one day or on another day, or whether it shall be postponed or deferred altogether, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought scarcely formed a regular subject for discussion before your Lordships. He was not aware that he could add anything to the statement which he made last week in that House on this subject, when a noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) asked him a question which he had no difficulty in answering, and which he thought it perfectly natural should be put, in consequence of the importance of the subject to which it referred. He then said, that his noble Friend who took charge of this measure in the other House of Parliament had postponed the second reading till the 27th of April—that he had done so in sincerity and good faith, and that it was his intention to move the second reading on the 27th of April. He said that announcement was made, and he repeated it, in sincerity and good faith; but, if he was asked whether that intention would be irrevocably executed on that day or not, of course, he must humbly decline to give any positive pledge on the subject. In the present state of this country, and in the present state of Europe, who could tell what a day or an hour might bring forth? But, he said—reserving that which must, of course, belong to all intentions, and which must depend on a sense of public duty—the intention which He announced last week, on the part of his noble Friend, he repeated to-day; and when that time came it would be for Her Majesty's Government to consider of it, and to act according to that which appears to them most consonant with the great interests of the country and with a due regard to their own honour.
EARL GREYwas understood to say that he was perfectly satisfied with what had fallen from the noble Earl.
Motion agreed to.

SANITARY MEASURES.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of their Lordships to the sanitary condition of the country, more especially with respect to the metropolis. It was of the greatest importance, that the consideration of Parliament should be directed to the subject at the earliest possible moment, that they should not all at once find them-

527
selves in the midst of the cholera, without preparation; for so much was it in the nature of man generally to defer precautionary measures till the emergency arose, that he was afraid, unless public opinion was called to it, they would find that boards of guardians, and even boards of health, would be hardly prepared for the emergency that was likely to arise. They could hardly have forgotten that the cholera had recently appeared amongst them, and with greater intensity than at any former period; it had laid a stronger hold on such portions of the country as it had visited than ever it had done before; and it was not only more severe, but it was more fatal. It possessed also this remarkable peculiarity, that it now gives less warning in individual cases than was the case formerly; for on the recent visitation the premonitory symptoms were immediately followed by the most dangerous stages of the disease; and there was less opportunity of providing medical assistance than existed during the former visits of the epidemic. Therefore it was more especially important that they should be beforehand in their precautions, and look around them and see if they had hitherto taken the best precautions that circumstances would admit of for meeting so great an evil; how far the measure for the improvement of towns had been carried into effect, and whether they were still doing all that circumstances required. He believed it was the fact that they were, in point of legislation, in no better position now than they were in 1849, when the epidemic last raged in this country, and when their legislation was found so inadequate to meet the exigency. At that time the Board of Health was called into existence, and they had also the Commission of Sewers; but that, like the Board of Health, had been found to be inadequately constituted; and he asked in what better position they now were to meet the cholera than they were in on the last occasion? There were two points of view in which the question might be considered; namely, the providing of permanent precautions against the cholera in the way of drainage, and the proper supply of water, which he was afraid Lad been sadly neglected. It was true that some nibbling measures had been introduced in the course of the last three or four years, but he was afraid they were exceedingly imperfect; but, even imperfect as they were, he believed they would be productive of con-
528
siderable good, if means were taken to remove certain difficulties of detail which rendered it impossible completely to carry out their provisions. With regard to the supply of water, the mere transfer of duty from one officer to another would make the whole difference with respect to the inefficiency or efficiency of the means. At present a great portion of the metropolis was brought into close contact with the supply of water; but, from the want of a link between the drains and the water, that supply of water was not available for sanatory purposes. And why were those drains not supplied? It was because the power of making those drains was left in the hands of the churchwardens or local authorities, who were generally slow in operations which would entail immediate expenditure and were calculated to meet a merely threatened evil. If, however, there were some central authority to take measures for the opening of the communication between the water supply and the drains, a considerable improvement would be effected, and they would have no small portion of the metropolis in the possession of most efficient sanitary functions. There were a number of similar cases, but it was not for him to recite them. They would be much better in the hands of his noble Friend on his right (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who was much better acquainted than he was, not only with the general principles, but with every detail connected with those matters. An alteration in their legislation would make the whole difference, as to whether the general principles in an Act would be made efficient or not. With respect, for example, to the Nuisances Act, it was necessary to carry it into effect in a great degree through the agency of the boards of guardians. Notice was given to them to proceed; but they were probably reluctant to do so, and it was even alleged that in many cases they were elected to obstruct the removal of nuisances. Yet it was in the hands of those very parties they reposed almost their whole confidence to carry out their sanitary measures. The moving power was in the Board of Health—the power to carry out the Act was in the hands of the board of guardians. When the Board of Health gave notice to proceed, the board of guardians might refuse; and though there was a remedy by appeal, while the parties were disputing before a court of law, the nuisances that were productive of the spread of cholera would re-

529
main undisturbed and the pestilence might break out in one alley after another. Experience would show where the difficulties lay, and, with that experience before them, was it right that they should come into immediate contact with cholera without some measures being taken to remove those evils? It seemed to him to be highly important to keep in view two distinct classes of objects; one class had reference to the permanent health of the country, and every protection should be given to private property, when it was interfered with by putting the machinery in force necessary for that object. But whenever the country was visited by such a pestilence as the cholera, in his opinion, the ordinary law should be suspended, and the country placed under a dictatorial régime as regarded sanitary measures by an Order in Council; extraordinary powers should be committed to some central authority, which should be enabled to insist on the adoption of every necessary precaution for the preservation of the public health. They might adopt temporary measures to supply water for the cleansing of courts; they might insist upon medical visitations from house to house; they might employ all the measures that had been found from experience to be effectual for the purpose, and the central authority should have peremptory power to overrule every obstacle. What he wished to ask of his noble Friend and the Government was, what steps they were prepared to take in regard to this coming disease? They could have no doubt of its coming. It had reappeared again with all its usual formalities, and was approaching them in exactly the same way as former epidemics of the same kind had done. It had appeared at the same time of the year, in the same quarter of the country, and with no other difference than an increase in intensity. Therefore no delay should take place in the adoption of precautionary measures, particularly with regard to this great metropolis, with its two and a half millions of inhabitants. During its state of siege by the cholera, the metropolis should be placed under some peremptory authority that would cause everything to be done that was essential for the public safety. With regard to a more permanent measure, that was another question. It might be a desirable subject for the consideration of Parliament whether there should not be some steps taken with regard to the drainage of great towns; but what they had a right to know at
530
once was, whether provision was made, or about to be made, without delay, by a summary and effective process, to use all the means of prevention which they had learned from experience were, if not fully effective, at least effective to a considerable extent in the prevention of this terrible disease. With that view he should move for the production of certain papers which he thought might be important in assisting their Lordships to come to a conclusion. He begged to move—
"An Address for a Copy of Report of the General Board of Health, on the administration of the Public Health Act and the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act, from 1848 to 1854 (presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in January, 1854)."
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the subject which had been brought forward by his noble Friend was an extremely important one; and he was glad it had been brought under their consideration, in order that their Lordships and the country should know the extent of the danger, the extent of the preparations that had been made to meet it, and for the purpose of making those preparations adequate to the emergency. There could be no doubt whatever that that dreadful epidemic was about not only to revisit this country, (which in fact it had already done), but that it was also about to repeat its ravages as it had done in 1831–2 and in 1848–9. It was following exactly the same course, and—the coincidence was really remarkable—it was exactly treading in the same traces, following the same course, and selecting almost the same spots where it had formerly ravaged the country. The two preceding visitations of cholera in 1831–2 and 1848–9, commenced with an attack which was merely premonitory of the epidemic. This was succeeded by a lull, which encouraged the hope that the pestilence was at an end. This lull continued, in the first visitation, for eight months; and in the second, three months; and then in each instance the pestilence returned with ten times more fierceness than before. Judging from experience, they might consider that they were now in the middle of a lull, perfectly similar to that which took place in the two preceding epidemics. The epidemic of 1848–9, which, in February, March, and April, numbered its victims only by one or two in the week, was premonitory of an outbreak that destroyed upwards of 2,000 in a week, and produced a total mortality of 17,000. The present
531
visitation had commenced its career in a manner precisely analogous to the last; and there was no reasonable ground to doubt that it would pursue a similar course. Within the last ten days the disease had broken out in Port Glasgow, Greenock, Gourock, and several other smaller places in the west of Scotland, and also at Leeds. It had alighted suddenly on these several towns, seized a few victims, and then disappeared for a time. This was precisely the course which it took in London and Glasgow in 1848, antecedent to its general attack in 1849; and this appeared to be the character of the pestilence—that it gave notice of its approach. He begged to read a statement which had been made by the special inspectors, appointed to the peculiar character of the present visitation:—
"Yet, in certain respects, as far as the pestilence has yet advanced, it appears to have been more virulent than on any former visitation. It has been more rapid in its course, and has been, upon the whole, more mortal. It has given shorter warning; it has allowed briefer space for preparation. One stage of the disease, formerly well marked, was now suppressed—namely, that denoted by the term approaching cholera.' At present, diarrhœa passed into cholera, and cholera into collapse, with a more fearful rapidity. In 1848 and 1849 it was rare for persons to perish within twenty-four hours; but now it was not uncommon for death to take place within twelve, ten, and even eight hours. Still the premonitory stage did exist; warning was given; time was allowed, and time enough, to arrest the disease in its diarrhœa stage; to stop the corning on of the fatal condition of collapse; but hours were now as precious as days, and the neglect of a space of time which, in 1849, might have been retrieved, would, in all human probability, in 1854, be attended with the certain loss of life."
His noble Friend (Lord Harrowby) had asked what preparations had been made to meet the approach of cholera. In answer, he might state that by an Order in Council, issued in September, under the Nuisance Removal Act, which could only be put into operation when any part of the kingdom was affected or threatened with an epidemic, the Board of Health had obtained powers to issue regulations for the cleansing of streets, for the purifying, ventilating, or disinfecting of houses, for the removal of nuisances, and the adoption of measures generally for the promotion of health. The execution of these directions was entrusted to the local authorities, but principally to the boards of guardians in England, and parochial boards in Scotland, to whom, as well as to the Board of Public Health, power was given to insti-
532
tute prosecutions. From the fact that sixteen years intervened between the first and second visitations of cholera in this country, it was anticipated by some that the interval would be as great between the second and the third, if, indeed, the pestilence should ever again return, which they regarded as doubtful. But the Board of Health had directed its attention to the state of things on the Continent and in the East. From the increased frequency of its recurrence at its sources in India; from its repeated devastations in Persia, Russia, and Poland; from its advance last year to Berlin and Hamburg, and Warsaw, the General Board of Health believed that its return to this country was but too probable, and they apprehended that this event was not distant. On its reappearance on the Continent, a medical inspector was sent by the Board to Hamburg to ascertain the progress and character of the disease, and the probability of its approaching to this country. They had also proceeded to the execution of the powers vested in them for the examination of all suspected places. Medical inspectors were appointed, who re-examined the seats of the pestilence in the metropolis, and forwarded Reports to the several parishes to which they related. Subsequently, similar inspections had been extended to the principal towns throughout the kingdom in which cholera had proved most fatal. In the month of September they obtained the issue of the Order in Council, and means were adopted whereby those parties who were particularly exposed to the influence of the disorder—persons in the seaport towns, and on board ship—would be brought within reach of assistance. They had been assisted by the Board of Trade, and they had done their best to introduce that which had been long desired, namely, a manual of directions to be used by persons who, being remote from medical treatment and medical aid, would be able to administer to themselves or to others such treatment as was required upon a sudden breaking out of the disease. They had never been able to do that before, but on this occasion, by the assistance of the College of Physicians, they had been able to make such regulations, with the authority of and with the sanction of the College, as would form an important manual for all parties on board ship, and for those persons who had not the means to call to their aid at the spur of the moment the necessary medical assistance. He would

533
not detail to their Lordships the states of the various localities or the preparations that were being made, but he wished to show to the country a few choice specimens of the condition in which they were, and to show that no temporary powers would really aid them, but that only by deliberate and steady care and continuous efforts they could be placed in a position to withstand the attacks of cholera. He was sorry to say that little or nothing had been done in the interval between the first and second visitations of cholera to improve the epidemic localities. In the four years between the second and third visitations, some improvements had been effected in certain towns; but in general the epidemic localities remained the same; and there, the localising causes continuing undiminished, the pestilence on its return broke out and raged in the very same streets, blocks of buildings, houses, and even rooms. To prove that neither the Board nor the various localities had any excuse for their neglect, he would cite a few cases showing that the cholera visited the same places, streets, and houses in 1848–9 and 1853, that it did in 1831–2. Thus at Howden, on the north side of the Tyne, the first case of cholera occurred in the very same house in the successive epidemics of 1831, of 1848, and of 1853. At Gateshead, on the south bank of the Tyne, the pestilence first broke out in the same streets in each of the three epidemics. At Newcastle, in Greenhow Terrace, cholera in 1849 carried off three victims. In 1853, out of 118 inhabitants residing in this block of buildings, there were 31 attacks and 11 deaths. In both epidemics the first death occurred in the same house, the family inhabiting which lost during the recent visitation three of its members, the mother and two sons. At Bedlington, the house first attacked in 1853 was the second attacked in 1848. The first case of cholera that occurred in Sheffield, in September last year, was in Brown Street, situate in a low part of the town, in the vicinity of a large open sewer. It was in this same locality that the epidemic raged with the greatest violence in its previous visitations. At Redruth, in Cornwall, in the same streets and houses which were ravaged by cholera in 1849 there have recently occurred 41 deaths from the pestilence. With reference to Scotland, the disease first broke out at Leith, after an interval of sixteen years, in the same house in which it first appeared in
534
1832. At Port Glasgow, where cholera has just reappeared, the house first attacked was the second attacked in 1848. The other day at Glasgow a person died in one room, while in the epidemic of 1848, three persons died in the next room. At Arbroath, houses which exhibited a heavy mortality in 1848 have become the chief seats of the disease within the last few weeks. It was remarkable that in all the houses that had been examined some local cause was found for the existence of the disease. In some there was a large quantity of cesspool matter, in others there was a damp putrid mass hanging on the walls, waiting till the choleraic poison issued, to join with it in an unholy alliance to destroy its wretched victims. In the metropolis the case was precisely similar. At Kensington, in October last, cholera first returned to the very same room in which the first fatal case had occurred in 1849. One of the most fatal spots in the Whitechapel Union was Dunk Street and its immediate vicinity. In the epidemic of 1848 and 1849 there occurred in a circumscribed portion of that district 103 deaths from the pestilence. In 1852, Dr. Sutherland, in the apprehension that another outbreak of cholera was then impending, re-examined the same locality, which had been reported on so long back as 1838, and he stated that the descriptions given by Dr. Southwood Smith fourteen years before, were then perfectly applicable to the same place, and that the great leading causes of the unhealthiness of Whitechapel remained essentially the same. "I do not think," said the registrar," there is a street in the district in which epidemic disease has not been fatal." "During the recent visitation in the month of October last, no fewer than eleven fatal cases of cholera occurred in that very street in which, in 1838, typhus fever was in nearly every house." This showed, beyond question, that the cholera gave premonitory symptoms and indications, and told almost the very spots where it would return. Their Lordships could form no notion of the state of the places where it ordinarily broke out. It was absolutely necessary, if they wished to form an estimate of them, that they should visit them themselves, and bring every sense to bear upon them, for otherwise he defied them to fancy even the abominations which existed within, perhaps, a gun-shot of where they were then assembled. He would describe one place in the north—Gates-

535
head—where the cholera had raged and had occasioned great mortality. Mr. Lee, one of the inspectors of the Board of Health, said:—
"Now, as on former visitations, one of the most fatal localities in Gateshead is Pipewell Gate. It is a very narrow lane, about 300 yards long. In many parts two carriages could not pass each other, and the average width is only eight or nine feet. It lies parallel to the river, and extends from the bridge westward. On the south side the ground rises very precipitously, and many of the houses are built into the bank, so that the walls are damp and any ventilation impossible. The fires in the rooms draw the foul moisture out of the bank behind, so that in many cases it trickles down the internal walls. In addition to these evils the courtyards are only narrow alleys, with filthy steams of refuse flowing over the surface, and the dilapidated old houses are crowded from bottom to top with human beings. In 1832 the first local outbreak of cholera was in this place, and its devastation was frightful. In two days there were 172 cases, of whom sixty-three died. In 1849 the first outbreak was here, and about half the whole deaths from cholera in Gateshead occurred in Pipewell Gate. It is in the same sanitary condition now as at the former visitations."
It was impossible to go through all these details, because there were hundreds—nay, thousands—of such localities; but he would bring one other instance under the notice of the House, because it was a sample of the state in which many of the villages and towns in the mining districts were allowed to continue. He alluded, now, to the town of Merthyr Tydvil; and it would be observed that one of the great evils among the mining population of that town, swarming with human beings, was the almost total want of water, it frequently happening that people were obliged to go a mile or two in order to obtain a glass of fresh water fit for use.
"The first circumstance," said Mr. Holland, "that must strike every visitor at Merthyr is the extreme and unusual dirtiness and wetness of the town. I can hardly expect credence for such facts as the following, yet it is perfectly free from exaggeration:—I saw a young woman filling her pitcher from a little stream of water gushing from a cinder heap, the surface of which was so thickly studded with alvine deposits that it was difficult to pass without treading in them, in some of which I saw intestinal worms, and the rain then falling was washing the feculent matter into the water which the girl was filling into her pitcher, no doubt for domestic use."
He might here observe that, as a preventive against cholera, he did not believe there was one thing more important than a constant supply of clean and healthy water—not only for personal cleanliness, but also for domestic use. Wherever water had been plentifully used it had been able to
536
keep down the disease. Reference had often been made to the city of Hamburg, where, after the fire, the great quantity of water which was introduced there produced such an effect that diseases of the skin, which used to be extremely prevalent, ceased to be known, and not more than a single case of itch occurred in one year. The state of Scotland was not one whit better than that of England. This summary gave a representation of the whole.
"Damp, earthen, muddy floors; walls saturated with moisture, which, when limewashed, still looked dark and dingy from the impossibility of drying them. Small close windows, admitting of no perflation of air, crowded apartments, thatched root's, saturated like a sponge with water, an undrained soil, and ash and refuse cellars within ten feet of inhabited rooms. The condition of many houses in rural districts in which outbreaks had occurred was represented to be in no respect better. In the parish of Cramond, for example, an agricultural village near Edinburgh, the houses, which were made of whinstone, greedily absorbing moisture, were stated to be covered with decayed thatch, which was itself covered with bright green fungoid vegetation; the floors, consisting of unhardened clay, were hollowed in some places and filled with water, and were situate about a foot below the level of the adjacent soil. The rain soaked through the thatched roof and through the matting hung up overhead."
But Dundee the inspectors declared to surpass them all; they thought, until they had inspected this place, that Newcastle was unrivalled. He would now allude to one or two places in the metropolis, and he would direct their Lordships' attention to a place in the neighbourhood of Kensington called the "Potteries." Dr. Milroy, in company with Mr. Frost, the medical officer of the district, recently reinspected the Potteries in the Notting-Hill division of Kensington parish. Special Reports were made of this notorious locality, in 1819, to the General Board of Health, by Mr. Grainger and Dr. Waller Lewis, and to the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers by Mr. Lovick. On the re-examination of it, within the last few days, Dr. Milroy stated that he could perceive no abatement of its horrible nuisances, no signs of noticeable improvement since his former inspection of it in August, 1849, with the parochial medical officers. It was represented as being now what it was then, one large slough of loathsome abomination, revolting alike to sight and smell, and most fatally pernicious to health, as attested by the high rate of mortality at all times among the inhabitants, and by the large number of deaths from cholera in the epidemic of 1849.

537
"At the time of my visit last week," says Dr. Milroy, "the roads and streets were no better than long tracks of black putrescent slush, with pools of foul stagnant water in different parts. It would be difficult to parallel in other part of the metropolis the state of things in Thomas street. To cross from one side to the other without getting ancle deep in stinking mire was impossible. Nor could I but feel the reasonableness of the remark which the people themselves made to me, that the state of the roads was as bad as the pigsties themselves."
To meet such a state of things as this it was quite clear that no temporary expedient would suffice, and that nothing could be effectual but the institution of permanent works, such as good drainage, widened streets, a plentiful supply of water, good ventilation, a better construction of buildings, and a reduction of the number of persons living in each dwelling. This would of course demand considerable deliberation and inquiry. Under a recent Act churchwardens had the power to compel the owners of small property to connect their houses with the water mains. If the churchwardens would avail themselves of that power it would be a great engine for good; but he much feared that, unless there were some central power to compel them to do their duty, the state of the water supply of the metropolis would be very little better than it had been twenty years ago. But there were other causes of disease at work, such as the permanent nuisance of slaughter-houses and the like. Their Lordships had no idea of the enormous injury inflicted upon the community by the effects of those abominable trades which, contrary to all the rules of decency and civilisation, were carried on in the very heart of the metropolis. He understood that there were large aggregations of cowsheds, containing no less than 20,000 cows, in the very centre of London, from which exhalations of the worst description were constantly sent forth. In fact, complaints were addressed to the Board of Health day by day and hour by hour, calling for redress, which that Board had no means of affording, except by the slow and very uncertain process of the Nuisances Removal Act. One great and most noxious cause of disease was to be found in the whole system of bone boiling and crushing. Everyone who knew anything of it would know that the nausea which it created was most terrible, and that it not only kept people in a very low state of health who lived in the neighbourhood, but that it produced a condition of body which was predisposed to the attacks of cholera. This was not con-
538
fined to the metropolis, similar complaints having been received from Reading, Wisbeach, Rugby, and elsewhere. To these nuisances must be added numerous piggeries which existed in the midst of a town population, to remedy which the order of the Board of Health was of no permanent avail; for when complaints were made of this nuisance, say on Monday, the owners removed the pigs on Tuesday, and brought them back again on Thursday—so that no real relief was afforded, the whole thing being a farce. The slaughter-houses in this metropolis were productive of incalculable evils, and it was disgraceful that such a state of things should be allowed to continue. What a contrast London presented in this respect to the city of Paris, where everything was conducted with decency, order, and cleanliness. He had himself searched the abattoirs, been over the whole of Paris, and had walked through its streets in search of nuisances day after day, and he had been exceedingly struck, and almost attracted, by the cleanliness of the butchers' shops. Fever was never absent from places where slaughter-houses abounded, and fever prepared the way for the ravages of cholera. Then, again, there were extensive yards for the fabrication of manure from nightsoil. Their Lordships would hardly believe it, but he could state it as a positive fact, that there were, in the heart of London, large yards to which was carried the cleansing of the cesspools and privies of a great proportion of the neighbourhood. In these yards the ordure was kept heaped up in mounds ten or fifteen feet high, and underwent a process by which the solid manure was expressed and prepared for exportation. Hundreds and thousands of people were living in the midst of these centres of filth, and exposed to the most deleterious influences. In one locality there was a very large pond, in which all cesspool contents were thrown, and allowed to decompose; and the people living in the vicinity for a great proportion of the year, and during the hottest period of the summer, were obliged to keep their doors and windows shut to keep out the pestilential effluvia, and their sufferings were exceedingly great. These were only specimens of the innumerable plague-spots now in existence in the metropolis, and which there could be no doubt had immolated their thousands of victims. He thought he had adduced quite enough to indicate what was the state of things which we had to meet, but be would mention a few facts

539
just to show that preventive measures, where resorted to, although they might not always be entirely effectual, yet in some instances absolutely frustrated cholera, and in a great many mitigated its virulence. One of the most remarkable of these occurred at Baltimore, during the prevalence of epidemic cholera in America, in 1849. The population of this city was about 149,000 souls. The site of the town was naturally salubrious, and parts of it were well built; but the districts near the river, occupied by the poorer classes, were low and damp and liable to remittent and intermittent fevers, and, therefore, predisposed to cholera. In the spring of 1849, the pestilence, which had attacked with great violence several neighbouring towns, appeared to be close upon the city. A general conviction prevailed, both among the authorities and the citizens, that uncleanliness had much to do with the development and spread of the disease; they, therefore, spared neither money nor labour to purify the city, and they gave the execution of the cleansing operations to experienced and energetic officers, who performed the work so vigorously that it was generally admitted that never before had the town been in so clean a state, or so thoroughly purified, as during the summer months in the year 1849. That the cholera poison had really pervaded the city was appallingly evinced by an event which occurred in its immediate vicinity. The Baltimore almshouse was situated about two miles from the city, on sloping ground, and was capable of accommodating between 600 and 700 inmates. An inclosure of about five acres, surrounded by a wall, adjoined the main building upon its north side. In the rear of this north wall was a ravine, which was the outlet for all the filth of the establishment. It was dry in summer, but retentive of wet after rain. The physician of the establishment, under the same apprehension of an outbreak of cholera as had prevailed in Baltimore, had taken the same precautions against the disease, and had placed the establishment itself in a state of scrupulous cleanliness. On the 1st of July cholera attacked one of the inmates; on the 7th a second attack occurred. This was followed in rapid succession by other seizures, and within the space of one month ninety-nine inmates of the establishment had perished by cholera. Within the building and grounds the most diligent search failed to discover anything that could account for this outbreak, but, on
540
examining the premises outside the northern wall, there was found a vast mass of filth, consisting of the overflowings of cesspools, the drainage from pigsties, and the general refuse of the establishment. "In short," says the medical officer, "the whole space included between the ravine and the wall, upon its north side, was one putrid and pestilential mass, capable of generating, under the ardent rays of a midsummer sun, the most poisonous and deadly exhalations." During the greater part of the time that this outbreak continued, a slight breeze set in pretty steadily from the north, conveying the poisonous exhalations from behind the north wall directly over the house, and, in every instance, the first persons attacked were those who happened to be particularly exposed to the air blowing from the north side of the building. The very same thing occurred with regard to the barracks at Newcastle last year. The cholera had broken out at Newcastle with unprecedented severity, but this was the report which they had received with regard to the barracks:—
"The barracks in which the garrison of Newcastle is quartered are situated about three-quarters of a mile from the centre of the town. In houses at distances varying from 20 to 200 yards of the barrack-gates, numerous deaths from cholera took place, and in a village 250 yards from the barracks the pestilence prevailed to a frightful extent for many days, numbering one or more victims in almost every cottage. On the outbreak of the pestilence in the town the medical officers of the garrison, with the sanction and assistance of their superior officers, exerted themselves with great promptitude and energy to carry into effect all the means at their command calculated to lessen the severity of an attack from which they could not hope altogether to escape. The sewers, drains, privies, and ashpits were thoroughly cleansed; all accumulations of filth were removed; the spots where such filth had been collected were purified; the freest possible ventilation was established day and night in living and sleeping rooms; over-crowding was guarded against; the diet of the residents was, as far as practicable, regulated; the men were strictly confined to barracks after evening roil-call, and were forbidden to go into the low and infected parts of the town; amusements were encouraged in the vicinity of the barracks; every endeavour was made to procure a cheerful compliance with the requirements insisted on, without exciting fear; and there was a medical inspection of the men twice, and of the women and children once, daily. The influence of the epidemic poison upon the troops was demonstrated by the fact that, among 519 persons, the total strength of the garrison, there were 451 cases of premonitory diarrhœa, of which 421 were among the men, irrespective of the officers, women, and children, the attacks being in some instances obstinate, and recurring more than once. Yet, such was the success of the judicious measures which had been

541
adopted, that no case of cholera occurred within the barracks during the whole period of the epidemic; and every case of diarrhœa was stopped from passing on to the developed stage of the disease; while in Newcastle, there wore upwards of 4,000 attacks, and 1,543 deaths."
The authorities at Tynemouth had also taken the proper precautions by cleansing the lodging-houses and the courts, and in a very short time they had carted away no less than 1,500 loads of refuse from the town. The proceedings of the local board of health had been greatly assisted by the cordial co-operation of the board of guardians of that place. He would refer their Lordships to a document which showed that one of the remedies which could be most advantageously applied to the prevention of the cholera was a minute and careful carrying into effect of the provisions of the Common Lodging-houses Act, by diminishing the number of lodgers, by whitewashing the rooms, and by instituting all those precautions which the Act gave power to institute with regard to lodging-houses. If this were done, it was surprising to what a degree liability to the disease might be prevented. A remarkable instance of the truth of this statement was contained in the official Report which had been presented with regard to the Common Lodging-houses Act. "By the operation of that Act," said that Report, "disease had been wonderfully abated; fever had been nearly abolished." Testimony to that effect had been received from several large towns, but that from Wolverhampton, in June, 1853, was the most remarkable. Out of 200 lodging-houses in the district, frequented by 511,000 persons annually, not one case of fever or contagious disease had occurred since the Act had been in force—namely, from July, 1852. It was most desirable that the local authorities of each district should be required to take the proper precautions in time. The Board of Health had been enabled to carry into effect improvements such as these in many instances, but delay and confusion in doing so had been unavoidable in a number of cases. Many of the boards of guardians to whom they had applied would pay little or no heed to the danger in which they were placed until the disease was actually upon them, and then nothing could equal their confusion. Message after message would be telegraphed to London, asking, for heaven's sake, that a medical man might be sent them. Sometimes nine or ten medical men would be required in one day, when the Board had not two to dispose of. If
542
those boards of guardians had taken warning in time there would have been no confusion and no panic, the local guardians would have had their own medical men on the spot, the system of house-to-house visitation would have been in operation, and the proper regulations would have been carried into effect. When the disorder broke out at Newcastle, washing and cleansing was immediately commenced, numbers of medical men were appointed, reports were made, and all the proper regulations adopted; but when the disease left the town, the services of the medical men were dispensed with, cesspools were again built, the board of guardians went to sleep, and nothing whatever was done, so that if the cholera should again break out suddenly, as it probably would do, by the occurrence of 400 or 500 cases of diarrhœa and 40 or 50 deaths in one locality, there would be the same confusion and perplexity and difficulty in meeting all the necessary requirements over again. It was perfectly true that the Board had the power of enforcing certain regulations by prosecuting the boards of guardians; but if they summoned all these boards before magistrates, and proceeded against them by way of indictment, their whole time would be taken up in carrying on prosecutions, to the neglect of their own proper functions. Besides, it was thought a very invidious thing to prosecute a board for not having made preparations when the danger was not at hand, for it would then be said that they ought not to be obliged to incur unnecessary expense; but when the disorder really came it was almost too late to prosecute. Upon various occasions in 1848 and 1849, when the Board of Health did institute legal proceedings, and summoned a board before a magistrate, the case was argued, and the magistrate, seeing that it was a difficult one, adjourned it to another day, when it was again argued. But the cholera would not wait, and carried its ravages in the district to a frightful extent, while they were debating whether cesspool A or B should be closed, or whether certain streets should be washed. While the magistrate was deliberating the cholera would go on doing its deadly work, and by the time the magistrate had given his decision it would have left that district and gone to another, and carried off its victims there also; in which case similar proceedings had to be repeated before the magistrates of the second locality, and the same delay in arguing, deliberating upon, and deciding

543
upon the question at issue had to be gone through, whilst all the time the deadly work of the disease was going forward without check or pause. He said, from the experience of the Board of Health, that new powers ought to be given to the central authority (putting out of view for the present the question of permanent works) to enable it to deal with cases of emergency similar to the present, or with still more pressing cases which might arise. The powers required, with adaptation to Scotland, would be, power for the central authority, after a certain time, to give orders that the necessary things be done, with power to charge the expense on the board of guardians. This would be necessary, because, while a case was being argued before a magistrate, cholera would be doing its work. Next, the central authority ought to have power to direct that houses of refuge be provided by single or united parishes, to receive the sound and healthy part of the population of any affected locality, or, when it should be considered advisable, to reduce the population of an overcrowded district; and power to order the evacuation of houses unfit for human habitation, and to forbid return until after a report by the medical officer. There were two or three very good reasons why houses of refuge ought to be provided for the healthy and sound part of the population. In the first place, great care must be taken not to raise any notion in the minds of the people that the cholera was a pestilence, and therefore a contagious disease, and that none who valued their life and health would go near those who were afflicted with it. In the next place, when a person was afflicted with the disorder, his greatest hope of recovery was to remain quiet in the place where he was attacked, as nothing could be more dangerous than removing him. A recumbent posture and perfect tranquillity were necessary, and, in many instances, a state of collapse had been produced merely by raising a person in his bed to give him momentary relief. It was also necessary that extreme overcrowding should be prevented. The late epidemic had brought before the public eye a fact well known to those who had considered the subject, the large pecuniary loss inflicted in various ways on the community by preventible disease, and the heavy avoidable sufferings of the working classes. That much of this loss and suffering might have been prevented was shown by the fact that in
544
all the model lodging-houses in London, although a few cases of diarrhœa had occurred, there had, he believed, been only one fatal case of cholera. In order to show the evil effects of over-crowding, and the necessity of improved dwellings for the humbler classes, he would mention only one instance. There was one court in that City, which was extremely overcrowded. One of the inspectors of the Board of Health visited it in 1849, who reported that the court was so narrow, and its population so dense, that he was quite convinced, if cholera broke out there, it would commit the most terrible ravages. The Board of Health addressed a letter to the board of guardians, urging the expediency of removing a portion of the population, and stating their conviction that by so doing they would, in all probability, escape a large pressure on their finances. The board refused to accede to their suggestion. In three days the cholera broke out, and carried off several heads of families, leaving widows and children behind them. On one day twelve orphan children applied for admission to the workhouse, and have since become a permanent charge on the rates. He firmly believed that, if the guardians had followed their advice, the pressure on their finances would not have been one-fifth of what it has proved. He was now anxious to bring a most important document under the attention of the House. It was the last Report of the Royal College of Physicians, from which it appeared that from recent experience they had changed their former belief, and had recorded their final conclusion in the following words:—
"Cholera appears to have been very rarely communicated by personal intercourse, and all attempts to stay its progress by cordons or quarantine have failed."
When a contagious disease prevailed, no one could form an idea of the sufferings which were inflicted on the wretched few whom it had pleased Providence to afflict with it, for they were left to die without any assistance from their friends and relations, who had not sufficient courage to discharge the last duties to them. The opinion he had quoted of the College of Physicians was, therefore, of the greatest importance, as it showed that the cholera was not contagious. The Report went on to say:—
"From these circumstances the Committee, without expressing any positive opinion with respect to its contagious or non-contagious nature, agree in drawing this practical conclusion—that in a district where cholera prevails no appreciable

545
increase of danger is incurred by ministering to persons affected with it, and no safety afforded to the community by the isolation of the sick."
This was a most important document, considering the experience and the science of the persons whose opinion it expressed. There were but two more papers which he had to bring before their Lordships' notice, and he would ask their indulgence while he did so, because it was most important that they should know the precise position in which they now stood. Among the other effects of the cholera, its effects upon the trade and commerce of the kingdom were most pernicious, and it produced great financial suffering, which visited a great number of people. He held a very curious return, out of which he would select only a few instances, although hundreds of similar ones might be adduced. It was a statement which had been made to the Board by several tradesmen in Newcastle with regard to their losses in trade consequent upon the visitation of the cholera, showing the decrease which had taken place in their business in the six weeks ending October 15, 1853, as compared with the corresponding period in 1852. One person, a carpet warehouseman, stated that he had lost during that period 1791. Another firm, grocers and wine and spirit merchants, estimated the falling off in their receipts at no less than 20 per cent. They remarked that—
"Had it not been for the increased demand for wines and spirits the depreciation would have been much more. The falling off in the tea and grocery business during the last three weeks of the cholera was nearly 50 per cent."
One draper had lost 70 l., and another 14½ per cent, and he added that "had it not been for the unprecedented demand for mourning the loss would have been 50 per cent." The railway company estimated their loss at 3,000 l. and a hotel-keeper had lost 25 per cent on 1,200 l. Trade ceased so entirely that provisions were scarcely to be had, and actually at one time bread was becoming scarce, while milk was not to be purchased because the people in the country were afraid to approach the town where the disease was raging. The last fact he would mention would show how much not only the working classes, but the community at large were interested in this subject. The total number of deaths from cholera in 1848–9 in Great Britain and Wales was not less than 90,000, of whom almost 30,000 were supposed to have been heads of families in the prime of life, and
546
numbers of children must therefore have been deprived of their fathers or their mothers, husbands of their wives, and wives of their husbands. Let their Lordships imagine the suffering and misery this must have involved. Suffering unhappy was the position of a father left with a number of children deprived of a mother's care, or of a mother with a fatherless family, or still more, that of the wretched children deprived of both father and mother, as had been the case in many instances, with no prospect but the workhouse! This ought to be a great warning to them, and showed that they ought to do everything in their power to provide against the next visitation. They ought without delay to establish every permanent work that could be required with a view of meeting the next visitation, and, if they did not, let them see what would happen to this country. The epidemic had been raging on the Continent, at Copenhagen, at Stockholm, and at Warsaw; and, if the mortality in England in 1848–9 had been in the same proportion as the mortality at Christiana and at Warsaw in the present year, the number of deaths in Great Britain and Wales alone would have amounted to 591,451. Was this a state of things to look forward to with complacency at a moment when we had not in the country a single able-bodied man more than we required? He hoped that he had stated enough to excite the attention of statesmen and to arouse the attention of the country to this important subject.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, Her Majesty's Government had no objection to produce the returns which had been moved for by the noble Earl. He would not attempt to follow the noble Earl through the clear and able account he had given as to the state which the country was in at the moment with regard to the future prevention of cholera. With regard to the superior arrangements which existed at Paris, he could speak from his own experience of their immense superiority over our own; but when his noble Friend went so far as to say that day after day he had gone in search for nuisances, he would suggest that if his noble Friend had extended his search to night after night, it might have been more successful. The question now was, could anything be done which would lead to the object they all had in view? And he could not help observing, in the name of all his Colleagues, how fully they appreciated the advantages of such state-

547
ments as those which had been made by the two noble Earls who had so clearly drawn the attention, not only of Her Majesty's Government, but also of the public, to the question. He thought a good effect would be produced by what had fallen from the noble Earl with regard to the necessity of local authorities attempting to do something for themselves, and the dreadful responsibility that would weigh upon them if they did not do what was within their scope. With regard to what had been done by Her Majesty's Government, he would state that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had been in communication with both the noble Earls who had spoken to-night, and had acquired information from different parties as to the best mode of proceeding under this emergency. The extraordinary powers which had been given to the Board of Health during the last six months had, by an Order in Council, been continued for another six months. There had certainly been some complaint made on the part of the mercantile marine, that, in consequence of this official indication of the cholera, ships were subjected in different parts of the world to vexatious quarantine regulations; but informed, as his noble Friend had been, not only by the Board of Health, but also by the most eminent physicians in the metropolis, of the practical results of their inquiries, he thought he could not discharge his duty otherwise than by extending those powers, and at this moment he was seeking what, further powers it would be advisable for Government to grant which would not interfere too much with local authorities, and which would also receive the sanction of local opinion.
LORD BEAUMONTwished to ask the noble Earl why measures had not been taken to suppress some evident nuisances? Was it not possible to indict parties possessing manufactories of manure and other equally nasty trades? Why did not the Board of Health indict them?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The Board of Health have no power.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that an Indictment might be preferred by a private person, and why not by the Board of Health? If they had not the powers a Bill should be introduced for the purpose of conferring them.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The Board had no funds, and an indictment was a very slow and uncertain process. His noble Friend the head of the Home Office
548
was devising a mode to meet the difficulty, and a Bill should be introduced declaring these trades to be nuisances and abominations. Health and life should not be endangered for any pretended necessities of trade.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYremembered a case in which the corporation of Liverpool had been for many years engaged in an attempt to suppress a nuisance. They had spent thousands of pounds, and the case I had been carried from court to court. If such a powerful body experienced so much difficulty, what would be the fate of a private individual? Cases of this kind required some dictatorial power. He was now quite satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Public attention was now aroused. When the cholera last raged, every person was alarmed, and many precautions were taken, but the feelings passed away with the danger; however, he hoped permanent precautions would now be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.