Sitting of 19 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Militia Act Continuance; Militia (Service Abroad) Act Continuance; Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Gaols and Houses of Correction (No. 2).
2o Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Incumbered Estates (West Indies) Act Amendment; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo).
3o Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Inclosure of Lands; Legitimacy Declaration; Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Public Health; Vaccination (Ireland); County &c., Property Conveyance.

THE TOWER HAMLETS MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that certain differences have arisen between Colonel the Earl of Wilton and Lieutenant Colonel Dickson, both of the 2nd Tower Hamlets Militia, with reference to the affairs and discipline of that Regiment; and if it is true that the Constable of the Tower has made an application to have Lieutenant Colonel Dickson's name,
  1700
  unless he would consent to resign, removed from the Army List, without giving that Officer, after thirty-three years' service at home and abroad, any opportunity of vindicating his conduct before a proper Military Tribunal?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that he had been called upon by Lord Combermore, the Constable of the Tower, to obtain Her Majesty's approval to Colonel Dickson's dismissal from the service. This difficulty arose in dealing with the case: when a Regiment of Militia was disembodied there was no power to bring an Officer to a Court Martial. A Court of Inquiry was merely preparatory to a Court Martial; the Horse Guards were therefore unable to grant a Court Marshal, which Lord Combermore had also applied for. He had also received a letter from the Earl of Wilton containing charges against Colonel Dickson, and he (General Peel) had forwarded that letter to Lord Combermore, in order that he might inquire into them. Lord Comber-mere thought that all the charges were proved by documentary evidence; but he (General Peel), did not think that the more serious charges were proved, although there was certainly enough to show that Colonel Dickson's conduct in command of the Regiment during the period of its embodiment had not been consistent with the rules of the service and with military usage. He had, therefore, called upon Colonel Dickson to resign. Colonel Dickson refused to do so, and desired to have an inquiry; and it was, therefore, his (General Peel's) intention to appoint a certain number of Officers to make that inquiry.

THE OVERLAND ROUTE.—QUESTION.
MR. NICOLLsaid, he desired to ask the Secretary of State for War if the advantages of the Overland Route as a means of transport for Her Majesty's Troops, as described in the recent Report of the Select Committee, will induce the Government to forward Indian reinforcements by that route during the colder months of the year, and as would be consistent with the opinion given to that effect by the Military Authorities in Egypt?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the Overland Route in cases of urgency or necessity; but he trusted that better arrangements would be made than on previous occasions, so as to obviate the necessity of sending the heavy baggage

1701
round by the Cape, although the regiment itself went across Egypt and down the Red Sea.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Government, before proceeding further, would furnish some fuller and clearer explanation of the provisions of this Bill than they had yet afforded to the House. One of the main objects of the Bill, as he understood it, was to increase the already extensive powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works—a body which did not directly represent the property within the area of its operations, but merely emanated from vestries. He had been a party to the clause in the former Bill, which imposed the check of the Board of Works upon the expenditure of the Metropolitan Board, and he did so in order that important matters of expenditure might be brought before Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had taken a step beyond this, and had himself ordered a plan to be referred to referees, which was beyond his powers. The present Bill, however, did away with I all the checks which existed in the existing Act, and gave to the Metropolitan Board the power of taxing the inhabitants of London to an enormous extent, without providing for the judicious and effective expenditure of the money so collected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech, had referred to certain documents, but not a single document or plan had yet been laid on the table, and the probability was that the £3,000,000 which the Bill empowered the Metropolitan Board to borrow would be wasted. He thought it ought to be explained whether the owner as well as the occupier of property was to pay any portion of the £140,000 a year. In his opinion, the sewer-rate was one which property was interested in and derived benefit from, and it appeared hard that the tax should exclusively fall on the accidental occupier for one year. Hon. Members should remember that they were giving a power of taxation, not over their own constituents, but over the metropolitan portion of the community, and as it appeared to him very difficult to understand how this taxation would work, he thought it was important that the intentions of the framers of the measure upon this point should be clearly understood
MR. AKROYDsaid, it appeared to him that, though the Government was strongly impressed with the necessity of legislating on this subject before the end of the Session, they were somewhat afraid of the responsibility they might incur in propounding a distinct plan on this subject, and therefore had preferred to devolve the duty, with arbitrary powers, upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the Bill was introduced he listened with deep attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on that occasion praised the municipal spirit of the corporate towns throughout England; and from the remarks of the right hon. Member, he thought some provision would have been introduced into the Bill conferring on the inhabitants of London the powers and privileges of self government; and it would have been easy to have divided the metropolis into districts for the purpose. What the nation, however, was more particularly concerned in, and what it more particularly behoved the representatives of the nation to consider, was the time at which they were asked to confer this guarantee of £3,000,000. The nation had only just recovered from the burden of the Russian war, and the burden of the Indian war was now looming in the distance, and yet they were called upon to guarantee £3,000,000 for some scheme which was not even before them. What was the nature of the security to be given for the repayment of the sums thus guaranteed? He did not think that £3,000,000 would accomplish the purification of the Thames. He did not think that it would even carry the sewage down to Barking Reach. But then there was, in addition, the embankment of the Thames, the execution of which must at some time be undertaken. A Select Committee had sat on this question, and valuable and important evidence, which was not yet in the hands of hon. Members, had been given before it. Was it not reasonable that an opportunity should be afforded to hon. Members to consider the evidence before the present Bill passed? The Committee received evidence showing that the deodorizing system at Leicester had been entirely successful, and a witness observed that the cost of the plant to apply that system in the metropolis would barely exceed the annual interest of the sum which was now required to be guaranteed. With respect to the plan which it was understood would be carried out by the Metropolitan Board

1703
of Works, the Government referees, who were engineers of eminence, reported that it would fail in effecting the objects sought to be attained. They stated that the proposition to throw the whole of the sewage of the metropolis in a concentrated mass into the Thames at Barking would not prevent it returning within the metropolitan districts, and injuring the eastern districts lying contiguous to the Thames, the population of which had increased. Another strong objection to the scheme was, that it would deprive the Thames of a large amount of liquid, and thereby affect the navigation in the upper part of the river. If 80,000,000 gallons of liquid sewage, or one-fifth of the whole volume of the Thames, were taken out of it daily by intercepting sewers, he would ask the House to reflect upon the effect which might be produced upon the navigation. The water, so far from being diminished, ought to be increased. Sewage matter, indeed, was not wanted, but the liquid might be purified and made to flow into the Thames. In the North of England, when waterwork companies took water out of streams, they were compelled to form compensation reservoirs for the purpose of maintaining the full volume of the stream during the summer. He thought that the London waterwork companies, which took daily 40,000,000 of gallons out of the Thames, ought to be compelled to construct similar reservoirs. He knew, indeed, that the House could not itself enter into the discussion of these questions. All he wished was that they might not rush into hasty legislation on the subject, and especially that they would not assent to granting the national guarantee for the repayment of this £3,000,000 without carefully considering the security. They already had a specimen of the manner in which their guarantee would be dealt with in the example of Chelsea Bridge. He thought, upon these grounds, that this Bill should not be passed in haste. The hot weather was passed, and hon. Members should be allowed an opportunity during the recess of reading the evidence given before the Committee up stairs. He should oppose the passing of the Bill at present.
MR. LOWEsaid, that before intrusting the Metropolitan Board of Works with the absolute power of levying £3,000,000 upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, and before pledging the public credit of this country as a guarantee for that amount,
1704
he thought the House ought to satisfy themselves, in the first place, that the Board of Works was a body worthy of being intrusted with so great a power, and, secondly, that the money was likely to be employed in the manner most beneficial to those from whose pockets it was taken. He left others to show what were the qualities which had recommended the Metropolitan Board of Works to the choice of the Government. For his own part, it appeared to him that that Board had yet to win its laurels. He thought it worthy of consideration whether they ought to intrust a Board constituted by double election, which rendered it almost irresponsible to the constituents from whom it derived its powers, with authority to expend so large an amount as £3,000,000. There were also questions relating to contracts and other matters, to which he would not now refer, but the subject was one of great importance, and should be approached in a farsighted spirit. They ought not to seek to apply a mere temporary palliative, but they ought to endeavour to adopt a system of permanent legislation, adapted to the probable extension of the metropolis and the increase of its population, or in a few years they might find that the money spent in palliating the evil had been thrown away, and that the whole work must be commenced anew. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Akroyd) had said that there was no scheme before them, but he (Mr. Lowe) complained that a very inadequate scheme had been submitted to that House. They had on the table the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was mere prudery to say that they did not know precisely what that Board intended to do, and the House should form a judgment upon the plan before they made up their minds to adopt it. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works was that the sewage of the metropolis should be collected at a place on the River Lea, about twenty feet below high-water level; that it should be pumped from thence by steam machinery; and that it should then be discharged into a reservoir at Barking Creek, a mile below Woolwich, whence, having undergone a process of deodorization by mixture with lime, it should be discharged into the Thames. Now, this plan was calculated to carry off the sewage of a population of 3,500,000; but when the population of London exceeded that number the sewage would gradually increase, and every shower of rain would carry sewage

1705
and pollution into the Thames. Supposing the future increase of the metropolitan population to proceed at the same rate as it had done since 1801, in 1871 the contrivance now proposed would be entirely exhausted, and the sewage would run into the Thames in consequence of the inability of the sewers to contain it. The scheme could not be brought into operation in less than five or six years, and in six or seven years afterwards it would be utterly inadequate, and after having spent £3,000,000 to remedy the complaints now made, they would have to begin their work over again. This subject had been submitted by the late Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works to certain Government referees, whose plan was to form a canal which would carry off the sewage by gravitation to Sea Reach, far below Gravesend, where it would be discharged into the river. He asked the House to contrast that plan and the scheme they were now called upon to sanction with regard to effects and expense. The plan now proposed would carry the sewage into the Thames at Barking, where the river was only three-quarters of a mile wide, and where the current was exceedingly slack. The plan of the Government referees would carry the sewage into the river at Sea Reach, where there was an exceedingly strong current down the river, which was at that point a mile and a quarter in width, and whence the sewage would be carried by the ebb tide to a point from which it could not by any possibility return above the point at which it was discharged. The plan of the Board of Works proposed the deodorization of the sewage, not when it was fresh, but after fermentation had begun, when the process of deodorization would be much less complete, and the whole mass, whether deodorized or not, was to be discharged into the river. There were 118 miles of metropolitan area, and the plan of the Board of Works proposed only to drain twenty-seven miles by gravitation, while the plan of the Government referees proposed to drain eighty-one miles by gravitation. He would now ask the House to compare the expense of the two plans. It was said that in this respect the argument was in favour of the Board of Works, because, although their plan was not so complete as that of the Government referees, it was much cheaper. The plan of the Government referees, if it were adopted, would be sufficient to carry off the sewage of a population of 6,000,000, whereas that of the Board of Works would
1706
only carry off the sewage of 3,500,000. The estimate of the Board of Works was £3,000,000, while the estimate of the Government referees commenced with a charge of £6,000,000. The charge to be borne by the ratepayers must not, however, be estimated merely by the amount of capital sunk at the commencement of either plan, but by the permanent annuities which must be paid for the continuance of the schemes. What would be the annual expense of carrying out the plan of the Board of Works after the estimated £3,000,000 had been spent? In eight or ten years from this time, according to the best authority to which he had access, the expense under this plan of pumping up sewage from the low level of the River Lea to the high level of Barking Creek would be £45,000; the expense of deodorizing upon Messrs. Bidder, Hawksley, and Bazalgette's system would be £76,000; and the expense of removing useless deodorized matter in barges would be £30,000. There would thus be a permanent annual charge of £151,000 upon the ratepayers of London. If the whole cost of the annuity with which the ratepayers would be saddled were capitalized, it would, with the £3,000,000 actually spent, amount to no less than £7,000,000, and for this sum they would obtain, not a complete scheme of drainage, but one the efficiency of which would be exhausted in 1871, when new works would become necessary. Now, what would be the expense of the scheme of the Government referees, under which the sewage would be carried into the Thames at Sea Reach, at a point to which the eddies setting down the river would prevent its return? The first cost of this plan would be £6,000,000 for the construction of the canal to Sea Reach, and the annual expense for pumping sewage would be £40,000. That would be about £1,000,000 more, and the whole cost would be exactly the same as that of the other system—namely,—7,000,000. Look, however, at the difference between the results achieved by the two plans. In the one case the whole effect of the expenditure would cease in 1871, while in the other a comparatively permanent remedy would be provided, at least until the population of London reached 6,000,000, which was looking forward quite as far as it was necessary to do. Now, suppose the discharge of the sewage into Barking Creek was found to be an intolerable nuisance; some compensation ought in justice to be given to the owners of

1707
property there; and this was a point deserving of consideration. But it might be found necessary, after all, to send the sewage down to Sea Reach. Of course, £3,000,000 would already have been spent, in addition to which it was the opinion of the Board of Works themselves that it would cost £3,000,000 more to extend the drainage to Sea Reach. All the pumping, which at the River Lea cost £45,000, would be required, besides similar pumping at Barking Creek, the cost of which was estimated at £55,000—in all £100,000, or (capitalizing it) £3,000,000. The result would thus be that, if the plan should be found inadequate, as he had suggested, it would be necessary to spend £9,000,000 or thereabouts upon it; and even then the drainage powers of the metropolis would still be limited to meet the wants of 3,500,000 of inhabitants. If the Government referees should contract their scheme so as to provide only for 3,500,000 of people, he was informed that this could be done for £4,500,000; so that (supposing the information he had received were correct) to perform the work in this way would require about half the sum required to carry out the plan of the Board of Works. The scheme which the House was virtually asked to sanction in this Bill was really one for spending £7,000,000 upon a system of drainage which would become too small for the wants of the metropolis when the population reached 3,500,000, and the extension of which would cost £9,000,000, though it would even then still be open to the same objection. On the other hand, the plan of the Government referees would provide complete drainage for the wants of the metropolis until the population reached 6,000,000; it would get rid of all complicated machinery, all schemes of deodorization, the success of which was quite uncertain, and would employ the natural deodorizer which Providence had provided—water. He might, perhaps, be considered presumptuous in having offered an opinion on this subject, but, having devoted some little time to its consideration, he had arrived at such strong conclusions with reference to it that he could not resist the feeling of duty which led him to state them to the House.
MR. HEADLAMregretted that the House was compelled to discuss this question on July 19, in a thin House consisting of hon. Members wearied by a protracted
1708
Session, and under a pressure from without which led many to make use of that dangerous phrase—"Well, at any rate we must do something." He believed that the House by no means appreciated the magnitude and the ultimate importance of the work before it. A constitutional principle was involved in the scheme for carrying the work into execution. The evil from which the metropolis was now suffering affected in some degree all the streams throughout the country, which were more or less poluted by town sewage, and the scheme adopted in the case of the Thames would, therefore, probably be looked to all over England as an example in legislation of this kind. Parliament were now asked to impose, for forty years, a tax of 3d. a pound upon the inhabitants of London, after doing which they were to discharge themselves from all responsibility in regard to the execution of the works. They were asked to hand over the money to another body which owed them no responsibility, and over which they had no control, and without taking any care that the scheme should be properly expended. Now, if the Board of Works were truly the representative body of the metropolis, which, to his mind, it was not, it was singularly ill-calculated to carry out works of mechanical, chemical, and engineering science. It was probably a body well calculated to tax its constituents, but it it was, in his opinion, ill-calculated to execute works of that description. The House of Commons was the first deliberative assembly in the world; but it was not an executive body, and very wisely did not attempt executive functions. There was an exception to this general rule in the case of the building of the Houses of Parliament, which Parliament took into its own hands. Had the result of that step proved so encouraging that they ought to extend the principle by giving a taxing body like the Board of Works the charge of a great engineering work like that at present under discussion? But it was said that by handing over the duty to the Board they were merely carrying out the municipal principle. He denied that it was so, unless the opinion of the inhabitants of the metropolis could be fairly taken as to which plan they preferred, and how far they concurred in the proposal to impose a tax upon them for forty years. Again, was it right to hand over this sum to the Board of Works without taking some guarantee for its proper application? The Metropolitan Board

1709
of Works was not responsible to a human creature. Neither the House nor the ratepayers of the metropolis could control them, and it was left to chance whether they would administer these funds properly or not. The noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, used a singularly happy phrase when he said, "If the inhabitants of the metropolis pay the piper, they ought to choose the tune;" but the misfortune was that they had no power whatever of selecting the tune. His own individual opinion was that they would give infinitely more satisfaction to the metropolis if they required the works to be carried into effect by and under the responsibility of the Government. If they did that, the House would be placed in a truer and more constitutional position. The people of the metropolis did not want any such thing as the mere fiction of a representation. What they wanted was that the work should be well done; and the inhabitants of London were of opinion that it would be much better done under the direct control of the Government than by the Board of Works. As to the scheme itself, by means of which the purification of the Thames was sought to be accomplished, he would only say that even if it were successfully carried out to the extent which was proposed, the object which its authors professed to have in view would be but half attained. The evil was not confined to the odour arising at a certain portion of the year. The banks of the river were as unsightly to the eye as the odour was disagreeable to the nose, but there was this difference, that the unsightliness lasted the whole year, while the odour continued fortunately only for a short period. He thought the Thames would never be put in proper order until it was embanked, and he would suggest that the two great works of embankment and drainage should be commenced contemporaneously and carried on together. In support of that opinion he might adduce the testimony of the most eminent engineers, who maintained that unless the mud banks to which he referred were removed, the evil of which the inhabitants of the metropolis had so much reason to complain would not be obviated. The action of the sun upon those mud banks was, in their opinion, one of the main causes of the existing nuisance, and that cause, he should contend, instead of having its force diminished, would rather be further developed by the scheme under con-
1710
sideration, whose operation would be to decrease the quantity of water in the river. To show how beneficial was the addition of a supply of fresh water to the river, and how prejudicial in its influence would be the effect of any diminution in that supply, he might mention that he had, upon the previous day, been unable to find any offensive odour from the Thames between Chelsea and Westminster Bridges, notwithstanding that the temperature of the atmosphere was but very little lower than had been the case about three weeks before, when the stench had been almost intolerable. That improved state of things he held to be the result of the addition of the fresh water which within that period the river had received, and it was, he thought, therefore perfectly obvious that if the Metropolitan Board of Works were—as it would seem they proposed to do—to diminish the fresh water in the Thames to the extent of the quantity falling over a space of 100 square miles, they would be doing much to increase the evil which they professed themselves anxious to remove. For his own part, he could not help thinking that it was most unsatisfactory to the House to be called upon to sanction a scheme the prosecution of which would cost so large a sum as £3,000,000, and the operation of which could not at the best be regarded as otherwise than uncertain. He, for one, entirely deprecated the policy of sanctioning that scheme until others, which presented a greater probability of being attended with success, had been tried and had failed; while he was strongly of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory to the ratepayers of the metropolis if Her Majesty's Ministers were to carry into effect the work of purifying the Thames under their own authority and upon their own responsibility, instead of intrusting it to a Board which had, to say the least of it, not been sufficiently long in existence to be able to win for itself the confidence of the country.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that while he was disposed to give the Government every credit for having introduced the Bill before the House with the best intentions, he yet was afraid that they had been induced, by a desire to allay the anxiety which prevailed among the inhabitants of the metropolis, to deal with the subject of the purification of the Thames in a somewhat hasty manner, and consequently in a manner which was but too

1711
likely to lead to imperfect and unsatisfactory results. The discussion, however, which the Bill then before the House was sure to give rise to, would, perhaps, lead to the introduction of a satisfactory measure,—although he did not believe there could be any measure that would prove satisfactory which was unconnected with the general question of the government of the metropolis. The present Bill was open to the objection of pledging Parliament to a particular scheme, for in the first clause the Metropolitan Board of Works was directed to intercept the main drainage. Now, the House had heard from the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Cubitt), himself a member of the Metropolitan Board, that he not only doubted the efficacy of, but apprehended great danger from, any such measure; and any one who had gone above Richmond must be aware of the effect which the withdrawal of so much water by the various companies had upon the river. Again, he found no security in the Bill for carrying out its object; true, powers were given, and money was granted, but there was nothing to prevent the Board from doing what they had already done in several instances—voting for one scheme on one and another on another. What was still more objectionable, any scheme that they might agree upon would be subject to the approval of no other authority; in fact, the Board might carry out any scheme they pleased. Now, was the House quite sure that that Board was one in which the universal public had entire confidence? For his part he did not know the names of many of the gentlemen who had seats at the Board. No doubt they were respectable persons, distinguished in the vestries of the metropolis, used to deal with parochial questions, and possessed of ability and integrity. But did they command the entire confidence of the metropolis? He confessed that wherever he had been he had always heard a very different opinion expressed upon that head. Were they the representatives of any class of the community? Why, they were not the representatives even of the ratepayers. They were the representatives of the vestries; and in too many instances the majority in a vestry was a mere party. Again, by the Bill a Committee was to be chosen out of the whole body to carry out this plan, so that in fact responsibility would be twice diluted. Could anything be more unsatisfactory? Though the House was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidder-
1712
minster (Mr. Lowe) for the knowledge and ability he had displayed with regard to the details of the plans for the main drainage of London, yet the present was not the proper opportunity for discussing rival schemes. It occurred to him (Mr. S. Wortley), however, that it would be dealing with the question in a most unsatisfactory manner if they dealt with it on a narrow ground, dissociated from the question of the general government of the metropolis. In his opinion the present government of the metropolis was disgraceful to the country; and he would take the liberty of reminding the House of the recommendations which had been made by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of London, and who had particularly directed their attention to the question of the drainage of the metropolis. After giving it as their opinion that the Corporation should be reformed, and that their jurisdiction should be confined to the present limits of the City, the Commissioners recommended that the rest of the metropolis should be divided into districts for municipal purposes; that in the event of such division being made, a metropolitan board of works should be created, composed of members deputed from each metropolitan municipal body, including the common council of the City; that the coal duties now collected by the Corporation of London, so long as they remained in force, should be placed at the disposition of the new Board, and that in case the coal duties expiring in 1862 should not be renewed, the fourpence levied in behalf of the City should cease at the same time. They also recommended that the Board should have power to levy a rate, limited to a fixed poundage, for public works over the metropolitan district, and that no works should be executed by them unless the plans should have been approved by the Committee of the Privy Council. Now, that some such check as this ought to be imposed on the present Board was, in his judgment, extremely desirable, though he by no means pledged himself to the support of that particular scheme. But, seeing how the question affected a vast amount of property in the metropolis, could any man say that the Metropolitan Board represented the proprietary of the metropolis? It was doubtful even if they represented the ratepayers; if they represented anything, they represented the democracy and the ratepaying interests of the metropolis—certainly not the proprietors. It was also most desirable

1713
that upon such a Board there should be some man or men of science; and that House well knew what help they derived from the aid of such gentlemen as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson). He agreed with the Commissioners, too, that the rights and property of the Crown ought to be protected; and with these views he could not help saying—though without wishing to cast any blame upon the Government—that, in his opinion, the House was proceeding with great haste and hurry in endeavouring to legislate upon the subject at the end of a Session, when it was utterly impossible that a question of such magnitude and importance could be dealt with satisfactorily.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had often heard it said that the House of Commons was subject to periodical fits of heat and cold; and he must say that he had never witnessed a more striking proof of the accuracy of the assertion than during the debates on the question of the drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames in the course of the last six weeks. Only a fortnight ago Her Majesty's Government were absolutely threatened with impeachment by the front rows of the Opposition benches, unless they settled the question within twenty-four hours. At that time he had put in a dilatory plea and stated that the Government had the matter under their consideration, and now that they had had time to examine it, and had framed a scheme which they deliberately recommended the House to sanction and adopt, they were met with the statement that they were rashly, and with undue haste, attempting to settle a question which, after all, might be well postponed to another year; and, if he understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wortley), until the coal duties lapsed, in 1862. Now, what reason was there for throwing over this important question to another year? Some hon. Gentlemen had treated it as if it were an entirely new question; but, for his part, he considered the question not a new one; scientific opinions without number had been taken, and every man's mind was made up. He was bound to say that he knew no question that had been so canvassed, so thoroughly threshed and sifted, as the question of the drainage of the metropolis. During the last few years Commissions and Committees had sat and reported upon the subject; and when the House remembered
1714
the number of schemes which had been proposed, and the vast amount of evidence which had been taken respecting it, he was sure they could not come to the conclusion that the Government were now proposing inopportunely, and with undue haste, to settle the question. If it were the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons that no decision ought to be come to this year, upon the House of Commons be the responsibility of continuing and perhaps perpetuating the present state of things. On behalf of the Government he distinctly repudiated all such responsibility. The responsibility of action Her Majesty's Government were willing to take upon themselves; the responsibility of inaction they refused. His hon. Friend said, "that is just what we want." He (Lord J. Manners) begged to tell his hon. Friend that, having duly considered this question, the Government were of opinion that the only way in which their action could be beneficially, or even constitutionally brought to bear, was that contained in the four corners of this Bill. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) had told them that this was a question which, in its length and breadth, ought to be taken up as a whole and carried out on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, who should themselves execute not only the drainage, but the purification and embankment of the Thames. His hon. Friend had spoken at some length and with great ability, and he (Lord J. Manners) had listened to him with the greatest attention; but he had failed to discover any inkling whatever from what quarter the Government were to obtain the funds to pay for these great works. Out of what funds, he should like to know, were the Government to do this? Would the hon. Gentleman give the ways and means? Did the hon. Gentleman mean that they were to set themselves up as a pure and naked despotism, and take the money required to execute these works out of the pockets of the ratepayers of the metropolis against their will, if not without their knowledge? Or did he mean that it should be made a great national undertaking, and that the whole expense should be borne out of the Consolidated Fund? If that were his hon. and learned Friend's view, then all he could say was, that he respectfully declined making any such appeal to Parliament; and, if the opinion of the majority of that House was in harmony with his own, what alternative could be adopted except that of intrusting to the

1715
municipality which represented, if any one did, the pockets of the ratepayers of the metropolis the power and responsibility of carrying out these works? He had listened with surprise to the arguments which had been brought to bear against the constitution of the Board; but he would remind the House that that Board was constituted on the appeal of a liberal Ministry, which numbered amongst its members the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. R. Lowe) who had spoken this evening in such strong terms of denunciation of this "quasi representative body." Now he supposed the intention of the Government and the Legislature would be found in the preamble of the Act which set up that body, and what did it say?—
"That it is expedient that provision should be made for the better local management of the metropolis in respect of the sewerage, the drainage, and the paving, cleansing, lighting, and improving thereof;"—
And clauses were contained in the Act which compelled the Board to undertake the very work which was now proposed to be entrusted to them—the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames. The right hon. Member for Kidderminster was a consenting party to the introduction of that Act, and he would ask him whether, when the whole bench opposite were setting up this new Board, they did or they did not believe in their hearts that they were setting up a pure sham, and that they were deluding the metropolitan constituencies with the idea that they would have an effective municipality, which at the end of five or six years would thoroughly drain the metropolis and purify the Thames? He was bound to come to the latter conclusion, and he confessed, therefore, that he had listened with surprise to the statements which had been made to-night in denunciation of the original constitution of this body, and with still more surprise to the description of the manner in which it was composed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Wortley) urged as a reason why it was impossible to entrust the Board with the powers conferred by this Bill, that he did not know the names of some of them. That was very possible. Could his right hon. Friend tell him the names of half the corporations of Liverpool or Manchester? And was the House to assume that these corporations were worthless, unless the right hon. Gentleman, or some other hon. Member, could give them the birth, parentage, and history of all
1716
their members. He (Lord John manners) protested against this line of argument. Here was a great municipality which had been created three years ago by the solemn decision of the Legislature for a definite and specified purpose, and without now entering minutely into the quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the late Chief Commissioner of Works) and the members of that body, he thought every impartial man would admit that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had not yet carried out any plan for the main drainage of the metropolis, it was not fair to lay the blame exclusively at their door. The justification for the introduction of the present Bill was, that the powers with which it was assumed the Metropolitan Board of Works was clothed were not sufficient for the purposes contemplated; and, that being admitted on all hands, Her Majesty's Government now came to Parliament and asked it to give that Board those further powers which were necessary for the satisfactory settlement of the question. On the previous occasion he had declined to enter into the engineering and chemical questions involved in the various plans which had been proposed for the main drainage of the metropolis, and everything which had passed that evening showed how unwise and injudicious it was in hon. Members plunging into endless and useless discussions on such topics. The hon. Member for Huddersfied (Mr. Akroyd), who was a member of a Committee which had that day concluded its labours, had given his views as to how these questions might be settled, and he had been followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, who in a most ingenious and elaborate speech endeavoured to set up the plan of the referees of the Commissioners of Works against that of the engineers of the Metropolitan Board. No doubt, many hard things were said by the referees against the plan proposed by the engineers of the Board; but having read all the papers he could state that equally hard, if not harder, things were said by the engineers of the Metropolitan Board of Words against the plan recommended by the referees of the Chief Commissioner. He entreated the House, therefore, not to be led into discussions of that nature; for they might rely upon it, that if they once undertook to settle in their minds what was the best plan, in an engineering or chemical point of view, of draining the metropolis and purifying the

1717
Thames, they must constitute themselves into a perpetual Committee. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into the subject had that day closed its labours, more from a feeling of the perfect hopelessness of going through all the plans which were about to be submitted to it than on any other account. If, then, the House agreed with him that it was vain and futile to hope that they could embody in a Bill what the two Houses of Parliament might think to be the best plan for the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames; that the powers vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works were insufficient for these great purposes; that the national resources should not be called on to pay for local objects; and that the inhabitants of the metropolis, who would have to provide the funds, should have a voice in the matter, what better plan could be devised than that which was contained in the Bill which he now asked them to read a second time? As yet he had heard no answer to that. No one who had spoken to-night had suggested a better plan, so far as legislation was concerned. And until hon. Gentlemen pointed out a plan which gave the Legislature and the inhabitants of the metropolis a greater certainty that the works they were so intent upon carrying into effect could be accomplished, he entreated the House not to lose that, perhaps the last opportunity they would have, of investing with sufficient powers that Board which they found ready to their hands, and which was set up three years ago as a real effective and popular representation of every portion of this vast metropolis. Before resuming his seat he would endeavour to answer the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), who had asked what were the powers conferred by the Bill, and what the nature of the rate to be levied under it. The rate was what might be termed a sewers rate; and no alteration was made in the nature of it by the Bill. The power which was given to the Board to raise that rate would be retained. He believed that it was what was known in common parlance as a landlord's rate, and that when paid by the tenant would be recoverable from the landlord unless his lease contained a special provision to the contrary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the noble Lord laboured under some misapprehension as to the temper and inten-
1718
tion of the remarks made by previous speakers. The noble Lord seemed to think that they partook of the nature of complaint or crimination against the Government for a proceeding precipitate on their part. Having listened to the debate, however, with great attention, it appeared to him that the speeches in question were not speeches of accusation against the noble Lord or his colleagues, but were, on the contrary, honest and ingenuous confessions of the difficulty in which the House found itself placed when called upon to assent to the principle of a Bill containing provisions so sweeping as to be out of all proportion to the amount of knowledge and information possessed by hon. Members. He himself was much impressed with that sentiment. He felt distrust of all great measures which derived their immediate impulse from momentary causes, and especially did that feeling prevail with him when the momentary cause out of which any measure took its birth, was of a nature that appealed to the senses in a manner so direct as that with which they were now unhappily so familiar. It was obvious that an atmosphere such as that which had recently prevailed was not favourable to the deliberative character of the House, and that it was hardly compatible, indeed, with the exercise of that circumspection and that careful consideration which a question of this kind on general principles would demand. He agreed with the noble Lord in some most important principles which he had laid down, and which appeared to be placed almost beyond dispute, even in a matter in which much remained that was uncertain. For example, his noble Friend had declined to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), that the Government should take this matter into its own hands. He agreed with his noble Friend that the time had not come for such a step, because if the Government were to undertake the main drainage of the metropolis that would amount to a proclamation of the absolute incapacity of London for the management of its own affairs, and he confessed that, notwithstanding the difficulties in which the question was now involved—difficulties so serious as not to be without some scandal and discredit to the country—he did not abandon the hope that we might see a larger and much more effective application of the valuable principle of municipal self-government to the metropolis than any that had

1719
hitherto been made. He agreed with the noble Lord, too, that the charges of this work and of such other works as might be necessary for the metropolis ought to be borne, generally speaking, by the property and inhabitants of the metropolis itself. Again, it was impossible to doubt that the principle of popular representation ought to be the basis of the constitution of any body which, on the part of the inhabitants of the metropolis, was to be intrusted with the execution of this work. So far it was not difficult to see their way, but the moment they attempted to go further, they were surrounded by such impediments, and doubts, and obscurity, that he, for one, was disposed to plead guilty to a general uncertainty upon the point, whether the House was at this moment ripe for a final decision on the important question raised by the Bill. He would refer to one or two of these points. In the first place, it was undoubtedly true, that if the money of the inhabitants of the metropolis was to be expended upon the purification of the Thames, it ought to be expended by a body elected upon popular principles; but the application of popular principles to the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the joint operation of the existing Act and the present Bill, was so watered, filtered, and strained, through so many media, that he was afraid they had lost all that was valuable in those principles in the complicated process they had established. They wanted to have a real responsibility on the part of those who were to expend the money to the persons out of whose pockets the money was obtained; but that responsibility, under the existing Act, was much less direct and stringent than one could desire. For the purposes of responsibility—above all, for the purposes of responsibility in the expending of money—there was all the difference in the world between direct and indirect representation. The members of the Metropolitan Board of Works were not chosen by the ratepayers of the metropolis, but by the vestries of the different parishes, bodies not appointed to discharge municipal functions at all, but simply and solely for the performance of parochial business. Hence the relations between the Metropolitan Board of Works and those who were to pay the proposed tax were, after all, indirect and circuitous, and now the House was asked to weaken the principle of responsibility still further, because the Bill proposed to empower the Board of Works to appoint from among its own members a
1720
small Committee of six, and to leave to that body the exercise of all its powers and functions with respect to the execution of this great scheme. Therefore, without casting any discredit upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, or imputing to them anything either for what they had done, or for what they had left undone, he was disposed to think that, although the principle of popular representation was recognized in the theory of their constitution, yet the application of it was not so direct and palpable as to give them the weight, influence, and vitality which they ought to possess. There was another difficulty which he might notice. In the Metropolitan Board of Works as it stood there was no representation of the property of the metropolis, and in correspondence with that circumstance was the correlative one that it was not proposed that any portion of the rate should be borne by the landed proprietors of the metropolis. The whole charge was to be laid upon the ratepayers or lessees, and no part of it upon the ground landlords. That arrangement, they were told, was conformable to the principle upon which leases had been given in London for building purposes, because they contained express provisions that the ground rents should be free of all local rates and burdens. The difficulty, however, was not got rid of altogether by that consideration, because leases containing such provisions generally dated from a time when there was no idea entertained of burdens of a character such as those the House was now asked to impose, and it was evident that the covenants in leases, which were fixed by long usage and tradition, referred to the ordinary charges with which they were all familiar. But now they were going to make great retribution for the past, and great and costly provision for the future—to meet in fact a great crisis in the history of the metropolis. They had discovered a great neglect; they had found a great blank and void in their arrangements; they were called upon to repair the fault of former generations, and to supply the wants of generations yet to come. It appeared to him, therefore, that a proposition like the one before the House raised questions with regard to the liability of parties that were entirely different from those which were connected with the ordinary local charges of the metropolis. Then came the question whose was the permanent interest in the property of the metropolis? It was not the interest of the occupier nor that of

1721
the lessee; and it seemed to him that what they ought to desire, if practicable, should be that, on the one hand, the proprietors of London should be represented in the body that was to make this great expenditure, and that, on the other, their proprietary interest should be made to bear a fair proportion of the charge. It might be urged that the matter was one not easy to settle at a moment's notice. The tenures in London were different from those in the country in general, and it might not be easy at once to suggest the right provisions. Still they should endeavour to throw upon the right parties the burdens of the scheme. Looking at the framework of the Bill, he confessed that it raised a good deal of doubt and difficulty in his mind. He wanted to know who was to be ultimately responsible for the payment of this money. There was no doubt that the Bill provided, or appeared to provide, that the charge should be borne by the metropolis; but at the same time the public, through the medium of the House of Commons, often became involved unawares in pecuniary obligations. He wished, therefore, to look at the framework of the Bill, to see how far it was calculated to secure the ultimate avoidance of such responsibility, or whether it might not have certain latent tendencies, in possible contingencies, to bring responsibility upon the public. There were cases in which the House of Commons had not thought fit to assume minute and particular responsibility for the details of a measure. There had been reports of Ecclesiastical Commissions, and statutes of importance had passed at different periods, wherein the House of Commons had confined itself to the functions of assenting to plans recited in the preamble of the Acts. Now, he did not object abstractedly to the principle of a public guarantee in a matter so important as the present; but he thought it fair that the application of that principle should be watched and scrutinized with the utmost jealousy, for he knew no single class of measures which ought to be watched with greater care, except, indeed, propositions for grants of money, than measures for giving a public guarantee. He wanted to see the responsibility of the body to which it was proposed to give the guarantee, and he wanted to avoid possibly slipping into a position in which it might be said that all was really done on the authority of Parliament, and it was vain for Parliament to think of avoiding to pay for it. He
1722
concurred with the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) in not thinking that this was a case in which they were dealing with a popularly elected representative body, which, possessing the confidence of its constituents, and being a competent judge of the subject, had come forward and represented that it simply desired pecuniary aid in the shape of a guarantee for the economical execution of the work. He did not find that set forth in the Bill; but, on the contrary, he found that Parliament seemed to be made in the main the absolute author and projector of the scheme. It was perfectly true that, it was hopeless for hon. Members to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on engineering and technical questions by the force of discussion in that House; but, though they could not arrive at conclusions themselves on those points, they might reasonably wish to have the best assurance that those points had been adequately considered and authoritatively and competently decided on by those with whom they were dealing. He must confess that the state of the discussion, the pamphlets and publications which had appeared, did not carry conviction to his mind that the question had arrived at such a state of ripeness and maturity as would give the House a hope of satisfactorily dealing with it. There was the great question with respect to the restoration of a large bulk of water to the Thames, at or near the metropolis, which by no means, within his knowledge, had been brought to a settlement. They were not called upon to stand either on their own convictions or on the convictions of those with whom they had to deal. The noble Lord told them it was hopeless to expect to arrive at any conviction of their own. Well, then, let them arrive at the conviction of somebody else. But that was not so. The Bill did not even state that the Metropolitan Board of Works had approved the scheme which the Bill was to sanction. In the first few clauses the Bill contained a recognition and sanction of a plan which was understood to be the plan of the Metropolitan Board, but the Bill promulgated that plan on the authority of Parliament. That was a fact of the utmost importance with respect to the question of ultimate liability. It was all very well to have an estimate of £3,000,000; but human nature was fallible generally, and in no respect more so than in the concoction of estimates. It was quite within the limits of probability that these

1723
estimates might fail; and suppose they did, and suppose that this plan proved not to have been the best plan, and that the £3,000,000 proved insufficient, what would be the position of that House in respect to the inhabitants of the metropolis? Would the inhabitants be able to point to the present Bill and say that it was not by their wish, by direct petition or representation that that House assumed to deal with the matter; that the time was not chosen by them, but by the Members of that House, when annoyed by the stench of the Thames; and that the provisions of the Bill were not dictated by a regard for popular principles or by matured convictions, but were the result of a restless haste on the part of Members of Parliament to escape from personal inconvenience? Still, taking all matters into consideration he did not complain of the Government—on the contrary, if his noble Friend understood the question, and felt the ground secure under his feet, he congratulated him on his lofty position; but, for himself, he felt he was not in that position, and from the discussion he felt there were others like him. He, hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would excuse him, and not consider that it was any imputation upon him if he (Mr. Gladstone) confessed it would be a comfort and satisfaction to him if some further time were allowed before the Bill was sanctioned.
MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTsaid, he could not but admit that the House was in a difficulty, as there was such a short time allowed for deliberation on this important measure; but still the circumstances were so urgent, that if the House were to separate without sanctioning some plan they would merit the censure of the country. He had no doubt that if the powers contained in this Bill were conferred on the Metropolitan Board of Works they would be able to satisfy all the requirements of public opinion. The only objection he had to the Bill was one which could be amended in Committee. It related to the proviso that if the sewage was readmitted into the Thames above Barking Creek it must be deodorised; but he would ask if the sewage could be deodorised below London, what was to prevent it from being deodorised in London itself? He had no doubt that the work of deodorisation could be accomplished in London. What he should like would be, that the Board of Works should carry out any scheme they pleased, taking care that the river should be made free from all pollutions. A good deal had been
1724
said about the composition of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but he could tell hon. Gentlemen that there were members of that Board who would do credit to those benches. It was said that that Board contained no scientific or engineering skill. He maintained that there was both; but at the same time he reminded the House that what was wanted was, not a board of engineers, but a body of men of general intelligence, competent to make a wise selection of their officers—men independent in position and of general business habits. His authority had been quoted for having said on a former occasion that 80,000,000 of gallons were pumped up out of the Thames for the use of the water companies. He ought to have said that half of that water came from the east and half from the west. But still the general fact remained that the condition of the Thames between Westminster Bridge and Richmond was one from which great inconvenience had been felt, and therefore they must be careful how they further diminished the volume of the stream. He hoped in conclusion, that the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, where such alterations as might be necessary could be made.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he confessed that he felt considerable alarm at the prospect that the drainage of the metropolis might be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose scheme ignored, he believed, the two great principles of the modern system of drainage—the utilization of the sewage by applying it to the soil, and the separation of the sewage from rainwater by a double system of tubular drainage. The Government referees, in a letter addressed by them to the First Commissioner of Works, had shown that with regard to many points the scheme proposed by the Metropolitan Board must fail to effect its object of purifying the sewage, so that the surplus water might be carried into the Thames. It was also an extraordinary circumstance that while the Board proposed to deodorize the western portion of the sewage they proposed to carry away the eastern portion by tunnel. Now, if deodorization would suffice for the west, why should it not suffice for the cast also? A friend of his, Mr. F. O. Ward, in a very able letter he had addressed to him on this subject, made the following observations:—
"Now, consider the effect of a sudden rainstorm falling on London, and pouring through these overcharged subterranean receptacles, Suppose

1725
it only to sweep into the river nine or ten days' accumulation of filth, to what do you imagine that is equivalent? It is equivalent to the simultaneous discharge into the river Thames of the mass of excrement produced in one day by the entire population of Great Britain, numbering 21,000,000. And to such eruptions of filth we should still be frequently liable, even if the great tunnels for mixed rainfall and sewage were built. The money loss on every such occasion would be in ammonia only, without reckoning phosphorus, nearly £16,000. Besides, after every such discharge the tidal river would remain discoloured, and in hot weather putrescent for several days. Such would be the operation of the colossal tunnels on which we are invited to lay out millions; such are the evils consequent on the mingling of rainfall with sewage. The obvious conclusion is, that the tunnel scheme propounded by the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the sanction of Mr. Stephenson and his party, not merely ignores, one-half of the problem in hand—namely, the agricultural utilization of the sewage, but is inadequate to accomplish the moiety which alone it contemplates—namely, the purification of the river. Indeed, by their last vote on this subject the Metropolitan Board resolved to pour the sewage of the western district of London, more or less deodorized, into the Thames above Westminster Bridge, and to reserve the proposed great tunnels for the conveyance of the remaining sewage only. Of deodorization, the mainstay of this scheme, I will only here remark, that while at best it is a costly and imperfect palliative, it becomes quite impracticable precisely when most needed—i.e., when heavy showers are sweeping from the sewers the largest masses of putrescent filth. Independently, however, of this objection, the two parts of the scheme are manifestly inconsistent. For, if deodorization suffices for the west, why is interception necessary for the east? And, contrariwise, if miles of tunnel are required to convey far off the eastern sewage, how can it be right to pour the western sewage into the river above bridge? Surely, the principle must be false that leads to such illogical conclusions. The principle to which, by these and other considerations, my friends and I have been gradually led is shortly this—that the whole of the rainfall is due to the river, the whole of the sewage to the soil. The adoption of this principle s, we believe, as essential for the perfect purification of the Thames as it is for the economical utilization of the sewage. That this may be obvious to you, pray keep in view that when sewage and rainfall are once mixed, whether in the Thames itself or in the minutest of the filaments that feed it (in a street-sewer or in a house drain, for example), those mingled waters can never again be separated. In polluting the smallest of its tributaries you virtually pollute the Thames; and, as it has been said, 'Take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves,' so I venture to say, Purify the tributaries, and the main stream will run pure of itself.' If, now, we trace in each house the course of the rain from roof and area, and the course of the sewage from closet and sink, till we come to the point at which the separate pipes conveying these two distinct streams meet in a single drain, we arrive at the precise boundary line between possible and impossible in this matter of Thames purification and sewage utilization. For, up to this point, and before this meet-
1726
ing of two waters, we are free to apply each streamlet to its proper use. We can send the unpolluted rainfall to scour the river, and the undiluted sewage to fertilize the land. But directly this junction point is passed, directly the daily runlet of cistern-water, rich with its freight of ammonia and phosphorus, meets and mingles with the casual rainfall, the two waters become, as we have seen, a worthless, unmanageable mixture, equally unfit for agricultural and urban use. Not only do they cease to be our property, and pass beyond the control of art, but they revert to the domain of nature, spoiled even for her simple service. For this error we are punished by pestilence. I say, therefore, that the battle of interception is to be fought, not on the banks of the river, but in the basements of the houses; not with monstrous tunnels, but with modest tubes; not by the diversion of variable rainbrooks, alternately dry and torrential, but by the diversion of uniform cistern supplies, always moderate and manageable; not at a profitless cost of many millions, yielding no return, but at a profitable outlay of a few millions, producing an ample return—probably half a million per annum. This tubular purification of rivers and fertilization of lands is, indeed, but the logical extension of the tubular drainage of houses and streets which my friends and I have succeeded in establishing after a ten years' struggle with the engineers. And, as our tubular sewers, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Mr. Stephenson and his friends, are now working successfully by hundreds of miles, not only in provincial towns, but in the metropolis itself, so also, I am confident, will the tubular purification of the Thames ultimately supersede the monstrous tunnel project, which, if adopted, would cost us many millions, and turn out a gigantic failure after all.…. I have only to add, in conclusion, that the purification of rivers and the utilization of sewage are, in my judgment, but two aspects or incidents of a sanitary organization comprising several other elements, each indispensable to the perfect working of the whole. This complete organization cannot, however, be suddenly accomplished; nor can even its several parts be simultaneously prepared. But in the development of such portions as we may be able presently to undertake the others may be kept in view; and this is in the highest degree desirable, in order that the sanitary works of our day may serve, not as a bar, but as a transition to the more perfect institutions of our successors. Should the monstrous rain and sewage tunnels proposed by the Metropolitan Board be built, they would indeed oppose a serious obstacle to such ulterior progress. But of this I have little fear. Those subterranean rivers are already beginning to be regarded by the ratepayers as a costly and colossal blunder, and, unless I am much mistaken, they will be obsolete before they are begun."
He (Mr. Coningham) warned the House against plunging into a scheme which would prove a colossal failure, and which involved a direct attack upon the pockets of the metropolitan ratepayers.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works had observed that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who

1727
had formerly loudly called upon the Government to take some steps for the purification of the Thames, were now prepared to throw over the whole question. He (Sir B. Hall) begged to assure the noble Lord that he was not one of those who desired to throw over the question, but that, on the contrary, he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill if a division took place. He thought it right, however, to state the one reason, and the one reason only, which induced him to take that course. He would not enter into the details of the various plans which had been proposed for the drainage of the Metropolis, for nearly all the hon. Gentlemen, who had addressed the House were disposed to adopt different plans if the matter were left to their decision. He thought, however, it was essential that, with a view to the purification of the Thames, the Metropolitan Board of Works should be entrusted with those powers of raising money which were proposed to be vested in them generally by the Bill of 1855, and which the present Bill proposed to confer upon them in a more detailed form. There were, however, some clauses in this Bill which required careful consideration, and to which he hoped strong opposition would be offered. Reference had been made to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissions appointed to inquire into the Corporation of London, presented in 1854, and a right hon. Friend of his had stated that the Act of 1855 was not strictly carried out in accordance with the recommendations of those Commissioners. This was quite true; but the general views of the Commissioners had been embodied in the Bill when first introduced; the details could only be determined when it became necessary to enter upon the subject of metropolitan legislation, with a view to the introduction of a measure which was to effect that great and long-desired object. The recommendations to which his right hon. Friend had particularly alluded were these:—
"We suggest the creation of a Metropolitan Board of Works, to be composed of a limited number of Members deputed to it from the Council of each metropolitan municipal body, including the Corporation of the City. We propose that the management of public works, in which the metropolis has a common interest, should be conducted by this body. At present, works of this sort can only be undertaken either by the Corporation of London, from its own peculiar funds, or under powers created for the purpose by special legislation, or by the executive Government out of Parliamentary grants. It is manifest that a power of executing
1728
public works of general metropolitan importance, such as the contruction of bridges over the Thames, or the opening or widening of main lines of streets, accompanied by a power of metropolitan taxation, would, though founded on a basis of popular election, require efficient safeguards for its prudent and useful exercise. We, therefore, think that the plans of the works to be executed should be submitted to a committee of the Privy Council, and its consent obtained before they are carried into effect. We may add, that cases may arise where public works may be executed in the metropolis partly out of the metropolitan fund and partly from Parliamentary grants, and that in these cases a control of the executive Government such as we have proposed would be indispensable. The Commissioners recommended in their 29th suggestion, that in the event of a division of the metropolis into municipal districts being made, a Metropolitan Board of Works be created, composed of members deputed to it from the Council of each metropolitan municipal body, including the Common Council of the City."
He had endeavoured to frame the measure he had introduced for the local management of the metropolis as closely as possible in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, but he did not mean to say that it was perfect in its details. It would be almost impossible to frame any measure embracing such important objects, and containing no less than 250 clauses, so as to ensure perfection. He had, however, the satisfaction of knowing that, notwithstanding some questions had necessarily arisen, no legal decision, or at all events scarcely a legal decision, had been given contrary to the spirit and intention with which the Legislature adopted that measure, and he thought that circumstance showed that it had been framed with great care. He might be allowed to state what had been his intention and that of the Government when they proposed the measure to which he had referred with respect to the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and more especially the person who might preside over that body. They were of opinion that he should be a person well acquainted with engineering works, and qualified from his antecedents to supervise their construction, and this was considered essential on introducing the Bill in 1855. He (Sir B. Hall) made use of these words according to the Report—
"With respect to the chairman, he proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should select three names not necessarily from their own body, or from any district board, but that they should have power to select from the whole length and breadth of the kingdom three persons, any one of whom would be fit and proper to occupy the high office he would be called upon to fill and thoroughly qualified to discharge the im-

1729
portant functions attendant upon it. These names should be sent to the Secretary of State, and the latter should erase two, the remaining one to be the president of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He proposed that the chairman should be paid a salary of not less than £1,500, and not more than £2,000 a year, and that he should hold office during good behaviour. This body would have power to levy rates for improvements, and also, when necessary, to take land out of their district for the purpose of outfall works, as at present it was not possible to carry out the drainage of the metropolis, because there was no power to make the arterial drains beyond a certain limit. This Board would have power to make intercepting sewers for the purification of the Thames, and would be empowered to borrow money from the Treasury, to be paid within fifty years."
Such was the scheme which he proposed, and he wished it had been fully carried out, but it was the pleasure of the House to alter those provisions so far as to empower the Board to elect their own chairman, without any such reference as that proposed which they did by selecting one of their own body, and the House refused permission to obtain money through the Treasury; and it now became necessary to re-insert the latter provision. With respect to the measure before the House it was desirable that the discussion of details should be reserved for Committee; but there was one point to which he was extremely anxious to call attention. In the second clause the points of outfall were defined, and it was provided that, if they discharged the sewage at Barking Creek and a point opposite, they were to deodorize the sewage for six months of the year. He should not now discuss the propriety of fixing these points of outfall so near to the metropolis, but he strongly objected to the proviso added to the clause, which enabled the Board, if they thought fit, to discharge the sewage in any part of the metropolis. It was very true that, if they did this, they were bound to deodorize the sewage throughout the whole year; but the evidence adduced before the Committee, which concluded its sittings that very day, showed that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish deodorizing works within the metropolitan area at the outfalls of the various sewers. He hoped, therefore, that if they went into Committee the Government would consider this question, and, before giving the Board power to erect deodorizing and manure works in the densely populated parts of the metropolis, would first ascertain whether the system of deodorization was so perfect as to be capable of application to such a place as London. The works at Leicester had
1730
been quoted, but the case of Leicester did not bear any analogy to the metropolis. The works at Leicester were in the open country, not in the town; but this could not be in London, and he thought such a power would be a very dangerous one to entrust to the Board, useless it was strictly guarded so as to prevent the possibility of a nuisance being created in the densely populated portion of the metropolis.
MR. KENDALLsaid, Government were blowing hot and cold. He could not understand how the Government could lay claim to activity, when, at the moment the House were willing to give full powers to the Government, they sought to get out of the difficulty by throwing the responsibility on to other shoulders. A Bill had been introduced the effect of which was to grant £3,000,000 for an object respecting which Parliament would have no sort of control or responsibility. But would £3,000,000 be sufficient? The best report ever written on any subject of this kind was that of the referees employed by the late Commissioner of Works, which was characterized by great accuracy and by consummate ability. That report showed that instead of £3,000,000, they might with the greatest safety read £6,000,000, and probably £9,000,000 or £12,000,000 would be much nearer the mark than £3,000,000. With respect to Barking Creek, the evidence adduced before the Committee went to show that they would merely send the sewage there to have it returned to London, and the nuisance would be as bad as ever. As to the Leicester plan, Mr. Cook, who had given his evidence with great clearness and precision, declared that he could erect works which would completely deodorize the sewage in a place of 100,000 inhabitants at a cost of £6,000, and could carry them on for £1,200 a year; and he added, that he was quite sure the plan was applicable to the metropolis, and that he would undertake to establish works for deodorizing the sewage of London at a cost of £100,000, and carry them on for £38,000 a year. He (Mr. Kendall), of course, did not know whether these plans could be carried out, but Mr. Cook was backed up by Mr. Stodart (who was, he believed, known to the noble Member for Tiverton) and by another eminently practical man. He did not wish the House should be under the impression that the Committee had been able to hear one-half of the evidence which might with advantage have been adduced, and he was of

1731
opinion that the question under discussion might with advantage be still further considered before any legislation with respect to it should take place.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, whatever might be his own opinion as to the best plan for carrying out the objects of the Bill, he thought that as this was a Bill for raising money, a Bill much more simple in its details would have answered the purpose. He could, also, bear testimony to the fact that there were many engineers of eminence who maintained that the scheme to which the House was virtually asked to give its assent was not that which it was most expedient to carry into effect, and he might further observe in reference to the expenditure, that some of the engineers and some of the parties examined before the Committee, had coupled with the expenditure for drainage that necessary for works of which the House had at present no knowledge. Those other works, he believed, would be attended with considerable expense, and it was to that he would direct attention. With respect to the system of deodorization which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) seemed to think was not calculated to work well, he could only say that some most important witnesses had given it as their opinion, that places where such a process might be put in operation might, without causing inconvenience to the inhabitants of the metropolis, be erected anywhere upon the banks of the Thames. Would it not, then, he would ask, if that were so, be better, instead of expending £3,000,000 in taking down the sewage to Barking Creek, deodorizing it there, and thus abstracting a large quantity of water from that portion of the river which flowed by the metropolis, be better to subject it to the process of deodorization upon the spot? He threw out that suggestion not so much upon the faith of his own opinion upon the subject as upon that of the evidence which had been laid before the Committee; and he might perhaps be permitted in conclusion to observe, that there having been considerable doubts expressed with respect to the success of the proposed scheme, it would be advisable that the Bill before the House should have simply guaranteed the £3,000,000 of money on the credit of the Imperial Exchequer instead of mixing Her Majesty's Ministers up in any manner with any scheme whatsoever. He agreed with the hon. Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Kendall), that they had not yet had suffi-
1732
cient evidence to enable them to say which, under all the circumstances, was the best scheme for the perfect drainage of the metropolis
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had expressed a wish that the Bill had not indicated any plan, but had simply guaranteed the money. That was exactly what the Bill did. The Bill laid down no specific plan, but left it open to the Metropolitan Board of Works to fix upon such a scheme for the attainment of the end which the measure proposed as they might deem fit. They might construct intercepting sewers or not as they pleased; all the Bill provided being that they should get rid in some way or another of a great nuisance, and that the means of enabling them to do so should be afforded. With respect to the opinion which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), to the effect that the process of deodorization should not be resorted to in crowded localities, he need merely remark that, while there was a clause in the Bill giving power to the Board of Works to avail themselves of that process, yet that there was another which provided that no nuisance should be created, and a sufficient security was therefore furnished that no works would be constructed in places surrounded by houses. In reference to the scheme which it might be most expedient to adopt, he was of opinion that the less said the better, inasmuch as that was a point upon which no two hon. Members seemed likely to agree. The simple question seemed to be this. Some two or three years ago Parliament had decided upon intrusting the power of doing this very thing to a local authority. For some cause, however, nothing had been done. Various plans had in the course of the last three years been laid before the public. They had been during that period well thrashed out, but the process simply tended to establish the fact, that no two men could be found to concur in anything. But because no two men could agree in anything, was that a reason why they do nothing? The two chief reasons, he thought, why nothing had been effected by the Metropolitan Board of Works during all that time were, that they had not the power of raising a sufficient amount of money, and that authority to place a veto upon any scheme which they might suggest rested with the Government. When they submitted a plan to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, for

1733
instance, he at once procured competent men to pronounce an opinion upon it, and when there were competent men upon the side of the one party and of the other they were, as a matter of course, sure to differ. The result had been that one set of competent men had drawn up reasons in opposition to the scheme of the others, and that nothing had been done. The Thames' nuisance had gone on meantime increasing in intensity, until it had at length arrived at such a pitch that it might any fine morning give rise to a pestilence. Now, if we were to wait to remove that nuisance until "competent authorities" should agree Among themselves as to the best mode of carrying that object into effect, it was, he thought, perfectly obvious that we might be called upon to wait till Doomsday. That was the position in which the question stood, and it was in order to obviate all the inconvenience which had in consequence arisen, and to effect something, that the Bill before the House had been introduced. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) seemed to object to the term sewage rate as contained in the Bill; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the term was one not unknown to the law of England, and that there were many places in which a similar tax was levied at a higher rate than 3d. in the pound. It was quite obvious, too, he thought, that none of the inconveniences which had been mentioned would result from the imposition of such a rate, inasmuch as its payment would always form a matter of contract between the landlord and the tenant, rendering the one or the other liable to its payment as might be agreed upon between the two parties. Objections had been raised as to the mode in which the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected, and it had been argued that it did not fairly represent the metropolis. The question was discussed about three years ago, and that objection was not then raised, certainly not in the sense in which it was now urged. After what they had heard against the election of councils by large constituencies, he thought it could not be seriously recommended that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be elected by the entire body of ratepayers in London. He was not aware that any objections had been made on the part of the metropolis to the Metropolitan Board of Works being intrusted with the carrying out of the drain-
1734
age plans. If the country at large were willing to pay for the works, then the matter might be left to the Queen's Government; but if the country refused to pay, or to assist in paying, for those works, then it ought not to interfere in the construction of them. They had already had some experience in this matter. There could be no doubt that the veto of the Government had brought matters to a dead lock, and with regard to the drainage of other towns, past experience must have taught them that the interference of the Government was neither agreeable nor useful. Therefore, as he believed that whatever scheme might be adopted, it would tend to abate the nuisance which now existed, and as delay would not advance their acquaintance with the subject, he hoped the House would consent to proceed with the Bill as speedily as possible.
MR. STEPHENSONthought the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) would not have said the subject of the drainage of London was thoroughly threshed out had he been so long occupied in considering it as he (Mr. Stephenson) had been. About eight years since he became a member of the Metropolitan Sewers Commission, and commenced an earnest and continuous study of the difficult question of the sewage of London and the best means of disposing of it. He acted in conjunction with some very able men, and formed an opinion which, although it had undergone some modification since that time, had not been essentially changed. He was called upon at that time to examine 150 different plans which had been sent in by various individuals, in compliance with the advertisements of a previous Commission, which presented every possible variety of scheme for the drainage of London. These plans he studied with great care and considerable anxiety, and came to the conclusion that nothing would effectually meet the evil but an intercepting system. The right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had objected that that system was not adapted to any increase in the population of London beyond three millions and a half; but nothing more inappropriate than that objection could be conceived. The intercepting system divided the sewers of London as they at present existed into a series of zones each intercepting sewer would deal with the zone immediately above it; and, therefore, any extension of London would only require the construction of a new intercepting sewer for each

1735
additional zone without interfering with anything that had been done in the interior of the metropolis. One of the chief recommendations of the intercepting plan was its capability of expansion without involving any interference with the existing drainage. Upon the occasion to which he had referred, after the 150 plans had been examined, plans were drawn up with great care and referred to Government; but when it came to obtaining money for carrying them out it was found that the hands of the Commissioners were tied, and the Government disregarded their applications. Therefore, as the minor sewerage of the metropolis could be constructed under the ordinary superintendence, the Commission resigned. A new Commission was subsequently formed, comprising many eminent men of his own profession, who, after deliberation, came to the same conclusion as he had; and their having done so, without any communication with him, was another strong argument in favour of the intercepting system. This Commission also failed, because the Government refused every application for money. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton sent them a letter, very brief and very dictatorial, stating that the Commission ought to carry out the scheme of a gentleman recommended by himself. That led to the resignation of the Commissioners. They could not carry it out, and they felt it would be absurd to identify themselves with such a scheme. Objections had been taken to the Metropolitan Board of Works as the body to execute the proposed works, but he could not see the justice of the objection. What other body possessed the information necessary for the performance of such a task. Any other body must acquire and rearrange all the information of which the Metropolitan Board of Works were now in possession. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last in doubting the advantage that would arise from any interference on the part of the Government. The House was arguing in ignorance of the course which this question had taken. If they were to recommence the argument five years hence the debate would assume precisely the same character as it did at present. The right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) seemed to object to the mode of levying the tax, as falling unfairly upon lessees and occupiers, and proposed that proprietors themselves should be taxed. But when a bargain was made it must
1736
hold, or in cases where the lessees derived a doubled or tripled advantage there must be a rearrangement of terms. Those were matters that could not be dealt with by Parliament in legislating upon a matter of this description. He hoped the House would decide in favour of the Bill, unless they intended to postpone legislation altogether, and leave things just as they were. He did not think any one would agree to that. If the intercepting system was not absolutely a perfect system, yet still it would be better to adopt a plan that would do some good than to allow another year to pass away without doing anything to remove the existing evils. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said that the Bill did not bind the Board of Works to any particular plan; but he apprehended that that House ought not to advance money unless they knew for what it was advancing it. As a man of experience, he advised the House to insist upon a considerable portion of the intercepting system being adopted, and recommended that the work should be commenced by the construction of the high level sewer for the interception of the storm waters.
MR. LOWEexplained that he had not said that a system of intercepting sewers would necessarily be limited to any amount of population, but that the plan of the Board of Works, which he understood was to be carried out under this Bill, was professedly limited to a population of 3,500,000.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that having sat upon the Commission of Sewers which succeeded that of which the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson) was a Member, he could confirm the statement of that hon. Gentleman as to the labours of these Commissions. He might also add that the majority of the Commission of which he was a Member agreed with its predecessor in preferring the system of intercepting sewers to any other which had been devised. He thought that it would be well to begin with the high level sewer in order to get rid of the storm water. If they waited for any further inquiry, then, after all the delay which might arise, they would only come back to the point at which they had already arrived. Although the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) said that there was nothing in this Bill which bound the Government to any plan, he thought that the first clause bound them to the adoption of

1737
the system of intercepting sewers, and that was one reason why he should support it. He was also pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that no works would be put where they would be a nuisance; but who was to determine what was a nuisance? That point ought not to be left in doubt. With regard to deodorization, he reminded the House that though Mr. Cooke, of Leicester, who gave evidence upon that subject, was undoubtedly a man of great intelligence, he was the chairman of a company which was very anxious to sell the produce of deodorizing works of which they had hitherto been unable to dispose. The only fear he had with regard to the Bill was its giving power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to have the outfalls within the metropolitan area. It was hardly fair that although, if the outfalls were within limits of the metropolis, the sewage was to be deodorized all the year, if they were just without, that process was insisted upon during only six months. He should, however, vote for the second reading of the Bill, because it removed the great difficulty under which the Board of Works had hitherto laboured—that of obtaining money; and he hoped that in Committee provision would be made that the outfalls of the sewers should not be within the metropolitan area.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that having been one of the Commissioners upon whose Report the constitution of the Board of Works was mainly founded, he was anxious to say a few words before this Bill was read a second time. The principle of this measure he understood to be that this great work should be executed not by the Government, or by a Board appointed by the Government, but by the Metropolitan Board of Works. To that principle be gave his unhesitating assent. The Government were undoubtedly right; and if they had acted upon a different principle they must have been prepared to ask that House to furnish funds for executing the work; but having proceeded upon that principle they had rightly cast upon the metropolitan rate-payers the duty of providing the funds. They had, he thought, gone quite as far as could be expected in giving a guarantee for all the money which it was said would be required for the work. There was one provision with regard to the guarantee to which he entertained a strong objection; he meant that by which the Government took power to appoint a
1738
superintending inspector. He viewed with the greatest jealousy the imposing upon the Government any responsibility, or giving them any power of interfering with the local authorities, which if the plan was unsuccessful, if mistakes were made in carrying it into effect, or if the funds were insufficient, would justify those authorities in saying to the Executive, "You, by your inspector, had had cognizance of what was going on, you tacitly approved our proceedings, and you are therefore bound to share with us the loss which has been incurred." He trusted that the Government would not take upon itself any more responsibility than was absolutely necessary for the protection of the guarantee which the State was to give. Having assented to the principle of the measure, he must add that the Bill upon the face of it seemed to be inconsistent with the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley). That right hon. Gentleman said that it would be competent to the Metropolitan Board of Works to adopt any plan they might think fit, that the Government would not be responsible for the adoption of any plan or the preference of any one practical principle over another.
MR. HENLEY: What he said was, that the Government were not bound to any particular plan, and that it was quite open to the Board of Works to carry out any plan they thought fit, but he made no reference to principles.
SIR GEORGE LEWISunderstood that the Government had expressed no opinion in favour of any plan, and that it was quite open to the Board of Works to adopt any one they pleased. If that was the case, why was the House called upon to assent to this precise sum of £3,000,000? How did they know that £3,000,000 would be adequate to carry out a scheme which perhaps had yet to be conceived, and which was certainly at present unknown? How was it known that a rate of 3d. in the pound for forty years would be sufficient to defray the cost of these works? If it was true that no plan had been selected—if the field of choice were quite open—how did they know that the Board of Works might not fix upon some scheme which would require the expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to carry it out? One of two things—either the Board of Works had fixed upon some plan, and the Government, adopting and approving it, had proposed

1739
this £3,000,000 as the sum which it was thought would be required for its execution; or this £3,000,000 was a mere guess—any other amount might as well have been inserted in the Bill—and the House had no security whatever that when a portion of these works had been completed that amount would not be found to be insufficient, and they would be called upon to guarantee a further loan. This was his only difficulty in assenting to the second reading of this Bill; and, if it received a satisfactory explanation, he should, without hesitation, consent to the measure passing that stage.
MR. JOHN LOCKEremarked, that if the difficulty he felt at the bringing in of the Bill was great, it was much greater now that he had the measure before him. The Government said that they had no plan at all, but the Bill contained regulations as to the point of outfall. Did that foreshadow a plan or not? If they had a deodorizing plan, no stipulation as to the point of outfall would he necessary. It was clear, therefore, that the Government must have some plan, or must, at all events, have decided upon the principle to be adopted. The House had heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Whitby and Honiton (Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Joseph Locke) than whom it would be impossible to consult higher authorities; but the opinions expressed by those hon. Gentlemen had only added to the perplexities by which Parliament was surrounded. The hon. Member for Honiton's bias was clearly in favour of deodorization; but the other hon. Gentleman was decidedly against that plan.
MR. STEPHENSONsaid, he was not opposed to the deodorizing system. He was only opposed to relying for the drainage of the metropolis upon deodorization. He quite admitted that some parts of the metropolis could not be drained except by deodorization.
MR. JOHN LOCKEresumed: When doctors differed in this way the House was placed in a most unfortunate position. He had certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman's plan was the zonal system. The hon. Gentleman would divide the metropolis into zones, and he understood from his evidence that he was against adopting the plan of deodorization for London. They were called to guarantee £3,000,000 for nobody knew what. The Government said that they had no system, and that the Board of Works might do what they liked,
1740
and still the Government had shadowed out a system of intercepting drains. He regretted that although the sewage might be put in a state of solution, the question of the drainage of the metropolis did not appear to be capable of solution. They were called upon to legislate in the dark. The supporters of the Bill did not seem to have a definite idea of what they were supporting. However, it was not for him, after the speeches of the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone, to oppose the second reading of the Bill, though he had no hope that it would be sufficiently altered and amended in Committee.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he would not enter upon any of the engineering questions that had been alluded to. He disclaimed any notion of being enamoured of this Bill, which was founded on no clear principle. It neither threw the entire responsibility of the drainage of the metropolis upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor, on the other hand, did the Government undertake the responsibility of dealing with the question. They proposed to appoint an inspector—they laid down conditions as to the principle of drainage and the point of outfall, and they limited the guarantee to £3,000,000, but they assumed no direct responsibility for the works to be carried out. He had, for his own part, no confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed that the landowners of the metropolis were inadequately represented in that body. It was composed of too large a number of members, and from its unwieldly size was unequal to carry out such large and extensive works as the drainage of the metropolis; and he would submit to the Government that, as it would be only fair that the State should, in fairness, contribute something to metropolitan works, so the Government should undertake the responsibility of nominating a smaller and more working body than this large representative council, under whose auspices there would be greater reason to hope for a speedy and economical solution of the present difficulty. He repeated that he was not sanguine respecting the well-working of the present measure, while the Government, who brought it in, would be held responsible by the inhabitants of the metropolis for the failure of the measure, if that failure should afterwards be found, as he felt it would, both signal and costly.
MR. CLAYsaid, in his ignorance of engineering science—an ignorance shared

1741
by most of those present—he thought the duty of the House on this occasion was confined to a very simple point. All that the House had to determine was, whether it was worth while to expend a large sum of money to remove the nuisance of draining into the Thames, whether the work should be undertaken immediately, by whom the money was to be paid, and in what way the work was to be carried out. It appeared to him that those points were settled by the Bill before the House. The right hon. Member for Oxford University seemed to think that the Members of that House were legislating under the pressure of a bad smell, and that they reasoned as they appeared disposed to pay, through the nose. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter should be further considered, not, however, by the engineering capacity of the House of Commons, as they had that evening shown their own incapacity for doing so. There was no body more capable of doing so than the body they had themselves created for that purpose. It had been complained that that body had done little or nothing. They had, however, accumulated a large mass of useful and necessary information on the subject, and if they had done little the fault lay with the House of Commons, which declined to give them the necessary power, and then shackled them with the Government veto. If proper power had been lodged in the proper hands, this work would have been undertaken long since. The future consideration which the right hon. Member for Oxford University had spoken of, should be given by the body charged to carry out this measure. If they should prove incapable, he believed it would be because the thing could not be done. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.
MR. PULLERsaid, he agreed that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had hitherto proved a failure it was because Parliament had not entrusted it with sufficient powers. He thought that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the House for grappling with a subject of enormous difficulty, but he thought that they had produced the wrong measure. At the same time he must deny that the charge of inaction could justly be brought against the House of Commons if they did not sanction the present Bill. That House was not the proper or a competent authority to decide on the value of competing schemes, and therefore, he must
1742
protest against any attempt to throw upon them the responsibility of the question. The Bill in effect said, that the plan of Mr. Bazalgette and of the Metropolitan Board of Works should be carried out. Now, that scheme professed to be capable of being carried out for £3,000,000, but to require an annual expenditure of £150,000. The scheme of the Government referees would require for its execution five or six millions. When, therefore, the Government proposed to lend the Metropolitan Board of Works £3,000,000, it was clearly implied that the cheaper but less comprehensive scheme was to be carried out. If, at the end of a few years, the Metropolitan Board of Works came to Parliament for a larger advance and were met with a proposal to lay an increased rate on the metropolis, they would reply that the Government had forced them into the adoption of a bad plan, and that they ought, therefore, to defray the additional outlay thus rendered necessary out of the Consolidated Fund. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Amendment, for want of a seconder, fell to the ground.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, because its rejection would postpone to an indefinite period the possibility of applying a remedy to an evil the magnitude of which it was almost impossible to exaggerate. He spoke not merely of that evil which the members of that House had in their persons recently experienced, but of the more general and growing evil which arose from the pollution of the waters of the Thames; for, in proportion as the metropolis increased and drew a larger supply of water for its requirements from the Upper Thames, in the same proportion the Thames became from year to year nothing but a great sewer, and like a sewer stank, and would be the source of disease and pestilence. Therefore it was a matter of the utmost importance to prevent for the future the discharge of the sewage into the Thames. He knew that many people said that no doubt it was disagreeable to smell this stench, and that persons were sometimes made sick by it, and were unable to eat white-bait dinners when they went down to Greenwich. He hoped that the members of the Government would not be so situated on Saturday next. Nevertheless, there had been no great amount of disease,

1743
for, fortunately, there had been no epidemic in London; but, if there had been the cholera at the time this stench arose, would any man say that it would not have aggravated to an intense degree the disorder? Hon. Gentlemen were not aware of the amount of misery and suffering endured by a large proportion of the population of this great metropolis from the imperfect drainage of the localities in which they resided. When he was at the Home Office it was his lot to hear from persons who resided north of the Thames, in the neighbourhood of Hackney Brook, descriptions of the sufferings they endured from the stench which arose from the sewer, and also from the flooding of their dwellings when there was a heavy fall of rain. On the southern shore of the Thames, also, there was a vast population living in a district where there was no drainage at all, and where there was no outfall, except during a very short period at low water. Whenever there was a heavy fall of rain the sewers of that district were inundated; abominations of all kinds were driven back from the sewers into the basement stories of the houses, and an amount of suffering and discomfort was caused of which hon. Gentlemen who had not received communications from those who had endured it could form no conception. These evils could not be cured by deodorizing tanks, which required great outfall tunnels. Hon. Gentlemen must not imagine that there was any remedy for the great evils now experienced in the metropolis, except from intercepting sewers communicating with tunnels which would carry the drainage down to some lower level of the Thames. He confessed he thought the Bill was defective with regard to the subject of intercepting tunnels. In his opinion Barking Creek and the opposite shore were too near the metropolis, and money expended in carrying tunnels to those points would, to a certain extent, be thrown away. Complete relief would not be afforded to the metropolis by the expenditure of 3,000,000; and if tunnels were constructed to Barking Creek the Metropolitan Board of Works would have to come to Parliament and say, "You sanctioned this work, but by limiting the expenditure you forced us to adopt a plan which is essentially and radically defective, and therefore, on the part of the public, we call upon you to assist us by grants of public money to carry the sewerage to another point, in order to accomplish the
1744
object we wish to effect." He thought, therefore, it was most unfortunate that the Government should persist—if they meant to do so—in limiting the outfall of the intercepting tunnels to a point so near the metropolis as Barking Creek and the opposite side of the river. There was another point not immediately entering into the arrangements of the Bill, but to which he must express his hope that the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works would be speedily and successfully directed; the possibility of converting to agricultural purposes, as manure, the vast amount of matter which was now discharged into the Thames. There could be no doubt that, if the proposed system were carried out, a great quantity of fertilizing matter would be thrown into the stream of the Thames, with the view of being carried out to sea. It must be admitted that hitherto no process had been suggested by which that fertilizing matter could advantageously and profitably be applied to b agricultural purposes, beyond a very narrow limit of space, but he entertained a hope that before long some practical mode might be discovered by scientific scientific chemists of converting into a source of great national wealth the matter which it was now proposed to throw into the waters of the German Ocean. He trusted that the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, and that Her Majesty's Government would attend to the suggestions which had been made with reference to the modification of some of its clauses.
MR. COXsaid, that as a metropolitan Member, representing a district, the residents in which would have to pay a very large proportion of the rate, he wished to say a few words with respect to this Bill, although he did not mean to oppose the second reading. He thought that a revision of the area of rating was absolutely required, because under the Metropolitan Local Management Act very extensive districts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis derived benefit from the existing law, and would enjoy the advantages of the Bill before the House, although they were entirely exempted from any rate. He did not wish to mention any particular districts, but he might state, that in the neighbourhood in which he resided there was a very large parish, the sewage from which passed through the metropolitan district, and was discharged into the Thames, but which, not being comprised within the metropolitan

1745
area, was entirely exempted from rating. He believed also that the Bill, in its present form, might lead to disputes between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commission of Conservancy of the Thames with regard to the mode of dealing with the foreshore; but that was a point which might be more conveniently considered in Committee.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that in his opinion the only chance of anything being done was to allow the second reading to take place, and make the requisite alterations in Committee. He would, however, suggest, that as the Bill proposed the appointment by the Treasury of an engineer to control the expenditure of money upon the works, and he would suggest that the appointment of a Government inspector to prevent the creation and continuance of nuisances would be attended with great advantage. He must also object to the proposed plan of sewage, on the ground that, owing to the proximity of Woolwich to the point of outfall, the tide might carry the sewage to that town. This, he thought, would not be unattended with danger.
MR. BUTLERSaid, he deemed it most unfair that his constituents and the heavily taxed ratepayers of the metropolis should alone bear the enormous cost of purifying the Thames—the principle was a just one, that those who contributed to foul the waters of the Thames should be rated for its purification. Why, for instance, should not the inhabitants of Richmond, Brentford, and other districts bear a fair proportion of that rate? In his opinion, the area of rating prescribed by the Metropolitan Local Management Act was most unjust, and he hoped the injustice would be remedied in Committee.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  On the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Ways and Means,
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had given notice that he would call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, as he had intended to press upon the Government the propriety of appointing a Royal Commission for the purpose of concluding those inquiries which the Committee did not feel itself competent to enter into. He understood, however,
  1746
  that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) did not object to grant this Commission, and he would not, therefore, waste the time of the House at that late period of the Session by making any lengthened remarks on the subject at present.
  SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, he had read the interesting and important report presented by the Committee over which the hon. Gentleman had presided, and thought the reasons adduced in it were quite sufficient to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission. The hints contained in the report were of extreme value, and could not be fully or satisfactorily acted upon without the assistance of a Royal Commission to inquire into the exact locality of the harbours, and fix upon their sites. It was, therefore, the intention of the Government to appoint such a Commission.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, there were the circumstances of trade at various ports, and the capabilities of different places, which must all be accurately weighed and considered before the Commissioners could come to any decision. The limits within which the Committee had confined its inquiries were too narrow, and the principles it had laid down not sufficiently clear and comprehensive to serve as a useful guide to the proposed Commission. He therefore hoped the Order of reference would be large and full, and that the Commissioners would not be restricted from taking that evidence which was necessary to enable them to arrive at a fair and just decision with regard to the different localities where Harbours of Refuge were thought to be required. The subject in itself was of immense importance. A thousand lives a year, and a million and a half of property were lost on our coasts through causes which were in the main preventible. One grave question for the Commissioners to settle was, whether the saving of life and property would be better accomplished by the construction, at a large expense, of one or two new harbours, or by making advances for the improvement of a larger number of existing harbours.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he was glad, as a member of the Committee in question, to hear that the Government would agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission. He trusted the Commissioners would be most carefully selected, and that no person who had been examined before the Committee would be appointed a member.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to ex-

  1747
  press his gratification at the readiness of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this important subject. At the same time, he would beg to remind the Government and the House of the necessity of considering the state of our southern and eastern coasts, which, being opposite to the northern coast of France—the latter being well supplied with forts and arsenals—required the most careful attention. The harbours recommended by the Committee differed from those, the construction of which had been previously suggested by Commissions, in this, that they had almost exclusively in view the protection of our commercial marine from the dangers of shipwreck. The Committee, therefore, recommended that a portion of the expense should be borne by the shipping interest itself; but he hoped their views would not be allowed to interfere with or postpone the works at Harbours of Refuge which were intended for the protection of our coast in case of war, and which were already in progress.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he participated in the satisfaction felt by the House at the consent of the Government to grant a Commission. He feared, however, that there was some ambiguity in the recommendation of the Committee. They recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the best situations for Harbours of Refuge within the limits indicated, but those limits were not clearly pointed out, and for that reason he thought it incumbent on him to impress on the Government the necessity of issuing their instructions to the Commission in the clearest and most comprehensive terms.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had abstained from making a statement to the House upon the subject under discussion that evening, simply in order to facilitate the despatch of the business upon the paper. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members would refrain from expressing any opinion with respect to the question until he was enabled to bring it more fully before the House.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he entertained a similar view in favour of the postponement of the discussion.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought it very likely the members of the Committee up-stairs present that evening were as numerous as they would be on any future occasion when the subject might come on for discussion, and that there
  1748
  was, therefore, no good reason why they should refrain from at once expressing their opinions with respect to it. For his own part, he must express a hope that the Commission about to be appointed should consist of the most competent persons, and that the order of reference should be of a more extended scope than would seem to be warranted by the evidence which was taken before the Committee, and which was of a most imperfect and desultory character. There were three branches of the question of Harbours of Refuge, all of which required full consideration. There were military harbours, being those which were erected solely for strategic objects; harbours for the shelter of commerce, and harbours for the protection of our fisheries, and unless funds were granted sufficient to construct Harbours of Refuge in these three branches, it was of little use issuing a Commission. It was quite appalling to think that there were lost annually on our coasts more than 800 lives and two millions of property, the greatest portion of which might be saved by the expenditure of a sum which was really a trifle as compared with the result expected. The great increase, too, in the shipping of this country—an increase of about 130 per cent within the last few years—added much to the urgency of the question.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that this most important question was always trifled with in that House. He did not mean anything disrespectful to the members of the Harbours of Refuge Committee when he said that although they had been sitting for the last two years, yet, from the fact of the majority of them not being conversant with nautical affairs, they were not in a position to come to a sound conclusion on the matter referred to them. There was an enormous amount of life and property sacrificed every year for want of proper Harbours of Refuge, and yet year after year the House was going on appointing Committee after Committee. This was nothing short of a broad farce and a trifling with the lives of thousands. He hoped that the Commission now about to be appointed would be one competent to deal with the subject, so that something satisfactory and definite might result from its labours.
  MR. DUFFsaid, he would strongly support the recommendation that no person who had given evidence before the Committee should be appointed on the Commission.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREexpressed a wish to know whether the Government meant to persevere with the Chinese Emigration Bill, and a hope that if such were the case it would be brought on this week, as it was likely to lead to considerable discussion.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he trusted the finance accounts would for the future be laid upon the table of the House at a period of the Session when they could be more conveniently discussed than had hitherto been the case.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Arrangements have already been made in order that the necessary financial accounts may be laid upon the table as early as possible; but as preparation and an alteration in arrangements which have long existed must precede the production of these accounts, I cannot speak with certainty on the matter. Her Majesty's Government have given their earnest attention to the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee; and these recommendations will lead to alterations in the transaction of public business. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, I must observe that the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to come from the Lords, and our attention must, I think, be devoted in the first place to those Bills which have to go up to the Lords; but I think I may say that we shall not press that Bill on the attention of this House this Session. There is another measure of great importance, which I regret to say I cannot ask the House to decide on this Session, though I shall take the earliest opportunity of asking them to sanction it next Sesssion—that is, the Superannuation Bill. I promised the hon. Member for Devenport (Mr. Wilson) that I would communicate with him with respect to this measure; and I take this opportunity of informing him that I shall not press it at present. There is another Bill which is of importance, and which I trust will be, on an early occasion, brought before the House, but which, I think, I cannot, consistently with the rules laid down by the House of Lords, ask this House to proceed further with this Session—the Irish Police Bill. These are the only announcements I have to make with respect to the public business.
  Resolutions agreed to.

CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, that the reason he objected to this measure was that its real object was quite different from that professed by its title. The subject ought to be regarded in two aspects: first, in reference to the Crown revenues; and secondly, to the great foreshore question, which had created much agitation throughout the country for many years. In his opinion the Bill was calculated to increase the great dissatisfaction that had been felt in consequence of the manner in which the claims of the Crown had been pressed in the mining districts. He some time ago moved for the production of the arbitration and the documents upon which the decision of the arbitrator was founded, and the Secretary of the Treasury of that time promised, as soon as a third point, which was still pending, was decided, they should be produced, and it was also stated that no legislation would be attempted in the meanwhile. Nevertheless the documents laid upon the table included nothing but a few letters of reference with comments, and contained none of the statutes, charters, cases, or arguments upon which Sir John Patteson had founded his award. He contended that without such information the House was not justified in confirming the arbitration of any individual, however eminent, which took away from the Crown valuable property in which the public, during the present reign, at all events, had a beneficial interest; and also that other persons, whether bodies corporate or individuals, who might have to enter into similar contests, had a right to have the benefit of knowing on what evidence the Crown claimed, particularly as that evidence had been collected at the public expense. The Bill spoke of mines between high and low-water mark; but property of a much more extensive and valuable character was involved. It was said that the right to such mines involved the right to the fundus or bed of the river or estuary, and the power of disposing of the foreshore, so that the probability was, that the minor right would be held hereafter to carry with it the major. This had been done before; and in the case of the Keyham Docks, where the public had rights of fishing and other rights, those

  1751
  rights had been taken by the Crown without compensation. There were many similar instances where public rights had been invaded, and indeed it was only last year that the Duchy of Cornwall derived a considerable income in this way. It was remarkable that they never heard anything about the rights of the Crown to the bed of a river, or to land between high and low-water mark on the shore of the sea, when there was anything to pay, but only when there was something to be received. If improvements were required the public had to pay for them; but if advantages were to be had, the Crown claimed them. Again, he must demur to the position that minerals in the bed of the sea belonged to the Crown, because it had been settled that anything which was found upon the surface, although under water, belonged to the finder. It also had become a serious question whether the wastes on the sea shore and in estuaries ought not to be considered in the same light as waste lands, and be treated in the same manner; for where there were wastes in a manor in which the public had certain rights, Parliament always gave a compensation when it deprived the public of their rights. Judge Bayley and his commentator Mr. Woolrych, both laid it down that the foreshore was placed in the hands of the Crown, not for its own benefit, but as a trustee for the use of the public. He was moreover inclined to think that the present Bill contemplated something more than mere mineral rights, from what he observed in the 9th clause, where he found this expression—that mines and minerals should comprehend all mines and minerals, and all quarries, veins, beds of stone, and all substrata whatsoever. Now, that, he thought, was an acknowledgment of a right which would be very prejudicial to the owners of property on the sea shore. He had taken up this question solely on public grounds. Scarcely anybody in Cornwall knew anything of the provisions of the Bill, not even legal gentlemen, and he asked the Government whether it was just to bring in such a Bill at the fag-end of the Session. There could be no damage to any one from delay, and he would therefore move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this Bill, to declare and define certain rights of
  1752
  the Crown, in the beneficial interests of which the Public are concerned during the reign of Her Majesty, as part and parcel of the hereditary revenues, ought not to be proceeded with till such times as Copies of all the Documents, Cases, and Opinions of Counsel submitted to Sir John Patteson, and on which his arbitration is founded, are laid on the table of this House," instead thereof.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he should be wanting in courtesy to the hon. Gentleman if he did not explain the history of the measure, which was simply as follows. Primâ facie, the whole of the soil, and every thing under the soil, between high and low water mark on the shores of the kingdom, belonged to the Crown; and in numerous instances that right had been granted away, or passed to individuals by adverse possession against the Crown. In the case of the Duchy of Cornwall the difficulty had been this—that very large grants were made of the soil and shore to the Prince of Wales in the time of Edward III. by charters, and great difficulty had always arisen with regard to the construction of those charters. That doubt had been further increased by innumerable dealings which had since taken place between the Crown and the Prince of Wales in the shape of statutes, other charters, and deeds of various kinds. In consequence it had in recent times become matter of extreme uncertainty whether, as regarded the soil between high and low-water mark, and even below low-water mark, in the Duchy of Cornwall, the rights to minerals was in the Crown or the Duchy. In the year 1856 it was considered desirable that these doubts should be resolved, for it was found that the existence of doubts had had the effect of putting an end to various kinds of improvement, and checking mining operations. The consequence was that the mines along the shore of Cornwall remained entirely unproductive. In this state of things Lord Cranworth, as representing the Crown under the late Government, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh, as representing the Duchy, considered that it would be unseemly for the two interests to enter into litigation in the ordinary courts of law, and they agreed to request Sir John Patteson to take the very great trouble of reading over all the documents in this case and give his award. Sir John undertook the task, in February 1856, and from that time to June, 1857, when he made his award, he paid to the subject the most unremitting attention; all the charters, grants, and other records extending over many thousands of folios, and which the hon.

  1753
  Gentleman, not content with results, was anxious to have laid in extenso upon the table of the House, being examined and considered by him. On reading over the award, however, it was found desirable before final arrangements were made for carrying it out, that a further question should be submitted to the arbitrator and settled. In February this year this point was also decided. The rights of the relative parties were determined—those of the Crown to the soil of the bed of the river and the minerals below, and those of the Duchy to the shore between high and low water mark and the minerals below. But as to reach the mines of the Crown it was necessary to pass through or over the property of the Duchy, Sir John Patteson suggested that an arrangement should be made for that purpose, which arrangement this Bill proposed to carry out. The hon. Member said there was no great pressure on the subject, and that it might be delayed till the next year. He could assure the hon. Member that there was very great pressure, as the mines were now remaining wholly unproductive, and besides there were scores of men who were anxious to purchase these rights or to settle disputed claims. He could also assure the hon. Member the rights of no single individual in the kingdom were affected by this Bill; it concerned the rights of the Crown and of the Duchy alone, and there was a saving clause most carefully drawn securing the rights of every person except those in dispute between the Crown or the Duchy. But then the hon. Member said that the Crown sacrificed its own rights. Now the Crown had given up no rights except such as Sir John Patteson declared it had no right to possess. The Consolidated Fund lost nothing, for, in fact, in consequence of these disputes, the mines in question had remained all along unproductive; but now those rights that had been awarded to the Crown would be made available, and their proceeds brought into the Consolidated Fund. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would not offer further opposition to the Bill.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he thought the explanation of the Solicitor General was perfectly satisfactory, and he believed if the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out the promise he made on a former occasion with respect to it, that it would prove of great benefit to the county of Cornwall.
  Question, "That the words proposed to
  1754
  be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

JEWS' BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the House going into Committee, but he wished to made a few observations on the strange and anomalous position in which they found themselves. If the House of Lords were desirous of agreeing to the admission of Jews to Parliament, it would have been better if they had agreed to the Bill which that House had sent up to them. He had opposed the clause in that measure relating to the Jews, but he must say that if the question was to be conceded, he thought it could not have been done more satisfactorily than by the adoption of the courteous and conciliatory clause proposed by the noble Member for the City of London, and he regretted that that clause had not been accepted by their Lordships. Instead of that the House of Lords had sent down this queer odd measure—this sort of Irish compromise—in which one party conceded everything and the other gave up nothing; and which left everything as unsettled as ever. The House of Lords in fact said, we are as opposed as ever to the unchristianising of the Legislature, but if the House of Commons wish to do so they may; and they sent down to that House this Bill, and at the same time, which seemed to be the climax of absurdity, they sent down five excellent Reasons why the Bill should not be passed, and having done so they washed their hands of the whole business. It seemed to him that this was a position which was wholly untenable. He might as well give a latch key of his neighbour's door to a well-known burglar and point out the way to the plate chest, and think himself free from responsibility because he react him a holy homily on the heinousness of breaking the eighth commandment. He should be sorry to go before a British jury in the hope that he would not be considered an accessory before the fact. In his opinion, the House of Lords were in the position of accessories before the fact. When a foreign nobleman came to that table as a representative of the City of London, and took an un-Christian

1755
oath, the guilt and responsibility would rest upon the House of Lords. Of course with the consciences of the House of Lords he had nothing to do, but he objected to this Bill, that it settled nothing. The House would no doubt see Baron Rothschild take his seat this Session, but the Resolution which permitted him to do so would last only during the present Parliament. He was convinced that when another appeal was made to the country the question would all be unsettled again. It appeared to him that the House of Lords had only carried a hypothetical Jew Bill, and having abandoned the whole question of Christianity, it was idle to fight for a shadow. Supposing that Her Majesty should summon Baron Rothschild to a seat in the House of Lords, he would have sat in the House of Commons as the representative of the greatest city in the world, and he would go up to the bar of the other House with the patent of the sovereign in his hand; would any one tell him that the House of Lords could refuse to admit him? Would the free admission given to the choice of liverymen of London be refused to the choice of the sovereign? Suppose the House of Lords refused to admit Baron Rothschild, the only result would be a direct collision between the Crown and the other House—the thing of all others in the world most to be deprecated. He would say that if they conceded the whole principle that Members of that House might take the oaths at the table without the words "On the true faith of a Christian," the Bill did not go far enough in the cause of civil and religious liberty, for he did not see why, if Jews were admitted to sit in Parliament, Mahomedans should be excluded. They believed the whole of the Old Testament; and, more, although they denied the divinity of our Saviour, they believed him to be a good man and an inspired prophet; whereas the Jews believed him to be an impostor; so that if there was to be any distinction it ought to be made rather in favour of Mahomedans. He was opposed to all measures for admitting Jews to Parliament, but of all the measures with that object, that which had received the sanction of the Earl of Derby, the Prime Minister of England and the leader of the Conservative party, was in his opinion, the very worst that was ever submitted to the consideration of the House.
MR. GILPINsaid, that he had no
1756
doubt the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were shared by a large majority of that House. He regarded this Bill as a miserable compromise, and he only accepted it as the best that could be got, and as for the present answering the purpose of those who wished to admit the Jews to Parliament. Those who were desirous of admitting the Jews to Parliament advocated their claims as a question of principle, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed it as a question of principle, and now there was thrown among them, with an entire ignoring of principle, this miserable subterfuge, and he was not sure that it was creditable to any party to accept it. If he had not felt that there was something more than personal feeling, at stake, he should not have thought it worth while to accept it even rather than to get nothing. He was almost inclined to prefer to postpone this question to another Session, and fighting it out upon principle, instead of agreeing to this unsatisfactory mode of settling such a question. All that could be said was, that it was a little better than nothing.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightley) with respect to this Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this was the best Bill that could be got; and if so, considering the great majority by which it was carried in both Houses, bad was the best. As so little had been said on this measure—as they were about to un-Christianize the Legislature without discussion—he should like to ask one or two questions. Did the House recollect that this was no settlement of the question at all? Every time a Jew came to the table to take the oath there must be a new Resolution passed, and in every new Parliament the question must be revived. He was not urging this as an objection to the Bill, because he believed the result would be that before many years, when the people were fairly represented in this House, there would be a vote in this House against the Jews; but he would say that the present proceeding was neither satisfactory nor creditable to the House. They had heard a great deal of the determination of this House not to be dictated to by the House of Peers. But what was the position of this question now? The House of Peers told the House of Commons—"We re-

1757
tain all our objections to the admission of Jews to Parliament; we believe that they are not fit to sit in the council of the nation, and we will not admit them to our House; but if you, the House of Commons, choose to un-Christianize your benches, we wash our hands of the matter, and leave you to make the best of it." Was that a dignified position for this House to be placed in? What, on the other hand, was the position of the Jews themselves? The House of Lords told them—"We will not admit you to our House, but if the House of Commons choose to allow you to contaminate them"—[cries of "Oh!"]—he was merely giving expression to the sentiments which would seem to be conveyed in the proposition of the House of Lords, and not using language of his own—"if they choose to admit you, they may do so." Could anything be more insulting to the Jews; It was an aggravated insult both to the House of Commons and the Jews. What he objected to, and what he regretted, was the want of consistency and foresight of those in "another place" in thus dealing with this question. The argument which was urged in favour of that inconsistency was, that if the Jews were any longer excluded from Parliament, there would be a danger of a collision between the two branches of the Legislature. That, however, was an argument which, in his opinion, was absurd, as he did not believe that there was any such danger. He believed the House of Lords might have gone on for a century to come rejecting the claims of the Jews; and if they had persevered in that consistent course, not only would there have been no feeling in the country against them, but their views would have gained ground; for he believed that the feelings of the people were not represented in the House on this question, and that the feeling of the great majority was decidedly opposed to the admission of the Jews to a seat in Parliament. There was another point which he would not pretend to argue, but he looked on this proceeding as a gross infringement of the rights of the Crown, and he should like to hear that point argued by persons competent to deal with it. Another class of persons were unjustly dealt with by this measure, and a clause had been handed to him with a request to move it in Committee; and his only reason for not wishing to do so was, that he did not desire to mix himself up in a matter so little creditable to all con-
1758
cerned in it. Otherwise he believed that the clause would be accepted by those who were in favour of civil and religious liberty by acclamation. It proposed to give the same liberty to all classes, and it proposed to add to the first clause the following words:—"Be it further enacted, that the provisions of this Bill be extended to all Turks, heretics, and infidels of every grade." [Cries of "Move!"] As he had said, he was not prepared to move at all in such a discreditable matter as this, but he would be ready to vote for such a clause, as he contended that the House was bound in justice to include Turks and heretics, and infidels, in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to perceive, from the manner in which that sentiment was received, that the clause was likely to be so popular, and he should gladly place it in the hands of any of those hon. Members who cried "Hear, hear!" In conclusion, he would compliment the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the part he had played in this matter; and he only hoped the noble Lord's own reflections, and the part he would play in the eyes of posterity in relation to this question, would be as satisfactory as he could wish.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the House was placed in a most extraordinary position. They were asked to go into Committee on a Bill in favour of which no one had said a single word. On the contrary every one had condemned it. The noble Lord opposite said it was not his Bill, and only agreed to it because it carried out the object he had in view. What was that but saying that the "end justifies the means," and was that to go forth to the country as the principle on which that House acted. This measure was a great disgrace to the other branch of Parliament, and an insult to the House of Commons. The other House asked this House to agree to a measure every word of which they reprobated, and which was only accepted because it carried out the object in view. If the Jew came into Parliament he did so with the declaration of the House of Lords, that he was "morally unfit" to legislate for the country. It was strange that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not favoured the House with his views on the constitutional part of the question. The noble Lord ought not to have been silent on that point after the challenges he had received. He would ask the noble Lord whether it was constitutional for one House of Parliament to ignore the other? The House of Commons

1759
had not been consulted in the matter. It was dangerous for the two Houses to begin to act separately by Resolution; and no one knew where such a course was to end. He particularly wished to hear, and he hoped the noble Lord would state, whether according to his views of the constitution, they in that House by themselves and without the consent of the upper House and the Crown, could take on themselves to say who was to sit in that House. In Committee he should move an Amendment to the first clause, reserving to the Crown the right of "veto," and enacting that every Resolution of this nature should be submitted to the Crown for its sanction.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that at the request of the hon. Member, and for no other reason, he would state his view of the question to the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the House was now bound to proceed by a Resolution of its own and to seat Baron Rothschild or any other Jewish member without any authority of law. Now, if this Bill passed, the House of Commons would clearly be acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament which the House of Lords had already sanctioned, and to which they hoped the Crown would also assent. In the case of Mr. Pease there might be some doubt, but in this instance there could be none Whatever. It was not for him to defend the Bill of the House of Lords; but he did think the Earl of Derby, as the head of the Conservative party, was entitled to more respect than he seemed to receive from many Conservative Members in this House.
Motion made and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
The House divided—Ayes 144; Noes 40; Majority 104.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to ask whether the object of the Bill could not be accomplished by better means than those proposed in the Bill? In the early part of the Session they had followed what he thought was a bad precedent inasmuch as the Oaths Bill they had sent up to the Lords did not afford to Roman Catholics the same advantage which was intended for Jews. In 1849 he had proposed to make one form of oath, but was then met by the argument that it would be imprudent to mix up the Roman Catholic question with the Jewish question. As the Bill now stood, taken in conjunc-
1760
tion wih the Amended Oaths Bill, there must be a fresh Resolution for each person, whereas he thought that it would be preferable to have one general Act applicable to all cases. Any other course would be only giving a veto to that House, to admit favourite persons, and would not be carrying out the principle of religious liberty, for which they were contending. For they did not maintain that there was any great advantage in having five or six gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion in that House. If this was to be considered a bargain with the Lords, he should not ask the House to break it, for he was desirous to see the Jews in this House, though he would rather see them introduced in some other manner than that they should be smuggled in in this manner. But if there were no such bargain, he would suggest that they ought to make the Resolution one which should be applicable to all cases. In conclusion, he would suggest that the words referring to the Oaths Bill should be struck out, and that the noble Lord should not press the notice he had given in reference to the Lords' Amendments of that Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, with respect to the objection that the form of oath did not apply to Roman Catholics, he would remind the Committee that that House bad decided against such form as he wished to adopt. As to the necessity of a fresh Resolution being passed in each case, he did not at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the contrary, he believed that when any Jew came to the table to be sworn and declared he had a conscientious objection to the form of oath, it would be in the power of the House to declare that thenceforth every Jewish Member might take the oath without the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The words in the present Bill were framed upon the Oaths Bill as sent to the House of Lords, and if they were to be framed according to the Oath of Abjuration, objectionable terms relating to the Pretender must still be continued. He considered that the object they had in view would be attained by this Bill, and that any Jewish Member duly elected might come to the table and avail himself of the provisions of the Bill.
MR. WILSONremarked that the Bill was not in the same state as when it passed the second reading in the House of Lords. In the original Bill the words were:—

1761
"That if any person professing the Jewish religion shall have a conscientious objection to take the Oath of Abjuration in the terms required."
On the third reading, for the purpose of compelling this House to accept another Bill, which it had already refused, and which it could not accept without assenting to reasons which were inconsistent with the step which it was now taking, these words were substituted:—
"Objection to taking the Oath which by an Act passed, or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been or may be substituted for the Oath of Allegiance."
He did not think that the course which the noble Lord now proposed to adopt would get rid of the difficulty, because, if they accepted a Bill which they had once rejected, they would make themselves parties to the Reasons which were given for its acceptance; and he should be quite prepared to vote for any Amendment which would restore this measure to the shape in which it stood when it was read a second time by the House of Lords.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that as the Bill originally stood it provided that a person professing the Jewish religion might omit the words "and I make this declaration on the true faith of a Christian." It was truly observed that these were not the words contained in the Oath of Abjuration as sent up from this House, those words being "I make this acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian." To remedy that inconsistency the House of Lords might either have put in the words which actually were in the Oath of Abjuration or have referred to the Bill. They adopted the latter alternative, and as that oath had been adopted by this House after considerable discussion, and he thought that any question as to its simplification might well be deferred, he could not admit any such Amendment as that suggested by his hon. Friend.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he moved a Proviso at the end of the first clause. If this Act passed, a Resolution of one House of the Legislature might in future become law without being liable to the veto of the Crown. He admitted that the Crown might give its veto to the Bill, but if that were not done, the power of placing a veto upon a Resolution of that House would be gone. The present appeared to him to be a most unconstitutional proceeding; and he hoped that some of those who
1762
had the constitutional duty and privilege of advising the Crown would point out to Her Majesty the danger of such a principle as that which this clause laid down. As a protest, he would move the insertion of the following proviso, at the end of the clause, without, of course, under existing circumstances, any expectation of its being adopted:—
"Provided always, that such Resolution shall not be acted upon until the consent of the Crown be signified to both Houses of Parliament."
Proviso negatived.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he wished to give notice that upon the Report he should call attention to the fact that the provisions contained in this measure were made dependent upon the passing of another Bill.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose, not to trouble the House with any formal Motion, but to state some objections to the structure of the Bill, and upon a matter of principle to which he attached great importance. This measure constituted a Royal Government in New Caledonia without free institutions, and then provided that at a future period Her Majesty might, if she thought fit, establish such institutions in the colony. There were two opposite ideas as to the proper mode of founding colonies from this country, one of which was true and the other false. The true mode was that which was historically the oldest. It was that upon which our earliest colonies were established, and which was only abandoned when exceptional circumstances began to mark the origin of our Colonies—when they were founded for the purpose of receiving, not free colonists, but convicts. It was natural enough that in such colonies there should be an absolute Government; but, unfortunately, having taken to this defective principle in deference to necessity, we extended it to cases in which it had no application, and, instead of limiting it to penal colonies, made it a model and founded all our Colonies upon that rule.

  1763
  Hence grew up a miserable spawn of most mischievous opinions with regard to our colonial policy generally. The opinion prevailed that as it was natural, or at least useful, for a child to be carried in the arms of a nurse for twelve months, so it was natural for a colony to be dandled for a term of years in the arms of the Imperial Government, in order that it might, by a process which was called education, be fitted for freedom; the fact being, on the contrary, that the longer you applied a government of that sort to a society of free men the more you unfitted them for freedom. He had hoped that the controversies of the last twenty-five years, and the Bill passed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty in 1852 for the government of New Zealand, had exploded these fallacies; and he was sanguine enough to believe that the next time we dealt with a colony of free settlers by Act of Parliament we should, like our ancestors in the seventeenth and even in the eighteenth century, recognize it as a free and self-governing society. He regretted that in this instance that mode of procedure had been departed from, and that this Bill began by establishing a society which was not free, and then provided that at a future period free institutions might, if it was thought fit, be introduced into it. He wished the Government could be prevailed upon to embody in this Bill the principle that we were about to establish a free society. It might be said that in this colony of New Caledonia we should have a mixed and promiscuous population, of irregular habits, uncertain objects, and various origin, and that on that account it would not be right that the colony should be founded with free institutions at the outset. He was sceptical with regard to the gist of that argument, because he was afraid that if it was difficult to maintain the public peace in this new colony, if there was likely to be a considerable charge attending its foundation, the evils would be greatly aggravated by placing the responsibility in the hands of the Executive Government, especially when we considered the enormous distance at which they were to wield their powers. At the same time he was prepared to repose confidence in the Executive Government upon that subject, and to throw upon them the responsibility of suspending, if they thought fit, the establishment of free institutions. But he wanted that that should be done in deference to a distinct necessity, of which the Executive Govern-
  1764
  ment were to be constituted the judges, and with respect to which Parliament should hold them responsible, and require them hereafter to show for every year and every month during which free institutions were not established that there was an absolute necessity for postponing them strictly connected with the exceptional circumstances of the colony itself. If, therefore, the Government had chosen to frame their Bill in such a way that it should begin with the establishment of free institutions in principle, and should then grant to the Crown a special discretion, strictly limited to peculiar circumstances and a sufficient cause, of suspending their action, he, for one, would not have objected; but that was not a course which had been adopted. Anybody who read this Bill, knowing nothing of our colonial history, would suppose that it really expressed our normal ideas with respect to the foundation of a colony, and that our notion was that a colony should be founded as a community unfit for freedom. Moreover, the power given to Her Majesty to establish free institutions was expressed in a manner so vague that it did not imply any special duty in the Crown or the Minister to give an early development to freedom. He could not help expressing regret at the form in which this Bill had been conceived and framed. Although for a length of time we had been steadily advancing with regard to our colonial policy, and although the public mind at home had arrived at something like a general settlement as to the true principles by which it ought to be regulated, new, when an Act of Parliament was to be passed recording our present ideas, it was one which, instead of carrying them forward, actually appeared to carry them backward.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he fully agreed in the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that the practice of allowing a colony to start with free institutions and grow up with them was the best means of insuring its prosperity. When in office he had acted on that principle in the case of Vancouver's Island. There was at that time so small a population that free institutions were but a name, but he thought that as population increased that name would become a reality. It was doubtless not necessary to remind the right hon. Gentleman that an Act of Parliament was not necessary for the establishment of free institutions in our Colonies. By the common

  1765
  law of England, an Englishman carried the constitution with him everywhere, and the constitution existed in every colony. The three estates were represented—the Crown by the governor, the Commons by an elective body, and the Lords by a nominated council, and that form of government he believed to be the best. But really, under circumstances so very peculiar as those of the colony of New Caledonia, they must not shut their eyes to the dangers that would arise from giving free institutions at once. The main attraction was the gold, which was about 300 miles from the coast. The population, which would there be established at a distance from all communication, would be the outpourings of California itself, not a very regular society. Not long ago free institutions had to be suspended in California, and it was only by a sort of Lynch law that any sort of order was maintained. There was also great danger of conflicts with Indian tribes, which were used to find their rights respected, and the settlers would not be of a class likely to respect those rights. The colonial government of England had been often blamed, but most unjustly, for he questioned if any other country in the world ever had a better system. In the colony of Victoria, peace and order prevailed, whereas, in California, under a Republican form of Government, the Executive was almost powerless and in such a state that Lynch law had to be established. A comparison, therefore, between that State and Victoria, where, under our more liberal system, there was very little disturbance, and that little speedily quelled, they would afford a strong argument in favour of our old-fashioned colonial institutions. With regard to the frame of the Bill itself, he thought great credit was due to the Government. They had provided wisely for times of emergency and he should feel it his duty to give them his support. He wished, however, to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the third clause, which purported to give Her Majesty in Council power to establish any constitution which she might think fit in New Caledonia. Now it was one thing to give the Queen, under special circumstances, power to establish something like an arbitrary government there; it was altogether another thing to give the Queen in Council power to establish any constitution she might think fit. As he read the clause it appeared to give the Queen in Council power to establish institutions, which should be
  1766
  permanent institutions, for the colony, by order in Council, without coming to this House. That, he thought, would be most objectionable. He thought it ought to be either the old constitutional form, or one which should be submitted to Parliament and approved by them.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought that a mistaken notion was entertained respecting the peculiar power of the Crown. The Crown had authority by charter to give what power it pleased with respect to government, so that, in fact, the Crown, without the aid of any Act of Parliament, could give any institutions it pleased to the colony. That could be shown by past history. He might take the cases of Maryland and Rhode Island, in the latter of which there was one Council, and in the other two Councils, while in Carolina a complicated system of government laid down by Locke was established by charter, but afterwards abandoned. The present Bill would expire in four years, and therefore the Colonial Secretary would be bound to provide for the expiration of the Bill. It was probable that by that time New Caledonia would contain a large population. In 1849 he proposed to frame a Bill with the view of laying down general principles as a guidance in respect to colonial government. That proposition was rejected by the House, but he thought that they would have done well to lay down some general principles beforehand. In the present Bill there was nothing that might not be done without it, and he therefore thought that the House was spending time to no purpose in discussing it. The Bill stated that certain institutions might be given to the colony, but he conceived that it would have been better to make it imperative that at the end of three years representative institutions should be given, so that nothing might be left to the Colonial Office. Not having done that, the Bill did nothing. It would be much better to give the colony free institutions to-morrow than to leave a doubt as to when it should have them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) was under a mistake when he drew a comparison between California and Victoria. California had a peculiar population drawn from all parts of the world. The whole ragamuffin population of the whole universe went there; and, notwithstanding that, if the right hon. Gentleman turned his attention to the constitution they drew up for themselves he would be struck with its great wisdom. It was a model constitu-

  1767
  tion, and the only difficulty consisted in the population. There would be the same population in New Caledonia,—quite as bad, if not worse,—and he would warn the Government to be prepared with a stringent force to coerce the population there, and then to be prepared, also, with a constitution for their government.
  SIR BULWER LYTTONsaid, that whatever fell from the right hon. Member for Oxford University was deserving of consideration, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of expressing his views on this subject. It would, however, have been a fairer course to have done so on the second reading of the Bill, or at any rate to have given an earlier intimation of the important alteration he had suggested, for the present was not an optional experiment in colonial legislation. The intelligence received from the colony of New Caledonia was such as to leave the Ministry no choice but to endeavour to establish, as soon as possible, a Government for a district which was threatened with great danger, and which, up to this moment, had no legal Government at all. The necessity for this measure manifested itself in a few days after he acceded to office; and his anxious desire, seeing the great perils which surrounded the district, had been to frame a measure that should pass as rapidly as possible, and conciliate all opposition. Well, the Bill he brought in was supported by hon. Gentlemen of great weight in the House, who had taken much interest in the foundation of the colony. It went through a first reading with the general approval of all the hon. Gentlemen who spoke; passed a second reading with equal unanimity; in Committee received one or two verbal alterations only; and would have been read a third time had it not been recommitted to allow the right hon. Gentleman to express his opinion upon this clause. After the Bill had gone through so many of its stages with indulgent favour, the House could hardly go back and accept a proposition that would entirely change its complexion and character, and reverse the provisions which had been so unanimously agreed to. Their first object must necessarily be to give all the power they could to the only authority at present in the colony—the Governor; but if he were to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, the consequences would be that the Governor would not have the same power that he had under this Bill. Con-
  1768
  sidering the great uncertainty which prevailed with regard to this colony, the next consideration was to make the Bill as pliant as possible to meet all the necessities of circumstances which we could not perceive. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) objected to the third clause. Now, it certainly was the object of the Government that the colony should receive representative institutions within four years, if there were materials for creating them in the colony. Supposing, however, a settled population were rapidly formed, the Government might then be advised to constitute an elective chamber or council, and by Order in Council it could at once be established. He felt the force of what the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said with respect to the importance of maintaining a snfficient military force in New Caledonia, but that force must necessarily be to some extent limited by the accommodation and the provisions which could be procured for the troops, and under such circumstances he thought it was of more importance that that force should be efficient than that it should be large. He should have some observatious to make on this subject at a subsequent period, but he hoped that as the Bill had been so far favourably received, the House would give a further assent to the measure by allowing it to pass through Committee.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, an hon. Gentleman had asked the other night what the colony would cost. In his opinion it ought to cost nothing, and he believed that if certain portions of the colony were surveyed, if a site were selected for a town near the gold diggings, if town and country lots were planned, and if they were offered for sale in London, a sufficient amount would speedily be obtained for the maintenance of the colony.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  In reply to a question from Mr. BUTT,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill provided that the laws established by the authority of the Queen should continue in force for a period of four years; but if free institutions were established, it would be in the power of the colonial assembly to alter, amend, or abrogate any laws which might have been established by the Royal authority.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3,
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to know whether he understood this clause

  1769
  aright, that it gave to the Crown the power of establishing any constitution it might think proper without the sanction of Parliament. If so, he thought it was a novelty and one of a very unconstitutional kind. He quite understood and approved of the arbitrary Government, if he might so call it, which this Bill established in the first instance, but the Crown could establish no other. By the common law every Englishman carried with him to the most distant colonies the representation of our own constitution, and nothing short of that could be established except under the authority of Parliament. He thought the clause should be struck out.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreminded the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill established in the first instance, as he said, an arbitrary Government, and what this clause contemplated was an abrogation or relaxation of those arbitrary powers. But the short answer was, that all that was done under this Act would be liable to be revised and reconsidered when it came to expire four years hence.
  MR. ROEBUCKcontended that, supposing this clause were struck out, the Queen would still have the power to give a constitution by charter, and without coming to Parliament, and in proof he referred to the constitution of Rhode Island, which was constituted by Charles II, with only one legislative chamber. He was not aware that either Act of Parliament or custom had since taken away the right of the Crown, which had been exercised so lately as the settlement of the colony of Georgia, the last of the American colonies that was planted by this country.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understood to say, that the Crown certainly might grant a charter and appoint a Governor and Council, but the power of taxation should come from the people to be in accordance with the constitution of this country. After four years, if necessary, Government might come to Parliament to establish any other constitution which the Governor and Assembly might agree to recommend.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was quite impossible, after the expiration of four years, to establish a constitution under this Act, as powers were given only during the continuance of the Act, the Crown could grant any form of government which it thought fit by charter, but it could not grant the power of taxation by charter. This Bill was framed upon the Acts relat-
  1770
  ing to West Australia and other colonies, in which, under the same words, the right of taxation was conferred. It was one of the reasons why the Government came to Parliament; but there was another reason which seemed to have been overlooked by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—namely, that at present Canada possessed certain jurisdiction which would clash with the jurisdiction given by this Bill.
  Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.

CIVIL BILLS, ETC. (IRELAND), ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, the effect of which was to prevent assistant barristers being removed by an Order in Council. Superior Judges could be only removed by an Address from both Houses of Parliament, and he proposed to place the inferior Judges in the same position.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment was out of order. They were dealing not with the superior Judges, but the assistant barristers.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would, of course, take the law from the Chairman.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to know what was meant by the words "permanent infirmity."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Act provided a retiring allowance to assistant barristers in the case of permanent infirmity; and the meaning of these words was incapacity to discharge the duties of the office personally. The phrase occurred in an existing Act; but he would alter the clause, so as to give the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incompetent to perform his duties on account of a permanent infirmity; and to make the Lord Lieutenant in Council, after hearing counsel for the barrister, to decide on the question of his removal.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that he still feared that there might be vague and uncertain

  1771
  decisions, under the clause, of what constituted permanent infirmity.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the definition was well understood, and that no difficulty would arise.
  MR. P. O'BRIENobserved, that he preferred the constitutional remedy of removal by an Address.
  MR. BUTTremarked, that it was much more humane to the individual for the Lord Chancellor to certify that an assistant barrister was incapacitated by permanent infirmity, than that his physical and mental incapacity should be brought before both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, the penalty held over the head of the assistant barrister was, after all, not a very terrible one. At the worst a man could only be sent into retirement with two-thirds of his salary.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the Bill only gave the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incapable of performing his duties, and the Privy Council was then empowered to take steps for the removal of the individual in question. Now, there might be an unscrupulous Lord Chancellor in Ireland, and as the Privy Council was summoned at will by the Government of the day, there was no sufficient provision for the independence of the Judge. He did not think, therefore, that this was a tribunal that Would conciliate the confidence of the public.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved, that the case put was worthy of consideration. He had no objection, in such a case, that the clause should be so amended as to require that on such an occasion all the members of the Privy Council should be summoned.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, as the opinion of the people of Ireland was opposed to this change, he hoped that this provision would not be insisted upon. At present, no Bill was necessary to remove incapable Judges, as the Government already possessed the power to do so.
  MR. COGANsaw no reason why this power of removal should not be extended, so as to include the superior Judges. He wished to have an instruction given to the Committee to that effect. And in order to effect his object, he moved that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that such an instruction could not be given to the Committee.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the Government
  1772
  ought to be satisfied with carrying the Bill with one clause; and in a short time there would be no danger of having incapable men sitting upon the bench in Ireland. Give a man the certainty of retiring with two-thirds of his salary, and there would be no danger of any man in a state of infirmity remaining on the bench.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he regarded the office of assistant barrister as altogether an anomaly, and on that ground he was wholly opposed to the Bill, as well as for the reason that the House was increasing the pensions of the old and effete as a bribe to get rid of them.
  SIR, WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the clause, as he believed that there was scarcely a single argument having reference to the assistant barristers which had not equal reference to the Judges.
  Motion for reporting progress negatived.
  MR. COGANsaid, he would move an Amendment to the effect that seven days' notice of meeting should be given to the members of the Privy Council.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 98; Noes 50: Majority 48.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 struck out.
  The House resumed.
  MR. COGANproposed a clause to allow the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments from barristers of seven years' standing, instead of ten years. This would assimilate the law to that of England.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the Government could not accept the clause.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDadvised that the clause should be withdrawn and brought up again on the Report.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, that on the bringing up of the Report he should move the recommittal of the Bill, in order that it might be extended to the Judges of the Superior Courts.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

POLICE FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.

  WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for resuming adjourned debate [8th July] read.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to ask for the production of the correspond-

  1773
  ence affecting the character of Mr. M. O'Ferrall
  LORD NAASsaid, he was surprised to hear that it was supposed that any aspersion was ever cast, or intended to be cast, on Mr. O'Ferrall. Had there been any imputation upon that Gentleman, there would be no objection to the production of the correspondence, but as none had ever been made or intended, it would serve no purpose to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to give notice that early next Session he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Dublin police force.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL—CONSIDERATION.
Order for consideration read.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether there would be any objection to extend the exemption from toll now accorded to foot passengers on Sunday to Easter Monday and Whit Monday?
LORD JOHN MANNERShad no objection to the proposition.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3oTo-morrow.
House adjourned at half-after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c; Indemnity; Army Service; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Reformatory Schools (Ireland); Administration of Oaths by Committees.
2a Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Lunatics (Scotland) Act Amendment; Local Government.
3a New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Navigation Advances (Ireland); Prescription (Ireland).

THE MASSACRE AT JEDDAH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: Before your Lordships proceed to the regular business of the day I wish to put a question or two to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, whom I have the advantage of seeing in his place. The few sentences by which I propose to explain the object of my inquiries will occupy a very short time, and I feel confident that my noble Friend will reply not only with his usual conciseness, but with his characteristic courtesy. The matter to which I think it right to call attention is the late atrocious, and, to all appearance, unprovoked massacre of Christians at Jeddah. Judging from what has appeared on this subject in the public journals, the circumstances which accompanied the commission of the crime are better known than those from which it sprang, or those
  1656
  in which it terminated. There is no small reason to apprehend that the assault was premeditated, and no satisfactory reason for believing that the Turkish authorities were either active in protecting the victims or in punishing their assailants. At all events, whether we look to the relentless fury of the fanatics, or the number and character of those who fell under their blows, the massacre perpetrated in Arabia is no less important than afflicting. I cannot for a moment suppose that any remissness exhibited by the local Pasha, or his lieutenant, is attributable to the Turkish Government. No doubt, the Sultan and his Ministers were deeply and sincerely distressed when the horrible intelligence reached Constantinople, nor do I entertain the least apprehension of their hesitating to promise an immediate and complete satisfaction. But there is no denying that justice in Turkey is apt to move at a slow pace, and that, whether the object be punishment or compensation, the promise given to a foreign representative is but too often unnecessarily delayed and inadequately fulfilled. It may be presumed in the present instance that Her Majesty's Government have taken the necessary steps for obtaining reparation, and that they will be prepared to enforce, in concert, if necessary, with the French Government, that exemplary amount of retribution which may produce a wholesome and lasting effect throughout the Ottoman empire. Considering the great interests which call for a continual progress in friendly communications and mutual good-will between the nations of Christendom and the inhabitants of Turkey, we are bound to follow up the aid given in time of war to the Sultan by that encouragement to the repression of fanaticism in his dominions which our insistance on a full measure of atonement on the present occasion, whether to the public, or to individual sufferers, is calculated to afford. I trust, at the same time, that an idea, which has been whispered about, of taking security against future assaults on our Christian fellow subjects in Turkey by the occupation of Mecca, or the seizure of some precious object of veneration treasured within its walls, has no foundation in reality. It is possible that such an enterprise might succeed in a military point of view; but no degree of success in that respect could make up for the bitterness of hatred which it would engender against us throughout the Mussulman world, and which in its natural consequences could hardly fail of proving fatal

  1657
  to all our hopes respecting the progress of improvement in Turkey,—to those prospects of cordial reconciliation between the professors of conflicting creeds which the Sultan's wise benevolence and the triumph of his allies in the late war have so eminently promoted. I have to conclude these necessary words of explanation by thanking your Lordships for the indulgence with which you have received them, and addressing, in a distinct form, the questions I have in mind to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I wish to know, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received any official advices of the massacre perpetrated at Jeddah, as stated in the public prints; secondly, whether instructions have been issued for demanding full reparation from the Porte by means of the British and French representatives at Constantinople; and, thirdly, whether adequate measures are to be employed for enforcing our just demands in the event of obstructions or delays amounting to a denial of justice?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that those questions could not come with greater propriety than from my noble Friend who has just sat down, who has spent a life of eminent services chiefly in endeavouring to counteract those evil influences of which we now see the bitter fruits. On Sunday—yesterday week—I received, at an early hour, a telegram which your Lordships have doubtless all read respecting the late massacre of Christians at Jeddah. I did not lose an hour in sending back another telegram to Sir Henry Bulwer, giving him instructions to the effect that if the scenes so described had really taken place, he was to allow of no trifling whatever on the part of the Government of the Sultan, but to insist upon immediate redress, and upon such retribution as was necessary for the outrages that had been committed. In the course of the week, Mr. Greene, Her Majesty's Consul at Alexandria, wrote a full account of what had taken place at Jeddah; founded on a statement of the facts from Captain Pullen, commander of the Cyclops, one of Her Majesty's vessels which happened to be lying outside Jeddah at the time. It appears, my Lords, that a dispute had arisen between the Turkish authorities and the captain of the Cyclops, with respect to the real owners of a certain ship, which was an Indian vessel—that is, a ship belonging to some of Her Majesty's Indian sub-
  1658
  jects. Those Indian subjects, it appears, wished to change the nationality of the vessel, and to assume the Ottoman protection. That was a proceeding wholly contrary to law, because those parties could not claim Ottoman protection and the Ottoman law to the detriment of their allegiance to England, and of what they owed to the English Government. The matter being disputed, it was brought before a legal tribunal; where it was decided that the ship was English, and not Turkish. But, in the course of a few days, notwithstanding this decision, the English flag was lowered, and the Ottoman flag hoisted. Nothing further passed for two days; but at the end of that time, without any suspicion on the part of Captain Pullen of any serious disturbance having taken place, this gentleman perceived some Greeks swimming towards his ship, who, upon his interrogating them, gave him the first account of the massacre then going on. It appeared that the Governor had only a few soldiers at the time under his command; but, as far as Captain Pullen's statement goes, that functionary behaved as well as he possibly could under the circumstances; for four or five of his soldiers were killed in his exertions to afford protection to the outraged party, and he succeeded in saving the lives of the daughter of the French Consul, and of other Christian persons, who found security in his own house. After hearing this account, Captain Pullen sent some boats ashore to rescue those persons, and he succeeded in saving the lives of about twenty-five individuals, who were subsequently brought to Suez in safety. I believe that Captain Pullen conceived that he had not sufficient strength to take further measures, and I am of opinion that he acted with discretion. He, however, took steps before he left the shore to give the murdered Consul Christian burial; and he insisted upon the authorities of the place sending off to the Pasha immediately for Turkish troops. I understand, my Lords, that the Pasha has since proceeded with some troops to Jeddah. So much as to the facts of the case as far as we know them. My noble Friend has asked me what Her Majesty's Government have done in respect to their own action in this matter, and whether we have demanded immediate reparation from the Porte? I am glad to say, my Lords, that it scarcely requires any urgency on the part of Sir Henry Bulwer to induce the Porte to

  1659
  take up with a great spirit of indignation the cause of the sufferers. Without troubling your Lordships with the parleying that took place for a few days, it is sufficient for me to state that a Pasha has been actually sent to Jeddah with a large force of troops from Egypt to put down any fanatic insurrection, supposing such should arise. In accordance with the strong remonstrances of Her Majesty's Government, he has been armed with power of life and death, to execute capital punishment upon any offenders whom he should deem deserving of the same in Jeddah, without reference to Constantinople, which he would have been otherwise obliged to do by the laws of the country. My impression is, that it will not require any great exertions on our part to use any force, or to assist in any way the Turkish Government in obtaining justice and retribution for this horrible massacre. The Turkish Government are perfectly ready to do their duty. They are proceeding energetically at this moment; and Sir Henry Bulwer is convinced that the Pasha will carry out the orders he has received with the greatest promptitude and energy. In respect to the rumours my noble Friend has heard as to the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send an armed force to Mecca or other cities, they are entirely without foundation. I trust your Lordships are convinced, without any assurance from me, that our object is to secure the integrity of the Turkish empire, and at the same time to encourage and assist the Sultan in proceeding with those reforms which, I may say, have been originated by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe). Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any extraordinary fanaticism has been shown in any other portion of the Turkish empire at this moment. The unfortunate affair at Jeddah originated principally from the dispute about the ship of which I have spoken. I trust I shall be able, in a few days, to state what steps have been taken in Jeddah by the Pasha to obtain justice.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—WEDNESDAYS.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, looking at the state of public business, considering the number of Bills that had just come up from the other House of Parliament, and seeing that the House of Commons had arrived at the important stage when the last Votes had been passed by the Committee of Supply, he hoped it would not be felt he was asking too much in proposing that the
1660
House of Lords should meet on the Wednesdays in this and the next week, for about an hour, upon the understanding that they would not take any measure that was likely to raise a serious discussion, but would rather confine their attention to Bills to which there were no objections. If any Bill were brought forward upon which a discussion was likely to arise he would wish it to be understood by the House that such measure should only proceed pro forma, so that the discussion could be taken on its next stage. He hoped that no objection would be raised to this course at the present period of the Session.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the proposed arrangement upon the understanding mentioned.

FORMS OF PRAYER.—THE STATE SERVICES.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved "That Her Majesty's most gracious answer to the Address of this House of the 28th day of June last be now read:" and the same was read as follows:
  "I have received your Address, praying that I will take into My Consideration the Proclamation of the First Year of My Reign, commanding the Use of the Forms of Prayer and Service made for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, and the Twenty-ninth of May; and should I see fit, that I will give such Orders as to Me shall seem meet to cause that the said Services shall no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said Days:
  "And you may rely on My giving the Subject of your Address the careful Consideration which its importance demands."
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthen rose to move the Address to Her Majesty of which he had given notice with respect to the special Church services of the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of May. The noble Duke said that he must in the first place explain that it was not possible for him to have moved that Address as an Amendment upon that which had been proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) a few nights ago; because that was a Motion which, in his

  1661
  opinion, ought not to have been met otherwise than by a direct negative. As that Address, however, had been agreed to both by their Lordships and by the other House of Parliament, he thought it his duty now to propose an Address to Her Majesty, requesting that she would command that there should be substituted for the services in question, if they should be removed from the Prayer-book, some memorial of those great deliverances for which this nation ought to be so constantly grateful. The noble Earl who moved the Address on a former evening (Earl Stanhope) stated that these services rested solely on the authority of a Royal Proclamation, and with singular inconsistency he asked their Lordships to pray Her Majesty to invalidate her own authority. Another argument urged against them was that they had not been sanctioned by Convocation. This was very delicate ground to touch upon. No one could be more disposed to pay all due respect to Convocation than he was; but he could not admit that a service which had the authority of a Royal Proclamation, ought to be disregarded, simply because it had not the sanction of Convocation. A further argument urged was, that expressions were used in these services entirely unsuited to the present time; and in the justice of that argument be was inclined to some extent to agree. But the great difference between the times in which these services were instituted and our own ought to be borne in mind. The most objectionable parts of these services depended on the florid, high-flown personal references contained in them. Though the feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Throne was no less warm now than in those times, yet it was not our habit to use such high-flown expressions of adulation in respect to the person of the Sovereign as were common then, and it would be found on examination that it was in that particular that these services were most objectionable to the public taste of the day. He did not desire that these objectionable parts should be retained, but simply that the recollection of the great events in our national history and the great deliverances which God had vouchsafed to this country should be kept alive. Even if the services themselves were expunged, some memorial ought to be retained in the liturgy of the Church of the events therein commemorated. The Acts of Parliament on which these services rested had not yet been re-
  1662
  pealed, and so long as that was the case there was an inconsistency in sending up Addresses to the Crown, requesting it to do an act which would be in direct contradiction of those Acts. The events of those days were intimately associated with the national prosperity, and he could not conceive that, in asking their Lordships to agree to an Address to have them commemorated, he was asking their assent to anything which was not acceptable to them. It was perfectly true that a long period had elapsed since that great wickedness of the 5th of November was about to be perpetrated, but he was sure there were thousands of hearts which, when the memory of those events returned, swelled with thankfulness at the deliverance of the country from ruin and desolation. It might be true that some of the phrases in the services which now appeared in the Book of Common Prayer were not in accordance with the feelings of the present day. Let those phrases be expunged, bat let them not be ashamed of confessing the national dependence on the Providence of God. He proposed that in the only service which his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) had spared—relating to the Accession of Her Majesty—some allusion should be made to those events which, by a wonderful co-operation had led to the present occupancy of a Protestant and constitutional Throne. The noble Duke concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, if it should be Her pleasure that the Services of the 5th November, the 30th January, and the 29th May should no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, in accordance with the Address of the House of Lords, to direct that there be hereafter inserted in the Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving appointed for the 20th day of June, being the day on which Her Majesty began Her happy Reign, such Form of Thanksgiving, as Her Majesty may see fit, for the great Deliverances which by the mercy of God have been vouchsafed to this Nation—namely:
  "The Rescue of the Estates of Parliament from the Conspiracy of the 5th November, 1605; and,
  "The Restoration of the Church and Monarchy in 1660; and
  "The Deliverance from Papal Subjection and arbitrary Power through the Landing of King William III. in 1688:
  "Of which several events the Nation is still enjoying the blessings in the security of Her Majesty's Throne."
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he had hoped that this question had been disposed of three weeks ago, and he questioned whether, in making this Motion the noble Duke was recommending a course consonant with

  1663
  that sincere desire for the welfare of the Church by which he was known to be animated. He was charged with inconsistency, because he had not upon a recent occasion proposed to repeal the Acts of Parliament upon which the Royal Proclamation issued for these special services. But the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Oxford thought the notion of an Address to the Crown preferable, and if the Royal Proclamation were withdrawn the object would be accomplished, because the Act would then be a dead letter. It was true that the noble Earl representing the Government (the Earl of Malmesbury) said he should have preferred a repeal of the Act, but he assigned as the reason because the other House would then have concurred; and since that time the other House had concurred by unanimously adopting an Address to the Crown identical with that which, at his instance, had been adopted by their Lordships. He entirely dissented from the Motion of the noble Duke, which he looked upon as a retrograde movement, and he should feel it his duty to divide the House against it if it was not withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he felt deeply indebted to the noble Duke for proposing his Motion. No lapse of time ought to prevent this nation from cherishing gratitude to God for the signal blessings which He had conferred upon this country at various periods of its history, and the gracious interpositions by which he had saved it from impending ruin; and no time could be more appropriate for their commemoration than the time when we were commemorating the Accession of our most gracious Sovereign to the throne. A total oblivion of the signal mercies of Divine Providence would fill his mind with alarm. Such things ought to be kept fresh in the recollection of the people, and nothing would tend more to the overthrow of this nation than forgetfulness of the mercies which it had received at the hands of Providence. Let them once forget such events as were referred to in the noble Duke's Motion, and from that moment their sun would set.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he hoped that if this Motion were carried the Government would do something more than advise Her Majesty to recall the Proclamation in virtue of which these services were read—namely, bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament on which that Proclamation was based. So long as these Acts remained unrepealed a court of law might enforce
  1664
  their performance. He had no objection to a short collect being added to the service for the Accession of the Queen, with a view to commemorate the events now celebrated in these services.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that although his noble Friend (Viscount Dungannon) had stated that these services were enjoined by Act of Parliament, it would have been more correct to say that the observance of the days was ordered by Act of Parliament, and that during several reigns the use of these forms was enjoined by Royal proclamation; for the Acts said nothing about these services, which were prepared afterwards. The more advisable course in regard to these forms of prayer would have been, not to address the Crown to direct that they should be omitted from the Liturgy, but to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament enjoining the observance of these days. Parliament, however, had adopted a different view; and the opinion of both Houses of Parliament having been made known to Her Majesty, She would, no doubt, see fit to direct that a course should be taken in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. The Motion of the noble Duke appeared to him to rescind the previous Resolution for an Address to the Crown; and for the same reason that he had voted for the Resolution, he should vote against the present Motion, if it were pressed to a division. The events commemorated in these services were undoubtedly very important occurrences in the history of this country, and afforded great cause for thankfulness; yet it was not pretended that every great blessing and every signal deliverance in our history either was or ought to be commemorated by a special service. He did not remember a greater peril or a more signal deliverance than that from the Spanish Armada; and if special services were to be kept up, he did not see why we should not return thanks for the discomfiture of the Spanish Armada. Then, again, the Reformation exercised a most important influence upon the character and constitution of this country, yet it was not thought necessary to celebrate it by a special thanksgiving. He thought the time had come for the discontinuance of these services, and he did not think it would be advisable to incorporate a portion of them into another service to which no objection was taken.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that it was, no doubt, a mistake to suppose that

  1665
  these particular services were enjoined by Act of Parliament. The days were commanded to be observed by Act of Parliament, but the services themselves rested upon a Royal Proclamation; and that being withdrawn, the services would be also withdrawn. With regard to the service of the Fifth of November, he entertained a strong conviction that thanksgivings for Her Majesty's accession ought not to be mixed up with anything calculated to embitter our feelings towards our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. His great objection to the service for the Fifth of November was, that it involved the whole Roman Catholic body in an act which was not theirs, but the act of certain conspirators. He need not remind their Lordships that the battle of Inkerman was fought on the 5th of November; and it would be most undesirable, while thanking God for Her Majesty's auspicious reign, to revive feelings of bitterness towards Her Roman Catholic subjects.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he regretted the opposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to his Motion, but he would not divide the House.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the second reading of this Bill, which was, he said, required by the present unsatisfactory state of the law. Some measure was necessary in order to terminate the discussions to which recent conflicting decisions of the Courts had given rise. He added that such a measure had become absolutely necessary, in order to place the trusts of many scholastic foundations in the country in conformity with the decisions of the Courts of law at the present time, as to the admissibility of Dissenters to such trusts where they had not been expressly excluded by the terms of the deed of foundation; and he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading, as otherwise an element of discord would be introduced into a great number of the public schools in the kingdom.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this Bill, though very unpretending in appearance, for it consisted of only one clause, seemed to him likely to be fraught with
  1666
  important consequences. The noble Lord said it would prevent an element of discord being introduced into the different towns where foundations of this kind existed. The measure was founded on the decision in the case of the Ilminster School, where the Master of the Rolls and the Lords Justices came to different conclusions as to the admissibility of Dissenters to be trustees of the school. The noble Lord had proposed a general measure, applicable to all schools and foundations, and providing that no person should be prevented from being nominated or acting as a trustee on account of his religious opinions unless there was an express provision for such exclusion in the deed of foundation. Of course, where there was an express provision excluding Dissenters, they must be excluded; but there were many instruments of foundation by which Dissenters were excluded by necessary implication as strong as any expressed provision, from acting as trustees, though they were not so excluded by express terms; and yet the noble Lord would include all such schools in his Bill. The effect of the measure would be to interfere with Church schools and Church foundations, and in all such cases Dissenters would be admitted as trustees where they had not been expressly excluded by the deed of foundation. He thought such a Bill would be fraught with mischievous consequences, and he therefore moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") for the purpose of inserting ("this day three months").
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was persuaded that the Bill in its principle was a most useful measure, and that with one modification it ought to receive the assent of their Lordships. The only Amendment required in the Bill was one which would meet the objection put forward by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and which would provide that Dissenters should not serve as trustees of schools in any case in which, by necessary implication, they were excluded from the office under the will of the founders. It was only because the school at Ilminster had been founded in the time of Henry VIII., when it was presumed there were no Dissenters, that members of that body had been declared by the Lords Justices disqualified from serving as trustees. The law upon that subject was at present in a

  1667
  very unsatisfactory condition, and it was very desirable that it should be amended.
  THE EARL OF DERBYaltogether dissented from the principle embodied in the Bill, which was, that whatever might have been the presumed or the real intentions of the founder, and though it might be manifest from the object of the school that none but Churchmen should hold the office of trustees, yet, if there were no express terms in the deed prohibiting Dissenters from becoming trustees, the courts of law should be bound to declare that Dissenters were eligible for such functions.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that Dissenters had filled the office of trustee for such an institution for 150 years past; but by a recent decision the usage of a century and a half had been reversed. This fact showed that the law was in an unsatisfactory state, and ought to be reconsidered. Although he admitted that this measure went too far, it might easily be modified in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsuggested the postponement of the Bill for a few days, with a view to secure the presence at its discussion of several noble and learned Lords now absent, and also to afford an opportunity of consulting the Charity Commissioners as to its provisions. In consequence of the recent decisions, he feared that by the suspension of all action in this matter till next Session there was a danger that parties would be involved in costly litigation. A short Bill might be introduced to prevent this; and next Session the whole subject might be dealt with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that if the discussion were deferred for a few days they would lose the assistance of some noble and learned Lords now present.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in reply, said, that he would not call on their Lordships to divide.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Three Months.

UNIVERSITY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in pursuance of notice, rose to move the omission of words in the 14th line of the clause, which would have the effect of preventing the union of Marischal and King's Colleges, Aberdeen.
  1668
  The noble Earl said, that when asked to undertake to move the Amendment he very naturally referred to the noble Earl the Lord Rector (Earl Stanhope); but he was told that the noble Earl felt some delicacy on account of his being named one of the Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill when it became law. He need hardly say that the thanks of all who had the welfare of Scotland at heart were due to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced and carried forward this Bill, and that he was not actuated by any considerations of a party character in seeking to remedy what was thought very generally to be a deficiency in the measure. Their Lordships were aware that the clause as it now stood would effect the consolidation of the two Universities and the two Colleges of Aberdeen into one University and one College. If the Amendment which he was about to propose were adopted, there would be only one University, but the Colleges would remain separate. In Scotland the Universities were conducted upon the Professorial system—that was to say, there were large classes presided over by Professors; and in the Universities of Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Glasgow, it was impossible that the Professors could exercise any very close superintendence over the studies of such large numbers. But in Aberdeen, in consequence of there, being two Colleges with separate staffs of Professors, the Professors could exercise that most desirable supervision. The Lord Rector had, on a former occasion, described how the poorer classes, and even labourers, underwent great privations in order to obtain the advantage of a University education. In the Report which was laid on their Lordships' table some years ago of an inquiry into the University of Oxford, it was stated that one of the great causes of expense in that University was the necessity under which every one was placed, who wished to compete for honours, of employing at considerable expense the services of a private tutor, and it was suggested as a remedy that the staff of the Colleges should be increased. But it was proposed by this clause to take a step in a direction entirely contrary to that suggestion. It was proposed to fuse two Colleges into one, and to reduce the number of Professors at Aberdeen to something more than half—so that there would be a much smaller number of teachers, and consequently either a more superficial or a more expensive edu-

  1669
  cation. It was well known that the standard of education in Aberdeen was higher than in any other of the Universities of Scotland; and to keep up the standard with this alteration it would be necessary to engage the services of private tutors. The inhabitants of Aberdeen considered that they derived great benefits from the competition of the two Colleges. They were quite ready to confess that the competition between the Universities was of a very improper character—as tending injuriously to lower the fees—but they contended that, if the two Universities only were united, the improper competition would be extinguished, and the proper competition between the two Colleges retained. It was stated the other night in the course of the discussion, that the reports of all the Commissions which had reported on the state of Scotch Universities were unanimously in favour of the union of the Colleges. He ventured to say that it was a most unjustifiable assertion, and that there never had been more diversity of opinion upon any question than upon this very question of the Colleges of Aberdeen. The first Commission, which reported in 1830, was in favour of the union of the Colleges. The next, which reported in 183S, and again in 1839, recommended the union of the Universities, and said nothing about the Colleges. The last Commission, consisting of three gentlemen, did report in favour of a union of the Colleges; but one of the Commissioners—Mr. Stirling—had since changed his opinion. Mr. Stirling stated, in his place in the House of Commons, that certain circumstances had come to his knowledge which caused him to alter his opinion with respect to the union of the Colleges of Aberdeen; and he also stated that he had no doubt the same circumstances which influenced him would have influenced the opinion of another member of the Commission. But supposing that the union of the Colleges had not the disadvantage of enhancing the cost of education, or doing away with a competition which those who opposed their union believed to be wholesome, he thought the feeling expressed in the northern counties should lead their Lordships to pause and hesitate before they adopted this clause of the Bill. It was a great mistake to suppose that the feeling was confined to the town of Aberdeen. It prevailed throughout the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Banff, including a population of nearly half
  1670
  a million, or one-fourth of the whole population of Scotland. They had heard something the other night about a petition from the Professors of one of the Colleges in favour of the union; but it should be remembered that it was a petition adopted by a majority of one in a body of thirteen, and that the Professors had a direct pecuniary interest in the union. But petitions against the union had been signed by 7,317 persons, as against less than 100 who signed in its favour. The other night, the noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke some what slightingly of the feelings expressed by the people of Aberdeen. The noble Earl was not the only person who had adopted that tone. It had been taken up by those who called themselves University reformers in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St, Andrews. But he did not believe that the people of Aberdeen deserved those taunts; for, twenty-five years ago, when the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh were cold and still, Aberdeen took up the cause of University reform. It was rather hard now to turn upon them, and sweep away one of their Colleges and its endowment. The feeling of a people ought not to be entirely overlooked, unless it could be demonstrated beyond dispute that the course proposed was of great practical advantage. He would like to have heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) defend Oxford against a proposition to amalgamate two of the great Colleges of that University, and sure he was that he might have thence borrowed abundant arguments for the sister University of Aberdeen. There was this argument, that the proposed consolidation was in direct contravention of the will of the founder and the charter of the College. He was not one of those who advocated a strict adherence to the letter of the wills of founders; he thought they would show more respect to those great men if they endeavoured to carry out their clear intentions, and in that spirit he supported the Bill for the reform of the University of Oxford. He was quite at a loss to know on what principles of justice, expediency, or public policy it was proposed to sweep away one of these Colleges. According to the doctrine so often laid down by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, when a great change was made it was not enough that the promoters of it should show that it was beneficial, but that it was so beneficial as to counterbalance all the injuries which it might inflict on cer-

  1671
  tain interests. The advocates, therefore, of this union were bound to show that it was likely to confer such great advantages on Scotland and the empire at large as to compensate the people of Aberdeen for the great violence which it would do to their feelings and opinions. But the feeling against the union of these Colleges was not confined to Aberdeen nor to the people of the north of Scotland. There was a great difference of opinion among the most eminent public men who took an interest in this question. In the division in the other House, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Stirling, and others, voted against the provision. It might be possible that the persons who took this view of the question might be in the right, and should that turn out to be the case, the damage done by the Bill passing in its present condition would be irreparable. But no harm could be done by the Government simply leaving it to the Commissioners to inquire whether it was advisable that this union should take place. They would lay their Reports on the subject before the Government, and it would then be for them to decide what course they would pursue; and Parliament, after having their Reports before them, would have infinitely less trouble in deciding on the case. The worst that could happen by this course was postponement, which would allow public opinion time to consolidate itself upon the question. It was said that the Commissioners had power to maintain separate Professors in the Faculties of Arts if they should be so minded. That might be so, but he should be unwilling to leave the matter entirely in their hands. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be to do away with a great number of those small foundations or bursaries which were of so much use to the lower class of students, and would render it more difficult for such men to obtain a good education. He was sorry to have addressed their Lordships at such length, but he had no motive of hostility to the Bill; he simply desired to see those parts removed which would render it objectionable to the people of Scotland.
  Amendment moved, in line 14, to leave out ("and College.")
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as he was to be one of the Commissioners named in the Bill, he should not vote upon this question; but he did not think that he was precluded from expressing his present opinions, premising that he would hold him-
  1672
  self disengaged as to any course which he might take hereafter when he had heard the matter further argued. He doubted very much, however, in any case whether he could have supported, to its full extent, the Amendment of the noble Earl, which he took to go to the complete separation of the Colleges. But he had always understood that the great feeling of the people of the north of Scotland was not against a union of the Colleges. There was a complete unanimity as to the union of the Colleges, and of the faculties of Law, Medicine, and Theology, but it was wished to keep up the two faculties of Arts separate. But this Amendment went to keep the two Colleges quite separate. To this extent he certainly could not go. It was said that the Commissioners would have full powers to consider this question, and no doubt that was the case; but he was not so sure that in deciding it they would be able to take into their consideration the popular feeling on the subject in the same manner that Parliament could. There was no doubt as to the unanimity of public feeling on this question. Noble Lords well acquainted with that part of the kingdom had borne testimony to it. A noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) said he had never known the feeling so unanimous—and he would suggest therefore, without agreeing to the present Amendment, that words should be inserted in the 18th clause to keep the two faculties of Arts separate. He should be very sorry to see the Bill pass with any provision in it which would mar the popularity, of the measure, and the adoption of his suggestion would prevent such a result.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had only voted against the noble Earl at the head of the Government twice or three times in his life, but he should be obliged to do so on the present occasion if the noble Earl did not amend this clause in the direction proposed. There was an agitation raised for an interested, but it was a genuine deep-rooted feeling in the heart of the great mass of the population. It was thought by the middle classes, who sent their children to these Universities, that if this Bill passed in its present shape, they would never again get so good an education at Aberdeen as before. In military language, the "squads" of students would be made too large for the Professors to manage. If the two Colleges were left separate, a feeling of emulation would be excited between them which should send

  1673
  out most University prizemen. If the question were left to the Commissioners, the moment the Bill passed they would be overwhelmed with applications from each of the two Colleges, and a source of discord would be created which would materially affect the success of their labours. With great respect to the Commissioners, he would rather have a clause in the Act than depend on their opinion afterwards; and if such a clause were introduced, the measure which had been for many years before the public would be carried to a successful issue. He did not think that he was asking too much when he said "For Heaven's sake leave well alone. Nobody says these two Professors have done any mischief. They can't do any mischief. Let them alone for a short time, and if in five or six years hence we and the people of Scotland find we are wrong, you can bring in a Bill of one clause in another Session of Parliament and put the thing right." He assured his noble Friend that the opinion of the whole of the north of Scotland was against the union; and although he was himself the last person in the world to bow to popular opinion, he had always felt that it was the bounden duty of every man in Parliament, and more particularly in the House of Lords, to give due weight and credit to public opinion, when it had been ascertained in the manner in which it had been ascertained upon this occasion.
  EARL POWISthought the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had exaggerated the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie.) The Bill gave the Commissioners power to establish another faculty of Arts, and that would involve a very trifling expense. The noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) spoke of the degrees which would be taken in the superior faculties of Law, Medicine, and Divinity. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) did not raise the question of having separate classes for those studies. All parties were agreed that the superior faculties should be merged in one united University. It was much to be regretted that the jealousy of the two Colleges and of the inhabitants of Aberdeen had caused them to miss opportunities which had several times occurred of settling the matter upon advantageous terms. But if it were supposed the Commissioners would exercise their discretion and establish another faculty of Arts with four or five Professors, was it not reasonable to ask that the Professor
  1674
  should be upon a separate foundation, and should have a resident head among themselves? What would their Lordships think, in the case of an English University, if it were proposed that two Colleges at opposite ends of the town should be under one head, and consequently that one of them should be without a principal? Would it not be said that that proposal was sure to produce anarchy in both? All that would be necessary would be to give a small allowance to one Professor, and place him at the head of the College. In case of any dispute among the Professors, or of discord among the students, was it not desirable that there should be on the spot a resident head who would have authority to compose differences, and make each establishment complete in itself? In the affiliating institutions of the University of Durham, and in the private halls authorized to be established at Oxford, each was under a responsible head, and under individual control; and surely it was unreasonable not to adopt the same plan in this case. It was not a question whether they should continue the two Universities—it was not a question whether they should continue separate classes in the superior faculties; it was whether, having decided practically that there should be a faculty of Arts in King's College, the Professors and pupils of that College should have an independent head. Surely their Lordships must confess that such an arrangement was for the advantage of the colleges and the benefit of education.
  EARL STANHOPErepeated that he thought there ought to be a union of the colleges, but he doubted whether, as regarded the faculty of Arts, that ought to be left to the Commissioners under the Bill.
  EARL POWISsaid, the 15th section gave the Commissioners full control over the revenues of the colleges, and powers to re-establish or re-organize the Professors as they pleased.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsuggested that they should leave the Colleges as they now stood, and give the Commissioners power, if they came to that conclusion, to recommend their union. The adverse feeling of the parties now petitioning would be very different when the union was grounded upon the report of a Commission, and after inquiry had been made. It would show that their Lordships did not decide against the general opinion which from all quarters had reached them.
  The EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought that hardly one of their Lordships seemed disposed to support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie); for both his noble Friend who had just sat down and the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope), while they complained of the enactments of the Bill, repudiated altogether the idea of preventing the union of the colleges, and confined themselves simply to the point that there should be two faculties of Arts. Therefore, so far as the Amendment was concerned, the opinion of their Lordships was altogether unanimous. His noble Friend on the cross benches wished to provide for the exception of this single case, and to provide that there should be a continuance of the faculty of Arts. His answer to that proposal was this—if they declared that there should be a second faculty of Arts, they decided beforehand in opposition to the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry who had examined into the subject, and reported upon it in favour of complete union. He had always great respect for the opinion of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Richmond), and it was very true that the occasions were very few when they had voted on different sides. But on the present occasion he apprehended the logical course to pursue was to follow up in their integrity, if they acted at all upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and to leave the Commissioners under the Bill to make such amendments and modifications as they thought fit. His noble Friend said that if they passed the Bill they did not deal fairly by the parties petitioning, because they declared a foregone opinion on the part of Parliament, and allowed the Commissioners to modify it. But supposing they took the opposite course, and only gave the Commissioners power of restoring that recommendation. His noble Friend on the cross benches had not said a word as to the qualifications of the Commissioners, and with all deference to the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), he preferred the opinion of Commissioners who were perfectly conversant with the question, to the opinion of those who were but imperfectly acquainted with it. The noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope) doubted whether the Commissioners under the Bill could consider the question of public opinion upon the subject. All he could say to that was, that the words were couched in the strongest possible terms. The Commissioners were authorized, in
  1676
  their discretion, if they thought it either necessary or expedient so to do, to make provision for the maintenance of two separate faculties of Arts. The Bill gave the fullest powers to the Commissioners to exercise the utmost latitude, and provided all that good reason and good sense could demand. If public opinion were very strong, the Commissioners had the fullest power to meet it and make provision accordingly. He thought the Bill, as it stood, preferable to any of the Amendments suggested, and that the Amendment went further than even the opponents of the Bill desired.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause 2 agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Clause 3.
  LORD BELHAVEN LORD BELHAVEN moved the omission of the clause, which provides that the Principals of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, are not to be deemed Professors of Theology.
  The DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, there was no doubt that the clause was a mistake, as it asserted that which was contrary to the fact, and he should have no objection to omit it.
  Clause disagreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 12, relating to the powers of University Courts.
  EARL GRANVILLEadverted to the proposed transfer of the patronage of the University of Edinburgh from the Town Council to the University Court. The noble Earl said that, though he did not intend to move an Amendment on this matter, it certainly did seem very hard that this patronage should be taken away from the Town Council when they had possessed it so long, and when it was not pretended that they had exercised it unsatisfactorily. He hoped, too, that the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill (the Duke of Montrose) would consent to insert words in the Bill to make these Courts open to the public.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, this matter had been very much discussed in the other House. There were there, of course, many persons who were anxious to leave the patronage in the hands of the Town Council, and others who urged very strongly the necessity of transferring it to

  1677
  some other body. The compromise which had been agreed on was, he believed, accepted by all parties as a fair settlement of the question, and he could not, therefore, consent to any proposition to disturb it. With regard to the noble Earl's second proposition, to make the University courts open courts, he really could not see any advantage in such a provision, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would not attempt to press it.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTONsaid, that though it was rather a strong measure to take away the patronage so long exercised by the Town Council of Edinburgh, he could not say but that it might turn out of great practical advantage. The Town Council had founded the University, and a charter was given to it by the King soon after. When a charter was forfeited, it was usual to show malfaisance of some sort or other; but none had been shown in this case. No doubt there might have been considerable inconvenience in the patronage being exercised by the Town Council—indeed, it was said that their appointments had generally been made with a view to sectarian considerations; but however strange it might be originally to repose patronage in such hands, certainly no malfaisance, sufficient absolutely to justify the transfer, had been proved. The Commission of 1826, of which he had been a member, did not propose to make any change in this respect. No doubt considerable alteration had taken place in the Town Council of Edinburgh since that time. The Municipal Reform Act had changed it from a self-elected to a popularly elected body. No doubt self-election was a bad principle; but the corporation of Edinburgh in those days was a very different kind of body from the present corporation. As a compromise had been arranged, and as he knew a great portion of the community in Edinburgh were exceedingly glad of the transfer, he did not think that it was for their Lordships to interfere with it. In respect to the four Curators who were to sit in the Court, he would suggest that it should be so arranged that certain members of the Town Council—such as the Lord Provost and the two senior members should be ex officio Curators.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that a large portion of the community also disapproved of the alteration. The noble Earl then moved to insert the following clause:—
  "The Meetings of the Sonatas Academicus,
  1678
  the General Council, and the University Court of each University, and of the Court of Curators in the University of Edinburgh, shall be open to the public."
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in reference to a remark made by the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Haddington) in reference to ex officio members of the Court, said that he had lately presented a petition from Glasgow praying that the Lord Provost might be nominated an ex officio member of the Court of that University.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 15, giving power to the Commissioners to inquire into the expediency of founding a National University, and to make arrangements for its establishment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought this scheme of founding a national University for Scotland was an exceedingly vain one. It was scarcely constitutional to give a Commission of this sort the power of suppressing ancient corporations—the only links almost which connected Scotland of bygone times with Scotland of the present. One of the greatest evils under which Scotland suffered was that she was so little connected with the historical past. It was not at all clear that the scheme would lead to benefit the cause of education in Scotland. Such a college as St. Andrews, without the power of conferring degrees, would in a very short time run the risk of becoming something very like a private school. Again, some of the Colleges might be taken into the University and some left out, so that there would be part of the old system working alongside of the new one. He did not suppose that it would ever be carried into effect, but it seemed a pity to unsettle the whole educational arrangements of the kingdom by proposing a scheme which would probably never come to anything.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he was very much inclined to agree with the right rev. Prelate. It was very improbable that the scheme would ever take effect, for the different Universities were not very likely to agree to it. But as the provision had been introduced in the other House, where there seemed a disposition to expect beneficial results, it would be better, on the whole, for their Lordships to allow it to remain in the Bill.
  LORD BELHAVENthought the best

  1679
  course would be to leave out all this part of the duties of the Commission, and, if any such inquiry were necessary, to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHdid not anticipate any great results from the provision, which, he remarked, had been introduced at a late stage of the progress of the Bill in the other House.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, agreed to.
  Clause 21.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following Proviso:—
  "6. For providing full compensation for the present holders of Professorships or other officers, for the loss of emoluments consequent on the abolition or conjunction of such Professorships or other offices in the present Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen."
  Agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to. Clause 26 disagreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 34 (Competitive Examinations for the Indian Army).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must for a few minutes draw their Lordships' attention to this clause. It for the first time introduced what was called open competitive examination for admission to the Engineers and the Artillery of the Indian army. This provision was not contained in the first Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, nor was it contained in the Bill of the late Government, but was introduced for the first time now. He had at all times regarded the introduction of competitive examination as the most dangerous and democratic of all modern innovations. Its practical tendency was to substitute persons of inferior education and position for the men who had hitherto led our armies to victory and conducted the affairs of the State. It had always been the practice when great experiments were about to be made in Government to inquire whether there were any defects to be remedied and whether there was a reasonable hope of improvement. But in this case there was no defect to be remedied. On
  1680
  the contrary, the perfection of the existing system was admitted; and no attempt could be made to alter it without incurring the most serious dangers. Nothing could be more injurious than to tamper with the scientific corps of the Indian army, perfect as they now were. If a failure should occur in this arm it would affect the success of a siege through the incapacity of an Engineer, or the success of a battle through the inferior character of an Officer of Artillery. Such a failure would go to the fate of a campaign, perhaps to the fate of an empire. This change was proposed at a moment when both of these services had attained their highest pitch of reputation. The boldness of the operations of our Engineers in front of Delhi,—the extraordinary resource, the audacity, which had marked all their operations at Lucknow,—the courage, the resolution, and the novelty which had distinguished the operations of the Artillery in all those actions in which they were supported by the Rifles—had actually introduced a new era in the art of war, and established on the part of these scientific corps a claim to consideration which one really would have thought Her Majesty's Government would have been only too happy to recognize. As their Lordships were aware that at the present moment there was, in point of fact, a competitive examination for commissions in these services in the College of Addiscombe, through which institution alone the Officers of Artillery and Engineers were now recruited. The cadets there studied under men of the most honourable and conscientious character, thoroughly acquainted with all that they had to teach, and deeply impressed with the great moral responsibility attached to the duty which they undertook. They there had not only to pass an examination for which they might be crammed on a particular day, but their whole conduct while at school was watched, and their moral character ascertained, as well as their intellectual attainments; and there could be no doubt that the gentlemen thus selected at Addiscombe for these services were men on whom the country could entirely depend. On the other hand, there was no possibility of introducing into the plan of open competitive examination any security of that description. All they could find was that on a particular day the person chosen had obtained a certain degree of apparent superiority over a gentleman who in reality had probably a much higher claim to the appointment. There were

  1681
  other advantages in the present system which it was impossible to attain by means of open competition. From the manner in which these officers were now chosen they had a guarantee that they were gentlemen; and it was impossible for him to speak too strongly of the advantage of having, especially in India, gentlemen—men of all the gentlemanlike feelings which prevailed in English society—for the conduct of military as well as of civil affairs. We maintained our position in that country by our moral superiority. An Englishman holding an official situation there was practically a representative of his Government, and whatever he did ill, or so as to impair his own position, impaired at the same time the position of the Government with which he was connected. Whatever he did well, or in a manner to distinguish him from others, increased the influence of his Government, while it added materially to his own. He recollected many years ago having gone to the Duke of Wellington on the subject of a court-martial, which had suggested that an officer who had been guilty of drunkenness should be dismissed the service. When urged to restore the accused to his position on account of some extenuating circumstances which existed in his favour, the Duke said, "Never palliate drunkenness in an officer. Depend upon it the Natives of India are extremely clever in discovering the character of an Englishman living among them; and no offence which an Englishman can commit is in their eyes so revolting as drunkenness." But that was not all. The moral superiority of Englishmen enabled us to keep that country; and if in any case we overlooked an offence that was calculated to lower us in the opinion of the Natives, the consequences to our power might be most disastrous. He had always been most desirous that we should retain the highest gentlemen we could procure at the head of affairs in India, and therefore he was particularly anxious that in this case the son of a grocer or a tailor, of the John Gilpin class, should not, through being highly crammed for an open competitive examination, be preferred before the son of a country gentleman or retired officer, who might not be able to pay enough for an education of that kind, but who might, nevertheless, be the fittest candidate for the situation. The higher a man's natural position the greater, ordinarily speaking, was his consideration for all those under him. This was always a true characteristic
  1682
  of the gentleman; and there never had been an occasion on which it was more important than at this juncture, that the general demeanour of all Englishmen and English officers in India towards the Native population should be conciliatory, and calculated to restore us in their opinion to the position we formerly held. The alteration was proposed also at a time when none of the apprehensions as to our officers could be entertained, which might perhaps have been entertained formerly. The Directors were no longer elected by a constituent body who had claims upon their patronage which might in former times have led to the selection of persons not of the most proper kind; and the Members of the Council, by not having seats in Parliament, would be saved from similar claims. He could not but regard this proposition as an act of homage to democracy. It was totally uncalled for. No one in the House of Commons had asked for it. No one anywhere had expressed the smallest wish to have this change introduced into the Indian army. It was proposed when that army was covered with glory, and when there was every reason to suppose that it would maintain its high character for the future. It was a measure which would affect injuriously the future efficiency of the Artillery and Engineers, and it was impossible that the present officers of both those noble services could do otherwise than offer to it the greatest opposition. For these reasons he should certainly object to the proposition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with the very greatest deference for the opinions of his noble Friend, and more especially on a subject on which he spoke with great weight and authority, he could not coincide with the arguments by which he had opposed the clause—some portions of which arguments were indeed inconsistent with other portions. His noble Friend said that the clause introduced for the first time into the scientific corps, the Artillery and Engineers of the Indian service, the principle of competition [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: Open competition]—of open competition; but with all respect to his noble Friend, it did not introduce the principle of competition, open or not open. As the clause at present stood it undoubtedly did introduce the principle of competition; but, as he (the Earl of Derby) proposed to amend it (of which Amendment he gave notice on the second reading)—namely, by omitting the last three lines, it

  1683
  would not introduce the principle of strict competition. What the clause did was this—it provided that persons should be admitted into the Artillery and Engineers upon an examination, the regulations for which examination should with all convenient speed be prepared and prescribed by the Secretary of State acting under the authority of his Council. He was not a very warm and ardent supporter of the principle of competition—at least he thought that competitive examination was a great experiment, of which he took took the liberty of saying, that in his opinion, they were not yet able to pronounce a decided opinion. But he must say this, that if there were one portion of the public service, civil or military, to which the principle of strict examination and of competition could be fairly and legitimately applied, it was the scientific branches of the military service. What was the case with regard to the British army? Why, with regard to the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, they were subjected to the strictest possible examination, and not only that, but to the strictest competition. There was a competition for admission into Woolwich, there was a competition also for passing out of Woolwich, and, after that competition for passing out of Woolwich there was still a probation of the candidates, and they were liable to be rejected if their qualifications and their conduct did not prove to be equal to the promises they had held out upon their examination. Well, was there anything unreasonable, improper, or impracticable in such a course? Did not such a course give an answer to the objection which his noble Friend used—namely, that a person who might be very well up in his examination might prove to be no gentleman in his habits, dissipated in his conduct, and unqualified in other respects for the profession? But, provided proper regulations were laid down, first with regard to the character of the examination itself, and, next, with regard to the probation of the candidates after they had passed their examination, he could not see that such a risk would be incurred as his noble Friend appeared to anticipate. But was his noble Friend really an opponent of the system of competitive examination? Not at all, for he had told their Lordships that there was the strictest competitive examination at Addiscombe. But, said his noble Friend, "I wish the competition to be limited to the persons
  1684
  who have got into Addiscombe." And why? "Because," said he, "it gives you a security that the parties are gentlemen and the sons of gentlemen, and you will have no such security in any other public examination." Now, he (the Earl of Derby) hoped he was not insensible to the advantages of birth and station, but he confessed he could not join with his noble Friend in saying that because a person happened to be the son of a tailor, a grocer, or a choosemonger, provided his mental qualifications were equal to those of his competitors, he was to be excluded from honourable competition for an appointment in the public service. He did not think that was a legitimate argument for his noble Friend or for any one to use. A man's origin was nothing; the question to be asked was, "What are his qualifications for a scientific appointment, and what is his moral character?" If they showed him (the Earl of Derby) a man who was superor in both of these respects to his competitors, he cared not what might be his birth—that man was the best entitled to the appointment to which he aspired. He did not deny that Addiscombe had those merits which his noble Friend had ascribed to it. Those who were trained at Addiscombe had an immense advantage in the direction of their studies, and more especially in the knowledge on the part of their Professors of the peculiar qualifications and attainments which were required in the services which they had afterwards to enter. But he could not understand upon what principle it was that his noble Friend contended that that which had been introduced into every part of the civil service at home, into every department of the army, and more especially and more rigidly with regard to the scientific departments of the Royal army was not fit to be introduced into the scientific departments of the Indian army, which was now about to be incorporated and associated with the Queen's army, and to act under the authority of the Crown. If the clause laid down the strict and rigid principle that a man who succeeded in his examination should of necessity take the place of all others, he thought it would be open to serious objection. But if it simply provided that regulations should be prepared with regard to the due examination of persons wishing to enter the scientific corps, he could not understand upon what principle, without in the slightest degree derogating from the present examination to which his

  1685
  noble Friend referred, the advocates of competition in the civil and military services of the Crown could object to a clause which was simply so worded as to give a security that candidates for the scientific corps possessed that fair amount of scientific knowledge which was requisite for the efficient discharge of the duties they might be called upon to perform.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the subject was a most important one. He fully agreed that the artillery of the Indian army had been, up to the present time, most efficient: indeed Sir Charles Napier said it was second to no artillery in the world. The question as to the admission of persons into the Artillery had been before him when a member of the Commission for investigating the effects of the system of purchase in the army, and Sir James Melvill had stated before that Commission the system which was pursued at Addiscombe. By that system there was a preliminary examination for entrance into the college; and, after passing through the college, on a subsequent examination, the best were appointed to the Engineers, the next best to the Artillery, and the third to the Infantry. That, he thought, was a good system of competition; and it was the same system which prevailed in France and in Austria. What he feared in the system of the Government was that there would be competition without any system of military discipline. He thought that it was most desirable to let men pass through a college, and so to pass through a system of military discipline. When they came out of that they came ready to take their part in the army. So far from doing away with the present system, he thought that Addiscombe ought to be enlarged; and he would remove Addiscombe to Haileybury, which was a much larger building. In his opinion there ought to be a competition for getting into the college, but no one ought to obtain admission into the service without passing through the college.
  THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that what he had said was, that he did not see any reason why persons superior to those who had been educated at a military college should be excluded from admission into the service. But this clause did not say anything as to this; and it was quite consistent with it that education at a military college should be made a condition.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that it was
  1686
  the duty of the Government to consider whether there should be unlimited competition, and to state distinctly what they recommended. He did not see any advantage of retaining the clause if they were to amend it as his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had said. His noble Friend did not say what the effect of the clause would be, or what were the intentions of the Government.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that in the case of the Royal army it had been determined by general consent that the Royal Academy of Woolwich and the College of Sandhurst should be preserved, and, that being so, he saw no reason why the same course should not be adopted with respect to the Indian military services now that they were about to be handed over to the Crown.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEagreed with his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) that the clause as it was now proposed to amend it would be perfectly useless, and that it would be much better to omit it than to pass it in the amended form. The introduction of a similar principle on a former occasion had resulted in the destruction of Haileybury College, and he was afraid that the natural consequence of adopting the clause as amended would be to destroy the College of Addiscombe. He should be very much opposed to anything which could have so unfortunate a result, and he felt convinced that one of the best things that the new Secretary of State for India could do would be to re-establish the College of Haileybury with the utmost despatch. It was impossible for any one who had studied the question not to see that a special education, both for the military and civil service of India was essentially requisite; and he should deeply regret if they took any course which should lead to the same result with regard to Addiscombe as had already taken place with regard to Haileybury. He hoped that Haileybury would be re-established as a college for the civil service, and that the resources of Addiscombe would be developed and increased. He did not see what object the Government could have in view which could not be as well attained without the clause as with it, and therefore he thought it desirable that the clause should not be persisted in.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had met one great objection to the clause as it stood by removing its concluding pro-

  1687
  vision; but the noble Earl had not told them what he would insert instead of the portion so omitted.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the constitutional objection which he felt to the last words of the clause which he proposed now to omit was, not that they introduced the competitive principle, but that they introduced it by Act of Parliament; whereas, the proper course was that it should be done by the authority and under the sanction of the Crown. The question ought properly to be left to the prerogative of the Crown, and it was for that reason that he had moved the omission of these words.
  LORD MONTEAGLEstrongly opposed any course which might lead to the abolition of Addiscombe. The clause, whether amended or not, did not give sufficient security for its preservation. Certainly, Parliament ought not to delegate its power over the framing of these regulations to any Executive Department, however able it might be.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that before the question was put he wished to state what was passing in his own mind. He proposed to establish an additional military college at Haileybury, with the same competitive examination, both for the new college and for Addiscombe. One great advantage which would arise from such a competition would be that there would be virtually a competition between the professors of the two colleges, as well as among the pupils. But when his noble Friend spoke of the lower classes of the community, competing with the higher upon the same terms, it must be remembered that officers and clergymen generally were not wealthy men, and that they could not afford that cramming examination which was necessary for competition. The sum paid at Haileybury when he first remembered it was only £20 a year. Then the idea was started of making the college self-supporting, and the amount to be paid was raised to some £100—a change which he thought was very injurious. There ought to be provided for the children, in some cases the orphans, of military men and clergymen, a cheaper and better education than they could get elsewhere. Then his noble Friend had made use of the word "assimilation" as to the English and Indian armies. He cautioned his noble Friend against the idea of "assimilation." It was the most dangerous word that could be used. They had seen the advantages arising from differences in the Bengal,
  1688
  Madras, and Bombay armies. Those differences had prevented the spread of the mutiny. Their Lordships might depend upon it their security rested upon difference and not upon assimilation.
  LORD BROUGHTONconsidered it very undesirable that Addiscombe should be done away with.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause did not hint at Addiscombe.
  LORD BROUGHTON: No; but it gives the Government power with respect to Addiscombe.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It gives the Government no power with regard to Addiscombe which it has not possessed already. It does not interfere with Addiscombe.
  LORD BROUGHTON: But it gives the Government power to substitute another education for that of Addiscombe.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It does not give any power, and it does not take away the power which the Government possesses at this moment.
  LORD BROUGHTON: If it gives the Government no new powers, at least it offers to them a recommendation to employ the powers they already possessed. It was not anticipation of the future, but recollection of the past, that induced him to entreat the noble Earl to amend this as well as other infirmities of the Bill. There was hardly a considerable man in India who had arisen of late years who had not owed his education to Addiscombe. The result had been that officers had been elected to the conduct of high political offices; they were obliged to take away those superior persons from the army in order to put them in Residencies, and in great political posts for which they alone were fit. He pointed this out, and said to the authorities, "You are denuding the army of its best men;" but their answer was a good one, "What would you recommend us to do? Is there any one half so good?" The answer was, "No." The number of officers, sometimes merely lieutenants, who had risen to the highest posts, was such as to show that to Addiscombe the Indian army was indebted for its highest distinctions.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the words were taken out the young gentlemen who acquitted themselves at the examination with credit must either have what the words promised or nothing at all. He did not like the clause.

  1689
  Words from "examinations" to end of clause, struck out.
  Then Question was put, "Whether the said clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?"
  The Committee divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 34: Majority 7.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller.]

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Melville, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Boston, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Derby, E.

  Calchester, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Hardwick, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Templemore, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Broughton, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Congleton, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Cowper, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Granville, E.

  Pomfret, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Stafford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Clause 35
  ("Not less than one-tenth of the whole number of persons to be recommended in any year for Military Cadetships (other than Cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery) shall be selected, according to such regulations as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time make in this behalf, from the sons of persons who have served in India in the military or civil services of Her Majesty, or of the East India Company.")
  Agreed to.
  Clause 36
  ("Except as aforesaid, all persons to be recommended for Military Cadetships shall be nominated by the Secretary of State and members of
  1690
  Council, so that out of seventeen nominations the Secretary of State shall have two, and each member of Council shall have one; but no person so nominated shall be recommended unless the nomination be approved of by the Secretary of State in Council.")
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he did not think the public would be prepared to hand over the whole of the patronage of India to the Minister for India and the Council. He should therefore, if no other course was open to him, propose to deprive the governing body of the patronage, and to place it in the hands of a Board, where it would not be used to the disadvantage of the public service. Under the Bill the great bulk of the patronage of India would be given to the Council of India; for out of 500 cadetships, 450 were bestowed upon them. The fact was, there had been a secret alliance between the old Court of Directors and Her Majesty's Ministers, the Directors having taken advantage of their power to act upon a Government with no very fixed principles of action. When the Government proposed to buy off the old Directors and to give £1,200 a year to the same men who had been content with £500, he thought they had done wisely in building a golden bridge, and he should have thought the bargain a good one if at double the sum, provided the patronage had not been included. The whole maladministration in the army of India might be traced to the system of patronage. The cavalry had especially been reserved for the patronage of the Directors. It had been proved before Committees of that House that the Irregular Cavalry were more trustworthy, economical, and efficient than the regulars, and that while the pay of an Irregular Cavalry soldier was only £35, the pay of the regular was £73. This difference had been mainly kept up for the sake of the patronage of the East India Company. On these grounds he should suggest a clause carrying out the proposition he had stated to the House, or he should be ready to support any other mode by which the patronage might be distributed with greater advantage to the army.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl spoke of proposing a particular clause, or some other mode of carrying out his object; but he need hardly say that that was not the usual way of proceeding. As the clause stood the Secretary of State was to have two nominations, and each member of the Council one. The noble Earl objected to the power given to the Council;

  1691
  but his Amendment was one of so singular a character that he could not help calling the special attention of the Committee to it. He proposed that the patronage should be given to a Board not consisting of less than three members of the Council, and these three members were to be selected by the Secretary of State. One-eighth of the patronage was to be exercised by the Secretary of State, and seven-eighths by the Board, which the Secretary of State was to select. Then these three Councillors were to receive their £1,200 a year; but while they were to have seven-eighths of the patronage they were strictly prohibited and forbidden from taking the slightest part in any of the business relating to India.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the clause of the Bill itself was not free from objection. There was, in his opinion, great objection to the mode in which the nominations were vested in the Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 40, agreed to.
  Clause 41.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmade an objection to the wording of the clause, which appeared to him to give neither the Governor General nor the Secretary of State power over the expenditure of the money.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause provided that the expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, should be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council. The clause did not in the slightest degree interfere with the powers to be exercised by the Governor General of India, subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought that, by the clause, the Governor General might do very nearly just as he pleased; but the expenditure of the Governor General was to be subject to the approval or otherwise of the Secretary of State in Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 51 agreed to.
  Clause 52 Audit of Accounts.
  THE EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to introduce an Amendment in this clause. It provided that the Auditor should, in the ordinary way, audit the accounts. That, so far, was very proper; but he thought it should go somewhat further. The expenditure of India should be chaged upon the revenues of India
  1692
  alone. It seemed to him to be but fair to India that there should be a reciprocal provision in order to guard the revenues of India from being applied to any purposes which were not strictly connected with the interests of India. He was not certain that the Council would guard the revenues of India with the same jealousy which had been always faithfully exercised by the Court of Directors. They had never sanctioned any charge on those revenues which was not directly connected with the purposes of India; and he wanted the Auditor to be appointed under this clause to have the power of stating where any expenditure had in his opinion been incurred out of the revenues of India for purposes that were not Indian. After the words:—
  "And such Auditor shall report from time to time to the Secretary of State in Council his approval or disapproval of such accounts, with such remarks and observations in relation thereto as may think fit."
  He would therefore propose the insertion of the following words:—
  "Specially noting any case, if such there shall be, in which it shall appear that any moneys advanced from the revenues of India have been appropriated to purposes other than those of the government of India, to which alone they shall be applicable."
  He thought it but common justice to India to insert words to that effect.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that the Amendment should be printed, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering it before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, he thought the words requiring the Auditor to specify
  "In detail in his reports alt sums of money, stores and property which ought to be accounted for, and are not brought into account, or have not been appropriated in conformity with the provisions of this Act, or have been expended or disposed of without due authority,"
  might be sufficient to carry out the object which his noble Friend had in view.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, possibly they might, but he thought distinct words to the effect suggested by him ought to be embodied in the clause. Their Lordships said that no Indian charge should be paid out of English revenue, and it was but common honesty to say that no English charge should lie paid out of Indian revenue. With the understanding that the proposed Amendment should be considered on bringing up the Report,
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the Amendment. The present system of public audit in this country was, not satisfac-

  1693
  tory, and the last Report had recommended a return to the old system of the auditor reporting direct to Parliament. He would recommend the same system with regard to India.
  On Clause 53, which directs an account to be annually laid before Parliament for the last financial year of the produce of the revenues of India at each of the several Presidencies, and of all the receipts and disbursements at home and abroad in respect of the government of India.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to insert at the end of clause—
  "And such account shall be accompanied by a statement prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress and condition of India in each such Presidency."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, pursuant to notice, moved the addition at the end of the clause of the following Amendment, which he said would insure the production in this country of a complete picture of the moral and material condition of India from time to time:—
  "And such account shall be accompanied by a statement in an abstract form, prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India, showing the following particulars—namely, the additions made during the same year to means of communication by railways, roads, canals, and improved river navigation; the number of European settlers or commercial agents in each district in the several Presidencies, exclusive of the capital towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay; the aggregate strength of European troops, with the aggregate mortality during the year, and the average rate of mortality, and the number of recruits born in India of European parentage enlisted in each military division; the number of all colleges, schools, and other places of instruction supported or assisted by the Government, with the average number of pupils, male and female, under instruction, and the number of teachers, and whether European or Native, in each school, specifying the nature of each school, and if Hindoo whether Hindoo class books, or if Mahomedan whether Mahomedan class books, or if Parsee whether Parsee class books, or if Christian whether Christian class books, or if Government whether selected class books, are employed in each school; the number and description of all hospitals, dispensaries, poor houses, and other charitable institutions, with the number of applicants for relief, and of all religious institutions supported or assisted by Government; the extent and value of land held in free tenures, and all money payments and other grants and privileges made to each class of the above institutions, and all pensions and endowments granted by Native Princes and other individuals of which the Government or its officers are trustees; and such statements shall be prepared in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress of India in each Presidency."
  1694
  After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the general words proposed by the noble Earl at the head of the Government were preferable to the minute particularity aimed at by the Amendment of the noble Earl near him. What they wanted was information in a concise and manageable form, and not those huge blue-books, through which nobody could ever wade, and which were an admirable device resorted to by Departments which wished to conceal everything.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH, as an illustration of the voluminous papers appended to the correspondence sent home from India, mentioned that attached to certain Reports on the subject of education, which he received while in office, was a mass of details extending over 5,000 pages.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Providing that when an order to commence actual hostilities was sent to India, the fact should be communicated to Parliament, if then sitting, within one month, or if Parliament was then prorogued, within one month from its re-assembling).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it was impossible that this provision could be acted upon. Before intelligence of any event in India reached this country five weeks must elapse, and it occupied five weeks more before any order thereupon could arrive there, and no Minister in his senses would give an order for the actual commencement of war when he knew that, before that order reached India, circumstances in that country might have entirely changed. Therefore, all that he would do would be to give a contingent order, and to such an order this clause did not apply. If a contingent order were given in August, it would probably not be made known to Parliament till February; but if it were given in January, and Parliament met in February, it must be made known in a month. In the latter case, the Government against which the hostilities were to be directed would receive notice of our intentions. If this clause had been brought into existence during the late war in Persia, the capture of Bushire and Mohammerah, which came upon the enemy as a surprise, could not have been conducted with success.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought there was nothing unreasonable or ill-advised in the provision, that on the commencement

  1695
  of actual hostilities Parliament, if sitting, should be apprized of the order within a month from its issue. How such a course could give notice of their plans to the enemy, when the event referred to was the commencement of "actual hostilities," he was at a loss to conceive. The instance cited by his noble Friend was not a very happy one; because, if ever there was an unconstitutional proceeding, it was the last war with Persia, which was begun, carried on, and ended without Parliament having the slightest intimation of the fact that the hostilities were going on, or of the motives and grounds on which they had been entered into, or what they were fighting about. And if this clause should only prevent the repetition of such a state of things at the commencement of another war, he thought it legitimate and necessary.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHdid not mean to defend the conduct of the late Government in the matter referred to, but at all events the operations which they had ordered had been successful. If the intentions of the Government as to a war in the East were communicated to Parliament, the enemy would become apprized of them long before we were prepared to act.
  LORD WODEHOUSEreminded the noble Earl that it was not that the order for the commencement of war should be communicated and discussed by Parliament, but that, after it was in progress a month, Parliament should be informed of the fact.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that although the object was a very good one, he did not think this was a very satisfactory clause. Considering the rapid means of communication, there were great doubts whether it would not be injurious to the interests of the country, in case of the outbreak of war in India with a Native State.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he thought it was most desirable that on a great question of this sort a communication should be made to Parliament; but he was sure that neither their Lordships nor the other House of Parliament could wish for information which might prejudice the interests of the country. Provided the clause were so worded that the interests of the country should not be injured, he thought it ought to stand part of the Bill. He thought that the period within which communication was to be made to Parliament ought to be extended.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid that, having
  1696
  regard to the great distance of India, the enactment in its present form might be dangerous. It might happen that circumstances were so altered between the time of an order being sent out and the time when the Governor General was called upon to act upon it, that he would decline to do so.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was difficult to understand who supported and who objected to the clause. [A noble LORD: All support it.] Well, then, what was that state of mind which, after mature deliberation in the Cabinet, assented to a clause, but when the same clause was introduced verbatim by another Government into their Bill, and laid upon the table, objected to it? He had no objection to extend the period from one month to two, and to add the words "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl need not be so much surprised at the noble and learned Lord having changed his opinion, for of all the changes of opinion of the present Government—and they had changed their opinion on almost every subject—the most extraordinary were their changes of opinion on the subject of Indian government. He thought that it would be better to make it three months instead of two, because by that time an answer might be received from the Governor General to the communications sent out to him.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas understood to say that he would agree to three months.
  Words "one month" omitted, "three months" inserted: also inserted "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 55 disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to insert a new clause in the following words:—
  "Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possession by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the object of the clause was a good one. Mr. Fox suggested something of the kind formerly, and so did Mr. Pitt, but they failed, and was there the slightest chance, if the clause became law, of its being more suc-

  1697
  cessful? The Indian army was not to be employed outside the Indian frontiers except to repel an invasion or on some urgent and sudden necessity without the consent of Parliament. As he said before, no war was justifiable except the case was urgent, and some suddenness was always connected with a military operation. What was the meaning of the consent of Parliament? Was an Act of Parliament to be got? Was there any other mode of expressing its consent? If so, it ought to be embodied in the clause. By this clause the Governor General might be deterred from doing things which it would be his duty to do.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the object of the clause was to impose a certain restriction upon the perogative of the Crown through the intervention of Parliament. It was erroneously thought that it would prevent the Crown from employing Indian forces upon any foreign expedition. The clause had no such object or effect, for after it passed, the Crown would be at full liberty to employ those forces in any quarter of the globe for which by the terms of their enlistment they were eligible. It being the undoubted perogative of the Crown to make war and peace, the constitutional check upon the exercise of that prerogative was the sanction of Parliament by the granting of the pecuniary resources. The Crown could not send out forces unless Parliament provided the funds to pay them, but it was necessary to introduce this clause for the protection of the revenues of India. The effect of the clause would be that Indian troops, except for the purpose of preventing anticipated invasion, or of repelling actual invasion, should not quit their own territory; or if they did, the expense should be defrayed out of the revenues of this country, and not out of the revenues of India. If the troops were employed out of India, it would be for Parliament to decide whether they were employed upon Indian or Imperial objects. The clause did not prevent the Crown from making use of the Indian troops, subject only to this—that as a general rule the expense of those troops must be defrayed by Parliament; and the same constitutional check, therefore, was imposed on the Crown with regard to troops serving in India which was imposed with respect to troops serving in every other part of the globe. If the clause were not agreed to it would be perfectly competent for any unconstitutional Sovereign to employ the
  1698
  whole of the revenues and troops of India for any purpose which the Crown might direct, without the necessity of going to Parliament for the advance of a single shilling.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought the Bill had taken the best security against that, for it gave the Council a power of vetoing any measure of that kind. The Directors refused to pay for the China expedition; and if they had not agreed to pay half the expenses of the Persian expedition, they could not be called upon for one shilling towards the expenses of that war. It was for that reason he considered the clause would be inoperative. He believed the only effect of the clause would be to tie up the sword of the Governor General, to paralyze his diplomacy, and to lead to the very wars which it was intended to prevent.
  Question put, whether the said clause shall be there inserted?
  The Committee divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 36; Majority 16.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Dungannon, V.

  Beaufort, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Cleveland, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller]

  Bath, M.

  Melville, V.

  Exeter, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bagot, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Boston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Derby, E.

  Graham, E. (D. of Montrose.)

  Colchester, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Harrington, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Powis, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian,)

  Shrewsbury and Talbot, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Strathmore, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Templemore, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cowper, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

  Somerset, D

  Ailesbury, M.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Granville, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Portarlington, E.

  1699

  Romney, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

  Vane, E.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Broughton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYstated, in answer to a question from Earl Granville, that on the Bill coming into operation in India a Proclamation would be issued by the Crown stating the principles on which the Government of the country would be carried on.
  Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.