Sitting of 22 July 1858

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—3o Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland).

CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, before you leave the Chair, I am anxious to call the attention of the House to a consideration of the figures which appear on the face of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his financial statement, estimated the revenue for this year at £63,900,000; and he calculated the charges upon that revenue at such an amount as to show to the Committee, ac-
1910
cording to his estimate, a surplus of revenue over the expenditure. The debt and Consolidated Fund charges he took at £30,300,000. The Army Estimates were £11,750,000; the Navy Estimates, £9,860,000; the Civil Service Estimates, £7,000,000; and the charge for the Collection of the revenue at £4,700,000—making the total of the Estimates £33,310,000; which, added to the Debt and Consolidated Fund Charges, gave a grand total of £63,610,000, to be compared with a revenue of £63,900,000, showing a surplus of about £300,000. Such was the Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure in the financial statement. We now see from the Appropriation Bill the result of the Votes of the Session; and from what took place in Committee of Supply we may gather what other charges may be anticipated in addition to those which appear in the Appropriation Bill. In this Bill the Debt and Consolidated Fund charges stand at the amount estimated, £30,300,000; the Army Estimates at £12,010,000; the Navy Estimates at £9,839,000—somewhat less than that at which the right hon. Gentleman took them in his Budget; the Civil Service Estimates, 7,240,000; the Collection of Revenue, £4,730,000—nearly the same as the Estimate£making the total amount of Supplies voted £33,819,000. In looking at these figures, however, it must be borne in mind that there must be added to some of the Votes for the Civil Service the amount of balances of previous Votes, which, although they are intended to be defrayed during the year, were not included in the Estimates. There is a difference between balances unexpended and balances unappropriated which it is difficult for some hon. Gentlemen to understand. Balances in the Exchequer are real balances of money, similar to the balance of a private individual at his bankers; but the unappropriated balance of a Vote does not represent money, it is merely an authority to incur expense; and therefore, when the Government diminish the Civil Service Estimates by the unappropriated balances of Votes, they do not provide any Ways and Means, unless they fall back upon the balances in the Exchequer. Therefore, inasmuch as they have, contrary to the usual custom, as was explained in the Committee of Supply, diminished certain Votes by employing the unappropriated Votes of former years, it is necessary to add these amounts to

1911
the Votes of the year, in order to ascertain what will be the real charge upon the Exchequer during the present year. On going through the Votes I cannot ascertain that the amount to be so added will be less than £326,000; making the total estimated expenditure of the year, as appears from the Appropriation Bill and the explanations in Committee of Supply, £64,445,000, against an estimated revenue of £63,900,000. Therefore, instead of there being an estimated surplus there is an estimated deficiency in the Ways and Means of the year of £545.000, and an estimated excess of expenditure over the expenditure estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £835,000. The only way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can supply that deficiency is either by showing that the produce of the revenue will be greater than his estimate in his financial statement, or by diminishing the balances in the Exchequer, which he is entitled to do if circumstances required it, and if he can show that the balances left at the end of the year will be sufficient. The point to which I wish to call the attention of the House, however, before we go into Committee upon this Bill, is, that as the matter now stands there is an excess of £835,000 over the right hon. Gentleman's Estimate of Expenditure, and that, therefore, instead of there being an estimated surplus of £300,000, there is an estimated deficiency of £545,000. Some Members of the Government have, on certain public occasions, called attention to the state in which the finances were left by the late Government, and have repeatedly asserted that they were in a disorderly and discreditable state. I must reiterate the statement which I have made on former occasions, that the financial difficulty which is alleged to have existed was purely imaginary, unless the present Government had been prepared to fulfil the obligations for the liquidation of debt which had been created in former years. If they had provided Ways and Means to pay off the £2,000,000 of Exchequer bills, and £1,500,000 due to the Sinking Fund, undoubtedly their difficulties would have been considerable; but those difficulties they have avoided by postponing these obligations, and, as a result, they were actually able to propose a diminution of taxation for the year. That is to say, the plan which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to the Committee was,
1912
that £2,000,000 of income tax should be ultimately abandoned, and that £1,000,000 should be given up in the present year. At the same time he proposed to impose taxes which would produce £800,000. Therefore, according to his scheme, the taxes for the year were reduced by £200,000. Now, it is quite clear that if the right hon. Gentleman has been able to propose a reduction of taxation, and at the same time to propose estimates in excess of the estimates of the preceding year, there could have been no real financial difficulty. Had he proposed any financial plan which would ultimately have diminished the annual burdens of the country by liquidating a portion of the debt this year, he might with justice have affirmed that he had a great financial difficulty to deal with; but the obligations for the repayment of debt being postponed, that difficulty was purely imaginary and unreal. The result to which we come, then, is this—that, according to the apparent state of the finances, the right hon. Gentleman has not an estimated surplus, but an estimated deficiency. The deficiency, I admit, is not large, but, nevertheless, it is a deficiency. I must also call the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have brought in Bills enabling them to embody the militia, and to send regiments of that force abroad; but they have provided no Ways and Means to defray the probable expense of carrying out those Acts. I trust that they may not be called upon to exercise to any great extent the powers which they seek, and that the amount voted for the army may furnish them with the means of meeting that extraordinary expense. Still, this is a power which cannot be exercised without incurring expense, and we have not yet heard by what means it is intended that that expense should be defrayed. There is only one other point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. On one occasion the right hon. Gentleman said—I do not know whether or not he meant it as a deliberate statement—that every day proved to him more and more the lavishness and profuseness with which the late Government had conducted its expenditure. He gave no example; and I do not know that there is any better mode of testing the truth of the charge than by comparing the Estimates of the late Government, presented last year, with those which the present Government have submitted to the House in the present

1913
one, both of which Estimates have received the assent of the House. The remark of the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood it, applied particularly to the Civil Service Estimates. Those Estimates last year were £7,400,000; for the present year they are £7,240,000. To that sum, however, we must add undisdisposed-of balances £326,000, making the real amount this year £7,566,000, which shows an increase of £166,000 over the Estimates of last year. Therefore, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the great profuseness of the late Government, particularly in regard to the Civil Service, it appears that their Estimates for that service exceed those of last year by more than £160,000; and, under these circumstances, I think that he will find it difficult to substantiate his charge. I thought it important that the House should not pass this Bill without its attention being called to the comparison which I have laid before it, and I trust that upon examination it will be found that the details of that comparison are fully borne out by the figures to which I have referred.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have taken so legitimate and proper an occasion to call the attention of the House to the general state of our finances. I do not think, however, that the House will expect me at this moment to enter into a rival criticism of the two systems of finance which have been recently brought under our consideration. I am, however, prepared to give, if the House should require it, an authentic statement of the real position of the revenue and expenditure of the country. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I had failed to prove that the revenue exceeded the expenditure of the country, as I had alleged, when I made my financial statement to the House. Now, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to bring forward any single instance in which, after the expiration of a quarter of a year or more, the estimated expenditure of the country has been found to be precisely the amount at which it was fixed when the financial statement was made. Estimates at all times are very difficult results to ascertain, and there is no doubt that as matters now stand there is an excess of expenditure over the estimate I offered to the House in the course of my financial statement. At the same
1914
time, I trust I may be allowed to say, that the revenue has considerably exceeded the estimate I then offered. If I bad to make the financial statement now, and to estimate the revenue for the current year, I should place it at a much higher figure than when I made my first financial proposition to the House. We have now before us the experience of one quarter of the financial year, and more than a fortnight of the second quarter. In making the financial statement I recognized the fact that the two first quarters of the financial year were really those in which the present Government would find the greatest difficulty. The country was recovering but very gradually recovering from a state of great commercial pressure and even convulsion; and in the first quarter of the financial year we were compelled to meet circumstances certainly of a not very encouraging character. It was hoped in the second quarter that the state of affairs would improve. It appears that our expectations then were not too sanguine. We have now experience of the first quarter of the financial year, in which some hon. Members were disposed to anticipate the most gloomy results. The result, however, is that our surplus of income over expenditure for the first quarter in the present year is £223,944. Therefore, in the first quarter, when our expectations were thus differently directed, we have obtained a not very inconsiderable surplus of income over expenditure, and that increase may be observed by this analysis:—The Customs produced in the first quarter £5,879,000, being £30,000 in excess of the amount at which in the course of my financial statement I estimated the revenue derived from this source, and that too at a time when, I need not remind the House, the trade of the country was peculiarly depressed. Well, the Excise I estimated at £4,307,600, which was considered at the time too high. There has been an excess over that estimate in the last quarter of nearly £70,000. This augmentation took place, notwithstanding the steps which were taken by the distillers to anticipate the contemplated increase of duty, which naturally produced an injurious effect upon the revenue. The stamps produced in the last quarter, in round numbers, £2,084,000; the proportion, according to my estimate, was £1,962,000. Therefore there was in the receipt of stamps an excess of £122,000. The income tax produced, in that quarter, £1,200,000, being consider-

1915
ably more than I calculated upon. The receipts of the Post Office and the Crown lands I need not now comment upon. But under the head of miscellaneous, I calculated the amount for the year to be £1,200,000. There was, however, received in that quarter upwards of £355,000. Thus in the first quarter of the financial year there is an excess under this head of £55,000 over the estimate I made. So much for that question, in respect to which some hon. Members took the most gloomy view. As the state of our revenue has been especially called under the attention of the House, I trust I shall be allowed to mention the following further gratifying facts which I have obtained from the most authentic information. I wish to show the House the state of the revenue with regard to a portion of the present quarter, namely, from the 1st July to the 19th of the same month. I will leave the House to draw their own conclusion from the facts I am now about to state. These are the last Returns I have had. Now, in 1857, during those same eighteen days, the Customs produced £867,000—that being a time, it will be recollected, before commercial convulsion, and when the prospects of our commerce and the activity of our trade were apparently encouraging. Well, during that same period in the present year, 1858, the Customs produced £1,063,000, leaving a surplus of £196,000. The Excise during the same favourable period of 1857 produced £623,000. The Excise during the same period of the current year was £728,000, being a surplus of about £105,000. The stamps during those eighteen days in the last year amounted to £297,000. In the present year they produced for the same period £340,000, being a surplus of £43,000. The Post Office department during this busy time in 1857 produced £30,000, and my estimate on this head was said to be greatly exaggerated. Now, in the eighteen days of the present year, being a comparatively depressed time, it has produced £50,000, being a surplus of £20,000. The aggregate of the income in those four great branches shows more than anything else the real condition of the country. Well, that aggregate increase in the receipt for the eighteen days of this year over the same period in the last year is £364,000. Now, I think that this statement will enable you all to go to your respective constituents with no very gloomy view of the
1916
financial affairs of the country in the present year at all events. And when I am told that instead of a surplus I have left the country exposed to all the inconveniences of a deficiency, I appeal with confidence to those figures and congratulate the House upon the encouraging condition of our revenue. Although, Sir, the House gave us the power of raising £2,000,000 in order to pay off the Exchequer bonds, we have only availed ourselves of that power to the extent of £1,000,000, and we have every hope and expectation that we shall not find it necessary to exceed that amount. So that if affairs proceed as they promise to do now there is no doubt we shall be able to reduce our debt to the amount of £1,000,000 this year. After the statement I have just made, I trust that the House will consider that I have given a sufficient answer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. There are, however, one or two points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred which I feel I must notice. The one is with reference to the possible expenditure to be incurred in respect to the Militia Bills which I have introduced. One of those Bills is for the embodiment of the militia; the other is to enable the Government to employ the militia force in foreign countries. On that subject I can only say that the expenditure under those heads is contingent. It does not at all follow that although we have thought it prudent to ask for them, we shall recommend to Her Majesty to avail herself of the powers granted under those Bills, or that those powers will ever be put in operation. I believe, Sir, it is quite unusual, and indeed unnecessary, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to anticipate an expenditure under such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman also observed that I had charged the late Government with profuse expenditure in the administration of the public revenues, and he appeals to a comparison of the Estimates of the two Governments to prove the fallacy of that charge which, he further remarks, was applied especially to the Civil Service Estimates. Now, Sir, I believe that no charge of the kind was ever made by me against the late Government, namely, that they left the finances of the country in disorder, or in a dangerous position. No such words have ever escaped my lips. So far from entertaining such an opinion, I can bear witness to the wise and prudent administration of the office I now have the honour to hold by the right hon.

1917
Gentleman opposite. The observations I made involved a charge generally against the late Government and was not applicable to the right hon. Gentleman individually. That was a charge of profuse expenditure generally, and did not apply to the Civil Service Estimates, but rather to those greater branches of the expenditure which are brought before us for our consideration. I said—and this is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman when he tries to prove that there has not been a profuse expenditure by comparing the almost similar amounts of the estimates of the late and present Government—I say that you cannot have reduction in a moment. I say now what I impressed upon the House when I made the observation which is complained of—that expenditure depends in a great measure upon policy. When I said that I was not thinking at all of the Civil Service Estimates, I was thinking rather that it was the policy of the late Government which had brought the public affairs of the country into such a state, as to render it necessary to keep up large armaments in a time of peace. I trust, Sir, that by following a different policy, we shall be able to reduce those armaments, and consequently to lessen considerably the burdens of the country. Therefore, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, founded on the similarity of the Estimates, and apparently attributing to me a want of candour, when brought to the test of truth, fall point lessly to the ground. I think, Sir, I have now answered the principal observations of the right hon. Gentleman. From the statements I have made, I am fully justified in congratulating the country upon the improved state of our finances. It appears to me that the prospects before us are highly favourable. Through the gloomiest quarter, as anticipated by some hon. Members, of the financial year we have obtained a surplus of income over our expenditure to the amount of £239,000. During a period of less than three weeks in the present month there has been a gradual, but at the same time considerable, augmentation in our revenue, amounting in the whole to £364,000. And those principal heads show, more than any other, the social prosperity and commercial condition of the country. Our prospects for the continuance of this quarter and for the next half year give us, therefore, no reason whatever to assume that they will be of a gloomier character. Quite the re-
1918
verse. By the blessing of Providence we have before us the prospect of an abundant harvest, and the influence of that fact upon the revenue of the country is too well known to every Member of this house for me to dwell upon. What are the other prospects before us? The prospect of peace at this moment—without any offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite—is far more satisfactory than it was a year or six months ago. No one can deny, whether we appeal to the continent of Europe or to the other side of the Atlantic, that everything wears a most encouraging aspect to those who believe that by a conciliatory, though firm policy, this state of things may be secured and maintained. The only source of anxiety and trouble that the House and the country have at present is, no doubt, the present condition of India. But the condition of India is one which, we consider, must not only be met with energy, but at the same time with a policy of conciliation. Sir, I not only hope, but believe, that under such a policy our affairs in India will assume a very different, and far more favourable character than they have heretofore been. Without indulging in any language of exaggeration, without colouring our position in too favourable a light, I think it is one upon which I may very fairly congratulate the country; and, so far as the finances of the country are concerned, it appears to me that they were never in a more healthy condition than at present; and the prospect before us, too, is one which I think ought to give satisfaction to every lover of his country.
MR. WILSONsaid, he did not rise to throw any doubt upon the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. It must be doubly gratifying to the House to hear that the finances were in a better state than appeared from the public accounts, and to learn that, as was shown by the increase of revenue from the sources to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, trade was really reviving. He must, however, remind the House that it was somewhat unusual to estimate the revenue of the whole year from that of a portion of the year. Those who were acquainted with commerce must know that when trade began to revive after a period of depression, the retail dealers made large purchases, and it was from these purchases, and the consequent clearances at the Custom-houses, rather than from the actual consumption of the moment, that the increase of revenue was derived. He

1919
did not wish to throw any doubt upon the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman; he sincerely hoped that they would be realized, and that the thorough revival of trade might bring into the Exchequer those large sums upon which he had calculated. He must remind the House that his right hon. Friend the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis), by no means questioned the present state of the finances. All that he desired to do was to call the attention of the House to the miscalculations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman in his budget, and which seemed to throw some blame upon the late Government. Because when the right hon. Gentleman made his financial statement he proposed to reduce the Estimates by £800,000; 400,000, on the Army and Navy, and £400,000 on the Civil Service Estimates. Experience had since proved that instead of there being a decrease in the Civil Service Estimates there was an increase of upwards of £100,000; instead of there being a decrease in the Army Estimates there was an increase of nearly £200,000, and in the Navy Estimates there was a decrease of only about £30,000. The result of all the financial operations since the budget was, that instead of there being a surplus of £300,000, there was a deficiency of £535,000. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the increased expenditure had been met by an increase of revenue, and therefore it might lead to no financial embarrassment. In the present excited and depressed state of the financial world out of doors he would drop no word which might lead any one to believe that there were any grave apprehensions of financial difficulties in the coming year. To one point he would refer, in the hope that that of which he complained might not occur again. It was altogether contrary to the practice of that House to present Estimates which did not represent the exact expenditure of the year, and thereby inferentially mislead the House. He did not mean to blame his hon. Friend the Secrecretary of the Treasury; but, in regard to the Civil Service Estimates, this irregularity had been committed. Under six heads of expenditure they had Estimates amounting to £1,013,000, showing a decrease of not less than £398,000, upon those of last year; and any one who looked at the Vote would think that a saving to that amount had been effected. Such, however, was not the case. The actual ex-
1920
penditure during the year would be not less than £1,340,000, or £326,000 more than the sum voted. The Vote for Government prisons, convict establishments, &c. last year was, in round numbers, £653,000; this year it was only £544,000, showing an apparent saving of £120,756. The fact was, that the actual expenditure during the year would be £665,000, or £12,000 more than the estimate of last year. He could not but express a hope that in future the Estimates would be prepared so as to show the probable expenditure within the year, and not, by depending upon the unappropriated balances, show an apparent reduction when there was a real excess. Some time ago the House was told that it was quite wrong to provide Ways and Means for a Sinking Fund, that they ought to rely upon the natural excess of income over expenditure. If such an excess was provided, well and good. His right hon. Friend had, however, shown that, according to the frame of the budget for the present year, instead of a surplus there was a deficiency of £500,000; and it was worse than idle to talk of reducing the national debt by means of the excess of income over expenditure, if no such excess was provided. Between the years 1816 and 1828 the Sinking Fund paid off £54,000,000 of debt, while during the twenty-five years after the abolition of that fund only £21,000,000 was paid off; and now, instead of the debt being less than it was in 1828, it exceeded it by £6,000,000. Despite the flattering account which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the revenue, he had never seen a time at which for so long a period there had been such gloom and despondency in the money-market as had existed lately; and he hoped that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would produce a more cheerful state of things. Our Estimates, both for the naval, military, and civil services, had lately seriously and steadily increased, and unless we could take some step which would lead to their diminution, we must be prepared to submit to an increase of taxation in some form or other.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he could assure the House that there had been no material departure from the ordinary mode of framing the Estimates. His own opinion was however, that that matter was susceptible of great improvement, and it was the intention of the Government to carry out as far as practicable the suggestions of the Committee on Public Moneys.

1921
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had stated that something had been done in the present year with regard to the Estimates which had not taken place upon former occasions, alluding to the fact that there were six items in which reference was made to the unexpended balances of previous years. In the Estimates for 1857–8 there were just the same number of items in which the same observations were contained. The hon. Gentleman knew as well as any one the mode in which the Estimates were prepared. The object of every department was to ascertain the amount requisite to be put in the Estimates for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the current year, and he did not think that tiny department allowed itself to be actuated by any consideration except a honest desire to do its duty. In the present instance the Government had not sought to reduce the amount of the Estimates by a reference to existing balances. The practice in question was not a good one, and it would be far better that the amount likely to be required for the current year should be voted by the House, unexpended balances being paid as surplus into the Exchequer.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state what portion of the increase that had taken place in stamps and taxes during the greater portion of July was due to the penny stamp upon bankers' cheques?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he could not give the information which the hon. Gentleman required at the present moment, nor did he think it was necessary to do so. He might state generally that the impost upon drafts had quite realized the Estimate made in April.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, that he viewed with some degree of alarm the silent but gradual growth of the public expenditure. The people of England paid in the shape of compensation and superannuation alone as much as would maintain the whole civil establishments of any other kingdom on the face of the earth. Upon that one item the repeal of a single clause in an Act of Parliament had cost the country something like £80,000 a year. This item, which he might call the dead weight, was gradually increasing every year, and demanded the special attention of the Government with the view to its better control and reduction. It was
1922
gratifying, no doubt, to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the buoyant state of the public revenue; but it should not be forgotten that they were doing nothing whatever towards the extinction of the National Debt, to which £40,000,000 had been added within the last few years. He was glad to hear from the Secretary of the Treasury that the Government were likely to have the recommendations of the Committee on Public Money carried into effect. He was of opinion that they should take measures to check the expenditure of the country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSstated that the expenditure for the army and navy last year was just double the amount of the Estimates for those services when the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were in office. The present Government had, much to their credit, made a considerable reduction, and he hoped they would continue to pursue the same course.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 24 were agreed to.
Clause 25.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would move to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided always, that whenever, in consequence of an exigency of the Public Service, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall authorise an appropriation of the Public Money, in addition to the aggregate sum voted for any Service in any Department, every such appropriation shall be presented in a Supplementary Estimate to be approved and sanctioned by the House of Commons, if Parliament is sitting, and, if Parliament is not sitting, then within one month after the meeting of Parliament."
The object which he had in view was simply to impose a check upon the expenditure of money by providing that the purposes for which the House voted sums of money should be strictly observed, and that there should be no departure in the appropriation of the public money, except an application were made to Parliament on the subject, and the House should assent to the proposed diversion of the public money. Last year a considerable sum was spent in the Naval Department in excess of the authorized Estimate—a proceeding which he regarded as utterly destructive of the power and control of Parliament, and which ought to be prevented in future. It was a fact, that the supervision exercised by the Controller of the Exchequer was not adequate to effect the object for which it was intended.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that this

1923
was the revival of a suggestion which had been laid before the Committee on Public Moneys last Session, and would probably form matter for consideration next Session. If the Report of the Committee should be acted upon by the Government proposing a measure founded upon it, all cause of complaint might be removed. The practice adopted recently by the Government was, that no money voted for special purposes could be otherwise dealt with than by leave of the Treasury. It was absolutely necessary that the Government should be armed with discretionary powers in those matters; and although no Government liked to be armed with large discretionary powers as they entailed a proportionate increase of responsibility, nevertheless he submitted it was for the convenience of Parliament that the Government should be allowed, in cases of emergency, to make transfers from one branch of a department to another. If such discretionary powers were not intrusted to them, they might be compelled to call Parliament together in October or December to give its sanction to the transfer or expenditure of the comparatively trifling sum of £100,000. He was opposed to the Amendment, believing that it would not only create a great inconvenience in the conduct of the financial affairs of the country, but that it would be in effect repealing the former part of the clause. He thought that the hon. Gentleman should, in the first instance, have proposed to expunge the clause altogether.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought some such provision as that proposed by the hon. Baronet was required. Sums in excess might be so voted that a Vote of an unpopular character might be made up out of the surplus of a popular Vote. They were not informed of the disposal of the money until long after it had been expended.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONconfessed he felt considerable difficulty in understanding what the hon. Gentleman meant by his proviso. The provisions of the Bill were sufficiently stringent for all practical purposes, and he thought that the adoption of the proviso would have the effect of tying up the hands of the Government in cases of great emergency, and would therefore fetter that discretion which it was found necessary to give them. The Government had only power, upon leave of the Treasury, to transfer, in cases of need, the power granted under the head of a particular de-
1924
partment to another head of that same department. They had no power to divert the money voted from any one department to another.
MR. WILSONstated that the object which the hon. Baronet had in view was already practically attained. This question had been raised two years ago, and a provision was then made that when Parliament met it should be put in possession of the mode of disposal of these sums. He thought it was desirable the correspondence should be laid before the House, as well as the statement of expenditure.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was not bigotedly attached to the phraseology of the proviso, but he wished the House to have the fullest control over such expenditure by means of express communication from Government to the House.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 89: Majority 48.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BUTLERsaid, he thought they were legislating too hastily, and, as it appeared to him, very unfairly on this matter. He would call attention to the fact that the Thames received not only the sewage of London, but that of every town and village on this side of the Cotswold hills, and that, therefore, the whole cost of purifying the river ought not to be cast upon the ratepayers of the metropolis. Further than this, there was a large amount of Government property within the metropolis, such as the Royal Palace, Dock Yards, Government Offices, and other public buildings, which would not contribute to the cost of this improvement, although it contributed to the nuisance. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord having charge of the Bill would give the House an assurance that he would reconsider the question as to the area of rating, he should move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill this day three months.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that he also considered that those who contributed toward the evil complained of should be called upon to contribute towards its removal. An enormous quantity of dirt was brought up the river by the shipping, and he wished to know why the shipping interest were not to contribute towards the works in question?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he hoped that the House would not now be drawn into a discussion of the principle of the Bill then before the Committee, and he would remind the gallant Admiral that a few days ago two persons were fined for throwing dirt into the St. Katharine's Docks, and that the representative of the dock company then undertook that such practices should be discontinued in future.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he thought that some discussion upon the principle of this measure, the provisions of which were reconcilable with no sound opinion, would be exceedingly useful. He, for one, would not have assented to its second reading had he not anticipated that it would leave that House in a shape very different from that in which it was introduced. He had yet to learn that a body of forty-three gentlemen was the fittest for carrying this work through in the best and most economical manner. It was easy to make speeches on the question, but the difficulties of the question were best appreciated by those who possessed engineering experience. He, therefore, doubted whether the Government had acted wisely in handing over this great work to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in whom, and in their engineer, he had not implicit confidence. If the matter was to be handed over to them, however, why was it not handed to them without any restrictions. He thought there was much exaggeration abroad respecting the existing evils, and that therefore there was no necessity for haste in passing the present measure. At the same time he hoped that what hon. Members had experienced would have the effect of causing them in some degree to realize what sort of atmosphere was breathed by many families in this kingdom during the hours both of work and sleep. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would consent so to amend the measure as to remove
  1926
  the limitations as to outfalls, &c., which were contained in it.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought a little discussion would be by no means amiss. He hoped that an assurance would be given by the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works, that he would consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler). He had more confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works than seemed to be entertained by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Viscount Ebrington), and did not doubt their competency to perform the work entrusted to them by this Bill. The Government had exercised a wise discretion in not undertaking this task itself, but in committing its performance to the representatives of the metropolitan ratepayers, who had exerted themselves most honestly and fairly, and had devoted the greater portion of their time to the discharge of their duties as members of this Board.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government was quite willing that all the points involved in this Bill should be fully considered and discussed, but they thought that the best time to take that discussion would be when the Bill was in Committee. They had not proposed this measure because they shrunk from responsibility, but because they knew that the House would never give to them unlimited power to expend any suns of money they pleased upon the drainage of the metropolis. Tinder these circumstances they were obliged to use the machinery already in existence, and had availed themselves of a body which was constituted for the very purpose of undertaking the work. They had heard much of late of the benefits of local administration and of the value of having the right man in the right place, and from what he had seen of Mr. Thwaites he thought that it was fortunate that they could obtain the assistance of so sensible and practical a man, one who was an honour to his class, and fairly represented all the virtues of which Englishmen were proud. It was quite possible that Amendments might be made in this Bill, but that could only be done in Committee, and therefore he hoped that Mr. Speaker would now be allowed to leave the Chair.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to know whether the Government could say that the Metropolitan Board of Works was fully open to consider this question, and was not by Resolution committed to the

  1927
  plan which went by its name. If that Board was so committed, the House would, in fact, by passing this Bill be adopting that plan, to which he had such an objection that rather than sanction it he should certainly vote against this Bill.
  MR. CONINGUAMsaid, that if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler), divided the House, he should certainly vote with him, because he saw with alarm the intention of the Government to commit the performance of this great work, the execution of which was estimated to cost £3,000,000, to a Board which had yet done nothing to merit the confidence of the public. If the system recommended by that Board was adopted the drainage of the metropolis would cost, not £3,000,000 but £30,000,000. No reliance could be placed on the reports of Mr. Bazalgette, which, in his opinion, were contrary to fact, whereas everything bore testimony to the superiority of the scheme proposed by Mr. Ward, whose calculations and statements had never been confuted. He thought that some further investigation should take place, because he believed that no scheme could prove successful which did not utilize the sewage and separate it from the rainfall.
  SIR J. SHELLEYsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Conningham), had dealt quite fairly with the engineer of the Board of Works. He begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that the present Board of Works was not responsible for the operations carried on in the Victoria sewer. He hoped that the House would be allowed to go into Committee, with the view of rendering the measure as unobjectionable as possible. The House had not as yet given the Board of Works the opportunity of displaying their skill and efficiency, and he trusted that that opportunity would now be given them by throwing the whole responsibility of those works upon them.
  MR. COXsaid, the people put no faith in the Executive Government carrying out works economically. As an instance he might mention the Estimate of £750,000 for Westminster Palace, but which had cost upwards of two millions. If the Metropolitan Board of Works had to carry out the drainage of the metropolis, he thought they would carry it out within a reasonable sum. At the same time he must express his regret that the public offices were not to contribute towards the expense, and he would ask the Chancellor
  1928
  of the Exchequer if he was prepared to introduce a clause rating them towards it.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he wished to ask whether it was to be made a condition by the Government that the intercepting plan—that was to say, a succession of tunnel sewers down to Barking Creek—should be adopted.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the question of the hon. and gallant General, as well as others which had been put to the Government in the course of discussion, could better be answered in Committee.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, as he thought the House should not proceed further without hearing from the Government what plan they proposed to adopt. In Committee it was very often difficult to get these matters explained.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the Bill did not give to Government the power of adopting any plan. It gave the power of doing so to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he had the authority of the Chairman to say that they did not consider themselves pledged to any particular plan.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEurged the Government to answer at once the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBARsaid, he must protest against the proposal to assist the main drainage of the metropolis by a grant from the public purse.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated clearly the other night that the Government were not bound to any scheme whatever by the measure they proposed. He did not know how they could give a clearer assurance to the House. He would, however, repeat that the Government were not connected with any particular scheme whatever in connection with the drainage of the metropolis. All the Government professed to do by the present measure was, to place the Metropolitan Board of Works in that condition which would enable them to carry into effect any plan they thought best calculated to attain the desired result. The Government did not interfere at all with their discretion.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that whatever might be the intention of the Government, the Bill clearly pointed to a particular plan. The very first clause directed the Metropolitan Board of Works to intercept the drainage, for example.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he must, again urge that the public offices should contribute towards the proposed expense.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 11: Majority 122.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1,
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to move, in line 14, after the word "speed,' to leave out to the end of the clause, and to insert "such works as may be necessary for purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the Metropolis." His object was to throw upon the Board of Works the whole responsibility of devising the particular scheme that was to be adopted for the drainage of the metropolis. If his Amendment were adopted, the Bill would not express either directly or indirectly any opinion in favour of any plan.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In Clause 1, line 14, after "speed," to leave out to the end of the Clause, and insert "such works as may be necessary for purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the Metropolis."
  Question proposed,—
  "That the words 'according to such plan as to them may seem proper,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought that the Amendment would place the House of Commons in a great difficulty, inasmuch as it would in effect be committing the House of Commons to the purification of the Thames. What was "purifying" the Thames? Were the Metropolitan Board to be compelled to convert the Thames into pure drinking water at London-bridge? All they could do was to prevent the river being injured by sewage. He apprehended that the Amendment in its present form could not be acceded to.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would support the Amendment, with the addition of the words he would propose to prevent the sewage of the metropolis going into the Thames.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he was clearly of opinion that the clause, as framed, provided for intercepting the sewage, and preventing it going into the Thames. He thought that the Amendment would be made much more objectionable by striking out the word "preventing."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Bill was one to provide for the main drainage of the metropolis. The clause had been very carefully considered, and was, he believed most intelligibly framed to carry out the objects in view. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not consider it necessary to adopt the Amendment.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought that words might be inserted to meet the views of all parties, and such as would secure, not only the main drainage of the metropolis, but also the purification of the Thames.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the object of the Bill was to enable the Board to get rid of the sewage of the metropolis in a manner that would not be injurious to the health of the metropolis, but it did not empower them to apply money to the making of a sewer, for example, through Oxford-street.
  It being four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ALLEGED PROTRACTED CONFINEMENT IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM—QUESTION.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true, as stated in a daily paper, that at a recent Visitation the Commissioners in Lunacy discovered in a private provincial Lunatic Asylum a concealed cell, in which a man, who is stated to be in full possession of his faculties, had been for many years confined.
MR. WALPOLEsaid that, after making inquiry, he could not find that the Commissioners of Lunacy had made any such discovery.

CREDITORS ON THE STATE OF OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control what has been done with regard to the Creditors on the State of Oude since Mr. Otway called for a Return of their names and respective claims on the 9th of May, 1857; and whether a Commission has been appointed in India to investigate the merits of those claims.
  LORD STANLEYstated, that on the 17th of June in last year the Court of Directors instructed the Governor General to cause, with as little delay as possible, all bona fide claims against the Government of Oude to be investigated and reported on either by the Finance Commissioner at Oude or by some Officer

  1931
  appointed for the purpose. On the 22nd of August the Government of India replied that the instructions would be carried into effect as soon as the state of public affairs in Oude would permit, and he apprehended, therefore, that any delay in carrying them into effect had been due to the disturbed state of the country.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.—QUESTION.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Public Works whether there are any grounds for the rumours that serious decay has taken place in the foundation stone of this House, causing the structure to give way in several places.
LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that he had called the attention of Sir Charles Barry and of the gentlemen in the Office of Works having charge of that Department to the subject, and their Report did not confirm the accuracy of the rumours in question. Sir Charles Barry reported that there was not any ground for the rumours, and that though the stones of the building, like all stones in London subject to atmospheric influence, had suffered decomposition on the surface to some degree, yet the stability of the structure was not affected, and there was no real ground for apprehension. The Report of the other gentleman was to the same effect.

THE PROBATE ACT AND THE DIVORCE ACT—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to proceed with the Probate Act Amendment Bill and the Divorce Act Amendment Rill, or either of them this Session; and, if it when it is intended to proceed.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that what the Government at present proposed to do was to try to pass such clauses of those Acts as were absolutely necessary, in order to amend certain defects which interfered with the administration of justice, and to take out those clauses which were not so immediately essential, and which were likely to give rise to discussion. The particulars of the arrangement would be stated when the Bills came before the House on the following evening.

THE OUTRAGE AT JEDDAH.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, what communi-
1932
cations have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Turkey on the subject of the recent outrages at Jeddah; whether Her Majesty's Government have insisted on the summary punishment of the offenders; and whether they are in possession of any information whether it is possible for ships of war to take up such a position in the Harbour of Jeddah, as to enable them to give effectual protection to the Christian population in the event of any future disturbance?
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDin reply said, that on a former occasion he had stated that the Cyclops had been telegraphed to, and ordered to return with other vessels to Jeddah immediately, and the officers were instructed, if ample reparation were not given, to bombard Jeddah, and insist on the immediate punishment of all the parties concerned in the outrage. He could now state that the Cyclops immediately sailed for Jeddah, and he was informed by the captain that by lightening the vessel she could approach quite close to the town; and the captain added that she was so heavily armed that she could perform any service required of her. There was also a very heavy armament for the whole of her boats. This determination of the British Government was immediately communicated without reserve to the Turkish Government, and information had been received that the Turkish Government forthwith ordered a general officer to Jeddah to enforce the summary punishment of the murderers. In a subsequent despatch from the Foreign Office, Sir Henry Bulwer was instructed to say that this was a case in which the British Government could not be trifled with:—
"And that even great political objects, as they regard our alliance with the Porte, must yield to the paramount principle of supporting Christian and British prestige in those regions. It was not enough to send a general to Jeddah. Troops were wanted there, but, above all, a public execution of the murderers immediately. The Pasha ought to have the power of life and death without tedious references to Constantinople. Three ships had been ordered to Jeddah, and we should seize the place if justice was not speedily obtained."
Sir Henry Bulwer was instructed to state this to the Grand Vizier without reserve. He (Mr. S. FitzGerald) could further inform the hon. Gentleman that, in consequence of these representations, an officer of the highest rank had been despatched from Constantinople; that he was backed

1933
by a very large force; that he was authorized to proclaim martial law, and without any reference whatever to Constantinople to inflict immediate punishment upon the authors of the outrage. He could state also, that not only had the Ministers of the Sublime Porte at Constantinople adopted these measures, but that the Sultan had personally sent his Secretary to Sir Henry Bulwer to say there was nothing His Majesty would not do to testify his indignation at the outrage and to satisfy the British Government. In testimony of that feeling his Imperial Majesty had placed 1,000,000 piastres at the disposal of the British and French Governments, to be distributed among the sufferers, and had also signified his intention of settling an amount of upwards of £400 a year upon the daughter of the French Consul and the representative of the British Vice Consul.

REVIEW GROUND AT HOUNSLOW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether there would be any objection to permit the inhabitants of Hounslow and the vicinity to pass across the Review Ground at that place, and to use it for recreational purposes, subject to proper restrictions, and at such times as would not interfere with military duties and regulations?
  GENERAL PEELreplied, that the drill-ground was let on lease, the terms of which were extremely stringent; but he could state that, happening to live in the immediate neighbourhood, he was in the constant habit of riding and walking across the Review Ground, and he had seen many other persons doing so also.

FIREWORK MANUFACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAURIEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any steps have been taken to prevent the manufacture of fire works in populous places?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that no steps had been taken by the Government with such an object, but he might state that there was in existence an Act, passed so long ago as the reign of William III, which, if it were put in force, would, he apprehended, prevent the nuisance.

EVENTS IN THE EAST.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would beg
1934
to interpose before they proceeded to the Orders of the day for the purpose of asking permission to read a telegraphic despatch just received by the Government relating to the capture of Gwalior, and the progress of the British and French arms in China. The right hon. Gentleman then read the contents of a telegram received from Consul General Green, announcing the recapture, by Sir H. Rose, of Gwalior on 28th June, after four hours' hard fighting. Also the taking by the English and French gunboats, in China of a fort on the river Peiho, with trifling loss on our side.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  On Question that the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the course adopted by the Government was extremely inconvenient, for hon. Gentlemen expected that the business would be taken in the order in which it stood upon the paper. The Government had given notice of their intention to proceed with two Bills at the morning sitting, and it was now proposed to continue the discussion upon one of those Bills at the evening sitting, thereby completely overriding the arrangement which, according to the printed papers, had been made. The first two Bills on the paper to be taken at the evening sitting related to Ireland. Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies had been kept up night after night until past one o'clock in the expectation that some discussion would be taken upon these measures, and now that they had obtained a favourable position on the paper the Government proposed to proceed with other business.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House had been occupied at the morning sitting until half-past three o'clock by preliminary discussions before this Bill got into Committee, and by the direction of the House the Report was ordered to be presented at six o'clock. It was, therefore, for the House to decide whether or not they would at once resume the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was no intention on the part of the Government to take any unfair advantage of Irish Members but the reverse. As, however, they had been unable to make much progress with this Bill at the morning sit-

  1935
  ting, he hoped the House would now consent to continue its discussion in Committee.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1.
  Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he had at the morning sitting moved the omission of the latter portion of the clause, in order to insert the following words,
  "Such works as may be necsssary for the purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the metropolis."
  If this Amendment were adopted he would propose the omission of the 2nd clause. It had been said that the House would not be asked to sanction any particular scheme, but as the Bill now stood it would, in fact, sanction the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was absurd, then, to say that the Bill was not connected with a plan. One authority was in favour of the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works, while two were opposed to it. The report of the referees on metropolitan drainage was opposed to it, and the report of the Select Committee of that House, so far from sanctioning anything in the nature of the scheme, gave an opinion in favour of deodorization. If deodorization could be adopted, there was no use in making the elaborate and costly system of intercepting parallel sewers. He would press on the House that they were doing wrong if they threw their authority into any particular plan. He believed that to be the feeling of the Committee, and therefore he had proposed words to carry out that desire. By the first clause, as it stood, the Bill defined a particular site where the works might not be, and that was in connection with the second clause, which laid down where the works might be. It was clear that this was the commencement of the definition of a plan of intercepting sewers to carry off the sewage to Barking Creek. He wished the Act to give powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works without pledging them to any particular plan. The two objects embraced by the Bill were the improvement of the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames, neither of which necessarily involved the other; and the effect of his Amendment would be to make this clear, to impose on the Metropolitan Board the duty of carrying out these objects with all convenient speed, and also charge them
  1936
  with the whole responsibility of the work, without defining the means of executing it.
  MR. STEPHENSONdid not think that by passing the Bill in its present form the House would be at all conob/>itting themselves in the way which the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) seemed to suppose. It was quite clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not devoted much time, professionally at all events, to the consideration of this subject. The hon. and learned Member had observed that the question resolved itself into two distinct parts—the purification of the Thames, and the main drainage of the metropolis. [Mr. HEADLAM: No.] He thought the hon. and learned Member had conveyed to the House that one of these works might be executed without the other. He (Mr. Stephenson) denied that proposition. He maintained that the execution of one involved the execution of the other, for if London were well drained the Thames would he purified, for the impurities of the river resulted from the bad drainage of London. The House was not asked to agree to any plan about which there was any material difference of opinion between the Government referees and the engineers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. No doubt the two Reports made by these Gentlemen were antagonistic as to the end proposed, and their ultimate views; but they perfectly coincided with respect to the intercepting system. Both were in favour of intercepting sewers, and since all parties were agreed on the principle, why should not the House, before it advanced money for some special object, know how that object was to be carried out? He repeated that he did not think the House was committing himself, more especially as the only difference between the intercepting system of the Government and that of the Board of Works was as to the size of the sewers, and the place of outfall. This was unquestionably a subject which deserved careful consideration; but it was a mere question of detail, and involved no principle. He would ask the House, then, to sanction the principle as far as this measure did sanction it, or otherwise the question would be left as open and as unsettled as it was seven or eight years ago, when he first entered Parliament. At that time shoals of devices were brought forward for purifying the Thames, and improving the drainage of London; but these had all resolved themselves into the intercepting system as the basis of action, and after

  1937
  having devoted years to the consideration of the subject, he could conceive nothing more likely to carry out the object they had in view in advancing this large sum of money. The referees only differed as to the outfall. Now, whether or not it might be necessary hereafter to go down to Sea Reach was not a question for the House now to decide. Meanwhile, let them be contented to get down to Barking Creek. For his part, he thought it important not to go too far down the river in the first instance. The plan of the Government referees would, they computed, cost £6,000,000; the plan of the Board of Works would cost £3,000,000. Now, suppose the £6,000,000 scheme were adopted. Four or five years hence some plan of deodorization (which was yet in its infancy) might be perfected, and then they would, perhaps, find they had unnecessarily spent £3,000,000—a sum which would double itself in seventeen years; and therefore, even supposing they finally carried the outfall down to Sea Reach, much in a monetary point of view would be gained by not adopting that plan in the first instance. Moreover, be believed that sewage matter would eventually be made useful for agricultural purposes, and he therefore thought it impolitic to enter into any larger expenditure than could well be helped for the present, if even it were found necessary to carry the sewers down to Sea Reach hereafter. Now, as to the second point—the deodorizing of the sewage, at the mouth of the sewers, on the banks of the Thames—he must state that the system was entirely unfitted to deal with the extension of the metropolis. The sewers in the lower parts of the metropolis were constructed for a population inhabiting an area of about half a mile in width along the margin of the river. If the sewers were prolonged to any great extent, spreading into the high levels on the north side in the direction of Highgate and Hampstead, the amount of sewage would necessarily be increased; but if the sewers in the lower parts of London were inadequate to dispose of the sewage now passing through them, how much more inadequate must they become as the metropolis expanded? With regard to any deodorizing system that might be adopted along the margin of the Thames, supposing, after a month or six weeks of dry weather, during which the sewers had been accumulating a great quantity of filth, and the deodorizing system had been efficiently
  1938
  performing its office, that a storm came on, a tremendous rush of water would then take place through the sewers, and the result would be that the sewers, being totally inadequate to bear it, and the deodorizing machinery inadequate to do its work, we should be in precisely the same perdicament that we were at present, and an enormous mass of sewage would be poured into the Thames. He hoped the House would now allow him to turn to the attack which had been made upon him at the morning sitting by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham); for there were one or two points in that attack which it would be scarcely respectful to the House that he should pass unnoticed. So far as his professional character was concerned, the remarks of the hon. Member fell upon him with perfect indifference. But the hon. Member bad spoken to-day as if he (Mr. Stephenson) were the engineer of the Victoria sewer. Now, he begged to say that he was not.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that what he had stated was that the hon. Gentleman had made an estimate for the Victoria sewer.
  MR. STEPHENSONhad never made an estimate for it in his life; and he now appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the term "false estimates," which he had used. With respect to the metropolitan sewers, it happened that he had been so unfortunate—as any man must consider himself unfortunate—to be placed upon a Commission of Sewers in this metropolis, the members of which were exposed to every possible abuse, notwithstanding all the time and talent which they had brought to bear upon their duties, and he had found it to be a most thankless office. The hon. Member for Brighton then drew an illogical conclusion, which was rendered still more illogical now that he understood that he (Mr. Stephenson) had had nothing to do with the Victoria sewer, that taking his (Mr. Stephenson's) estimate for the Victoria sewer as a criterion, the £3,000,000 to be guaranteed under this Bill would be extended not to £10,000,000, but to £30,000,000. He admitted that the hon. Gentleman spoke under the influence of spine little excitement when he stated the last amount. But what was the course be had adopted? Why, he first took an estimate with which he (Mr. Stephenson) had had nothing to do, multiplied it three or four times, and then applied it to another estimate with which, if that were

  1939
  possible, he had still less to do. The hon. Member had also talked of his (Mr. Stephenson's) being challenged to mathematical contest with Mr. F. O. Ward. Now, Mr. F. O. Ward had for years been engaged in making accusations against the very active, industrious, and intelligent engineer of the present Board of Sewers; and in reply to the challenge he begged to say that he should not receive it, nor would he, under any circumstances, meet Mr. F. O. Ward on a mathematical problem. The hon. Member had also accused him of using false formula. Now, the word "false" was, he must say, rather an offensive expression.
  MR. CONINGHAMexplained that he had not used the term "false formulæ." What he did was, to accuse Mr. Bazalgette of falsifying formulæ.
  MR. STEPHENSONwould take the responsibility of that also. Mr. Bazalgette did not falsify formulæ; and the responsibility of asserting that he took upon his own shoulders. He denied that the formula were false or even erroneous. He had devoted his best attention to them; and he hoped that neither Mr. Bazalgette nor himself would be supposed capable of falsifying formulæ for the purpose of bringing about a particular result. Another accusation against Mr. Bazalgette was his having made a falsification with regard to pipe sewers. Now, he could assure the hon. Member that these stoppages did actually take place, because he had himself, with his own eyes, seen stoppages in pipe sewers. As to the other charge of the hon. Member against Mr. Bazalgette, that he had gone into the sewers one night at twelve o'clock, and that no honest man ought to have been there at that hour. Suppose the hon. Member should apply that criterion to that House? He (Mr. Stephenson) had many a time visited great works in which he had been concerned, not only at midnight, but all night long; but could any one justly say that he was a dishonest man for that? Certainly not. Mr. Bazalgette was prompted by his sense of duty in going to a particular point of the London sewers at that time of night, and he would be bound to say that he could give a good account of his reasons for doing so.
  MR. CONINGHAMrose to reply,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERinterposed, and said that he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Whitby should have desired to make
  1940
  the explanation and statement he had now laid before the Committee; but as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brighton had both had an opportunity of expressing at length their views upon this controverted question, he would remind the Committee that the matter had nothing whatever to do with the clause under consideration.
  MR. CONINGHAMappealed to the Committee to allow him to say a few words by way of explanation. The hon. Member for Whitby had treated the statements he had made at the morning sitting as if they had emanated from Mr. F. O. Ward; but he would remind the hon. Member that he had quoted each of these statements from Parliamentary documents; the charges he had brought against Mr. Bazalgette were upon record, and although ample opportunity had been given him to refute them, he had never yet done so. He had not charged the hon. Member for Whitby with having falsified data.
  MR. CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to order, and reminded the House that the Question before them was the omission of certain words from the clause. He would suggest, in order to confer unrestricted power of choice upon that Board, the propriety of adding the words, "according to such plan as may to them seem proper." In the Amendment, also, he thought some verbal alteration was requisite, and would suggest that it should run, "such works within the metropolis."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that two opinions had been expressed by different Members; one was that no money ought to be advanced to the Metropolitan Board of Works till the plan proposed was known, and the other was, that the whole execution of the plan ought to be given up to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was of opinion that the whole matter should be placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He would not enter into the consideration as to whether they were to proceed by intercepting sewers or tubular drains, or by the plan of one engineer or the other; but the question was whether the House should or should not throw all the responsibility on the body delegated by the ratepayers of the metropolis. That he thought was the best course, and so to leave the Metropolitan Board of Works to adopt such plan as they thought fit.
  MR. HEADLAM,in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitby, explained that he had not intended to say

  1941
  there should be two separate works for the purification of the Thames and the drainage of London. He had no objection to the addition suggested by the right hon. Member for Marylebone.
  MR. AYRTONhoped the noble Lord would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the clause was properly framed to get the House out of the difficulties arising from the controversies existing between engineers upon this matter.
  MR. COXsaid, he had to complain that no answer had been given by the Government to a question he bad asked at the morning sitting whether public buildings were to be subjected to the rate, and what was to be the area of rating. He would divide the Committee on every clause until he got an answer. He also wished to know whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had not agreed on a plan and submitted it to the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman was no doubt an important one; but it had nothing to do with the clause; but as the hon. Gentleman thought that he had been deficient in courtesy in not answering his question, he might perhaps say that when the hon. Gentleman put the question the House was not in Committee, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had already spoken. However, with the permission of the Committee he might state to the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of the rating of privileged buildings had lately been inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons, who had made a report upon the subject; and, so far as he was at present advised—he spoke his own opinions and those of his colleagues—he agreed with the recommendations, generally speaking, of that Committee, who certainly did not approve of any buildings being privileged by exemption from rating. It was the intention of the Government to deal with that subject; but they thought it ought to be dealt with generally, and not by a side wind, or the introduction of a clause into a Bill of this kind, which referred only to one particular rate. It was not his intention, therefore, to propose a clause in the Bill with the object to which the hon. Member had referred; but the whole subject was under the consideration of the Government, and he trusted that it would be dealt with in a manner that would be satisfactory to the House. With regard to the area of taxation, it was intended that that
  1942
  area should consist of what was called the metropolitan area; and he did not see how in justice they could go beyond it.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that if the second clause was to be agreed to, he would consent to adopt the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), but as he was about to move to expunge that clause, he preferred the words of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) as more general, and not referring to any particular plan.
  MR. PULLERsaid, if the Government carried out their declaration that it was not their intention to impose any plan on the Board of Works, the second clause must go. Otherwise they would sanction the adoption of such a system of sewers and works as might be necessary to prevent the sewage from passing into the Thames near the metropolis, but there would not be any provision to prevent the sewage when it had got into the Thames from being brought back into the metropolis. They must, therefore, add to the first clause such words as would impose on the Board not only the duty of preventing sewage from going into the Thames within the metropolitan boundaries, but to prevent it from coming back, or they must adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle.
  MR. TITEsaid, the Bill appeared to be drawn with reference to a distinct plan, and he thought all the objections which had been raised would be met by the omission of the word "sewers," for the clause would then stand thus—"according to such a plan as to them may seem proper, the necessary works"—which would include sewers if the Board should think them necessary, but would leave the question entirely open. He should, however, support the Government in whatever course they might deem most advisable.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that having listened attentively to the present discussion, he must press upon the Committee that in his opinion the effect of it was to show that the words as they stood in the clause were the best adapted to carry out the views of the Committee. If, however, it was desired to insert other words he should prefer those which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) in the morning to those which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam). If, therefore, the Committee re-

  1943
  jected the latter, and the right hon. Baronet would propose his, he (Lord J. Manners) would give the latter his assent.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) would not press to a division, though if he did so he (Viscount Ebrington) must vote with him. He regretted that a personal question had been introduced, but the Committee must not think that because Mr. Ward was not here to answer for himself, he must be in the wrong.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that for the sake of simplicity, he should support the clause as it stood in the Bill on the distinct understanding that he was not committing himself to any particular plan.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that he wished to know if Government had made up their mind not to insist on the intercepting sewers?
  MR. BYNGsaid, he supported the clause because it empowered the Board of Works to carry out the undertaking according to the plan they might think best, but without committing the House or the Government to any particular scheme.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), on the ground that the clause in its present shape gave power to the Board of Works to carry sewage wherever they pleased, provided it were beyond the limits of the metropolis. On every ground of justice the people of the localities beyond the area ought not to be subjected to the accumulated sewage of the whole metropolis; even for the sake of Londoners themselves they ought not to be deprived of the benefit of making visits to the country just outside the town. He could see no reason for pouring the whole of the filth of London into one place, such as Barking Creek, and thought some plan ought to be adopted for deodorizing the sewage.
  MR. HUDSONsaid, he rose to order, and would submit that the hon. Member was discussing a plan not before the House, instead of confining himself to the clause.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, the question was whether the sewage should be carried without the bounds of the metropolis. He must also complain that after the Committee, of which he was a Member, had taken evidence on all sides, had listened attentively to suggestions on all sides, and had drawn up a Report with great care, it was now proposed to legis-
  1944
  late without reference to the conclusions to which they had come. He thought there was no use in calling the Committee together if their labours were to be treated in that manner.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHsaid, he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. On the authority of the evidence of Dr. Barnes, of the Dreadnought Hospital, he denied that the air of the river was unwholesome. It was desirable that the words of the clause should be as neutral as possible.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he must press his question with respect to the intercepting sewer.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSremarked that the question had been answered during the morning sitting by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, the whole of the difficulty in which the Committee was placed was caused by the unsatisfactory proposition of the Government. The Government had themselves said they had no distinct plan in view, and yet the Committee was called upon to endorse the Metropolitan Board of Works' plan, and to guarantee £3,000,000 to be laid out in executing that plan. Either the Board or the Government ought to have power to deal with the question. But the Bill was nothing less than a daring attempt to amalgamate the authority of the House of Commons with the power of the Board of Works. It was his intention to vote against every clause of the Bill.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, that the House should either have before it all the plans which had been devised, and go through them all, or should throw that duty on some independent body. The Government had chosen the latter alternative, and so far he thought their proposition fair; but it would not be fair to introduce into the Bill words which, by and by, when the plan failed, and all the money was spent, would enable it to be said that the House sanctioned such and such a plan.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 38: Majority 43.
  Upon the Motion of Sir BENJAMIN HALL, the words "for the improvement of the main drainage of the metropolis" were added; and the Clause, as amended, was agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Points of outfall, &c. Sewage to be deodorized).
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he pro-

  1945
  posed to alter this clause so as to provide, that if the sewage was deodorized, there might be an outfall in the parish of Chelsea, with other outfalls not higher up than the River Lea on the one side, and Deptford Creek on the other.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out all after the word "matter," in line 15, and insert the words, "the Board may make outfalls at any point in the parishes of Kensington or Fulham, on the left bank of the River Thames, and also outfalls at any point on the left bank of the river, not higher up than the River Lea, and at Deptford Creek on the right bank."
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he objected both to the clause and to the words proposed to be added, as they made the House responsible for the success of a scheme which might turn out an utter failure. He had been charged by the noble Lord opposite with being an enemy to self-government. He denied that he was so; but what he did object to was, a half-and-half scheme of local self-government, the responsibility being divided between the Parliament and the Board of Works, leaving nobody accountable for anything that might be done wrong. He trusted, before they had done with this Bill, they would make it rather more logical than it was then, and that if they were to have local self-government in the matter they should give that government a fair chance, and hold it responsible for failure and give it credit for success.
  MR. WINGFIELDsaid, he had a serious objection to the clause as it stood. As the purification of the Thames was the principle of the Bill, surely the sewage at any outlet ought to be discharged at that outlet effectually. He objected to take so narrow a view of the principle and scope of the Bill, or to confine its operation to the purifying of the metropolitan area only.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the clause would be the better for the insertion of the Amendment proposed, but it would be better still to strike out the whole clause. He did not think, as a member of the Committee, that the evidence they had taken sanctioned them in the idea that deodorization could be carried out to any great extent within the metropolitan area, and he thought the House ought not to take the responsibility of suggesting any mode in which it could be carried out; for if the scheme turned out a failure the inhabitants of the metropolis would then turn round upon them and say they had in the Bill pointed out the very spots where
  1946
  the outfalls were to be. All they had to do was to guarantee the money, and leave the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out their own plans.
  MR. CONINGHAMintimated, that he would not press an Amendment of which he had given notice, but that he would oppose the whole clause.
  MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTremarked, that if he understood the clause aright they might deodorize anywhere and discharge where they pleased, provided they deodorized during the whole year.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the Amendment which the noble Lord proposed would determine the highest points of the outfall.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he understood that the process of deodorization might be carried on at Deptford Creek. An accumulation of sewage at such a spot could not fail to be a great nuisance, and he wished to ask whether this process ought to be carried on in the neighbourhood of a great town?
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he objected to the scheme of deodorizing only for six months in the year, as the sewage thus poured out in the winter months would form mud banks, which would ferment and poison the atmosphere in summer. They ought to insist upon deodorization for the whole year. He should support the omission of the whole clause. There were Resolutions containing the opinion of parties who paid the rates of the metropolis, and they were consequently entitled to weight and consideration.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that as the clause at present stood the Metropolitan Board of Works would have full liberty to send the liquid results of deodorization into the river at any point within the metropolitan area, but now the proposition was to continue the deodorization to Kensington and Fulham, and certain parts of the Lea and Deptford. It was said that if the deodorization was effectual there would be no nuisance, and if so, why limit the discharge to these particular points. The wiser course he would suggest would be not to call on the Committee to decide where the points of outfall should be, but to leave the clause as it was.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that the object of the measure was to accord full liberty to the Metropolitan Board of Works to do that which seemed to them proper for the purification of the Thames, and the effective drainage of the metro-

  1947
  polis. It was in consequence of this that the first paragraph of this clause was inserted by way of protection and safeguard to the inhabitants on the banks of the Thames and in Essex, but, as far as the Board were concerned, they would be glad to be without such a clause. It had been objected that if the Board were permitted to throw the sewage water after deodorization into the Thames, nuisances would arise, and therefore it was agreed to amend the second paragraph. The Government, however, had no great wish on that subject. The clause, amended or unamended, was purely a clause in the nature of a safeguard to relieve apprehensions and exaggerated fears. At the same time he believed the 26th clause would provide ample protection against nuisances, and if, when those interested in the question came to that clause, and found it was not altogether sufficient for their own locality, it might be so amended as to bind the Metropolitan Board of Works so as to carry out their work as effectually to prevent the possibility of nuisances.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he thought it was rather hard to pass a clause which the Government did not wish and the Metropolitan Board of Works did not ask for. He appealed to the Government on behalf of hon. Gentlemen like himself who were neither odorizers nor deodorizers, neither interceptors nor non-interceptors, not to pledge them and the Committee to any particular mode of drainage. He was willing to give the noble Lord all the money, £;6,000,000 instead of £3,000,000 if he wished; but he asked him not to tie the hands of those who were not masters of the question by any such clause as this.
  MR. T. BARINGremarked, that here was a clause which the Government did not wish, and which the Metropolitan Board of Works did not ask for. He thought the clause ought not to be forced, and that the House ought not to be either odorizers or deodorizers, interceptors or non-interceptors, and so make them responsible or particepes criminis to any mode of drainage that might be adopted, and so leave it open to the Board of Works to turn round on them and say, that Government forced a particular plan upon the country.
  MR. AYRTONappealed to the Government to withdraw the clause. The House had passed through various phases of opinion already. At first it insisted upon a definite plan; and then, when everybody
  1948
  found that his own would not be adopted, all were opposed to any defined plan. He had read all the blue books and all the appendices; he was indoctrinated with all the schemes, and the more he read of them the less he was satisfied with any. The only conclusion to which he had arrived was the same as that of the hon. Member for Whitby—namely, that they must have an intercepting main drainage. This was a strict necessity, arising from the internal system of drainage in the metropolis. The pouring of sewage into a river was not necessarily a nuisance, it only depended upon the proportion it bore to the waters of the river. At present, unfortunately, above London Bridge, the sewage was to the water as one to fifty. It was proposed to carry it to a point where it would be one to 1,000. But it was a question of experiment to say at what point between these limits the river would be in a healthy and innocuous state. It was necessary, however, to go on at once with the works for the internal drainage of the metropolis, and probably by the time these were finished some project would be devised as to the mode of disposing of it, As it would take several years before they could get to that point, he hoped the Government would not ask the House to commit itself to any particular scheme.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he thought it would be necessary, if this clause was struck out, to introduce a clause making it incumbent on the Metropolitan Board to carry the sewage to a point from which it could not be floated back again to the metropolis.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 3 (Metropolitan Board may Construct Works on the Shores and Bed of the Thames.)
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he intended to propose this clause for the purpose of preserving the rights of the Board of Conservancy and of the Admiralty.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he would propose after "may" to insert—
  "With the sanction and approbation of the Conservators of the River Thames and of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, but not otherwise."
  He should withdraw the other Amendment of which he had given notice.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he hoped that no provision would be inserted to debar the Board of Conservancy from taking steps for the embankment of the Thames. He

  1949
  thought the rights of the Admiralty and of the Conservators of the Thames should be saved.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, a plan had been proposed for carrying the sewage down the bed of the river, thereby avoiding the inconvenience that would arise to the metropolitan traffic by carrying the works through the crowded throughfares of the Strand and elsewhere, and if this were done it would be quite necessary to save these rights.
  MR. NORRISconsidered that if care were not taken powers might be given that would render the Metropolitan Board of Works obnoxious to the conservators of the river.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Powers of taking Land to apply for the purpose of Deodorizing Works).
  Mr. CONINGHAMsaid, he would move to leave out the words "either within or," so that the deodorizing works might be beyond the limits of the metropolis. He believed that these deodorizing works would not only fail, but that they would be a nuisance to the neighbourhood.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the widest possible discretion ought to be left to the Board.
  MR. TITEsaid, he could not agree in the conclusion that these deodorizing works would be a nuisance, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Wickstead, engineer, of Leicester, who stated that the deodorizing works there were not at all offensive to the town, and that there was no reason why they should not be erected in the middle of the street without inconvenience to the neighbourhood.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, whenever the Committee heard scientific evidence on this subject it was always sure to be contradicted by somebody else soon afterwards.
  SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, he could bear testimony to the effective power of deodorization by lime as practised by the late Lord Chichester.
  MR. CONINGHAMquoted the opinions of Dr. Hofman and Mr. Whitwell, two eminent chemists, who declared that the process of deodorization was offensive.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (the Metropolitan Board of Works may appoint a Committee for the purposes of the works).
  MR. ROUPELLsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that the number of the Committee should be nine instead of fifteen.
  Amendment proposed in line 35, after the words "consist of" to leave out the word "six" and insert "fifteen."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would strike out the clause, the Board of Works having already the power of appointing Committees for any purpose, provided that such Committees reported all their acts to the Board of Works for its approval. The number of the Committee ought, at any rate, to be much larger than six, but the precise number had better be left to the Board.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he also thought the clause should be omitted. It might, if adopted, give power to a bare majority, and a small number, to take the entire management of the Thames, and so take it out of the hands of the ratepayers.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was of opinion that six was too limited a number, and the number fifteen was now proposed in deference to the opinions of a meeting of metropolitan delegates. The Board of Works would, of course, determine on the plan, but when it had once done that, it would be far better to leave the carrying out of the plan to a Committee. Besides, the clause left the appointment of such Committee entirely to the discretion of the Board.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the clause narrowed too much the discretion of the whole Board as to the constitution of the Committee. He would propose to leave out "of whom the Chairman of the Board shall be one," and insert "and of a Chairman, to be appointed by the Board."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had a great objection to this clause. The Metropolitan Board was not elected directly by the ratepayers, but was elected from the vestries, and now it was proposed to give to a Committee of the Board very large powers. Supposing any person placed on this Committee did not do his duty, there were no means of removing him. It would be very likely that the best men would not be put on the Committee, and he hoped the clause would not be insisted on.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he should vote against the Amendment and the clause itself. The real objection to the clause was, that the Committee would

  1951
  be irremovable, and they would be able to act in spite of the general body.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would assent to the general wish that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause struck out, as was also Clause
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (The Treasury may guarantee payment of Moneys borrowed.)
  MR. ROUPELLsaid, he would propose to add a proviso, to the effect that the works should be inspected by a Government officer before advancing the whole of the money.
  Amendment proposed at the end of the clause to add—
  "And no such payment of principal or interest shall be so guaranteed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, except upon a certificate of such officer as they shall appoint, that the works from time to time constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames, and for the improvement of the drainage of the metropolis, have been in all respects designed and executed conformably to the provisions of this Act."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the proposal was a somewhat Irish one. Money was wanted to execute works, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to give the guarantee which would be required for raising that money after the works themselves had been completed.
  MR. ROUPELLsaid, he would withdraw the proviso, but he thought that, as the money would not be advanced in one sum but in several, before the whole were expended there should be some security to Parliament that the money had been properly disposed of.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he rose to move to omit the clause which seemed to him to introduce quite a principle in direct opposition to those on which their legislation had hitherto been founded. Other towns carried out necessary improvements without troubling Parliament, and he could not see why London, the wealthiest city in the world, should come there begging for the aid of a Government guarantee? But that was not all. Even conceding that there should be a guarantee, he objected to the amount. Before Parliament consented to mortgage the national resources to effect a local object, a clear and well-defined plan, according to which the scheme was to be carried out, ought to be before them. They had it in evidence that the deodorization of the metropolitan sewage might
  1952
  be effected for a far less sum than £3,000,000, Mr. Cooke, the Chairman of the Leicester Sewage Company, had deposed that the works required for a population of 100,000 would cost about £6,000, and that the plan might be applied to the metropolis. He (the hon. Member) was satisfied that not more than £200,000 was really required; why then should they guarantee £3,000,000? The evidence to which he referred was not yet before hon. Members. [The CHAIRMAN: Then it is quite irregular to refer to it.] He bowed to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman; but he protested against proceeding any further with the subject until the House was in possession of evidence of so much importance.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think the nation incurred any risk by the guarantee it was proposed to give. The annual rental of London was £14,000,000 and a threepenny rate upon that amount would produce £175,000 per annum, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his calculation of £145,000 had left a very wide margin.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member for Huddersfield had argued as though it was something quite novel for the State to lend money or guarantee loans for municipal purposes, but the fact was that there was scarcely a municipality which had not received authority to borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. The State could run no imaginable risk in giving the guarantee proposed by the Bill; for the rate proposed would be amply sufficient to cover the outlay. Indeed the only object of the guarantee was to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise money on easier terms than they otherwise could do. There was a large amount of property in this country which could only be lent out upon Government securities, and it was to enable that money to be lent to the Metropolitan Board that the clause was intended.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 10. (Securities transferable by delivery).
  Clause 11. (Money borrowed under this Act to be applied only to works under this Act).
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he rose to move the addition of a proviso enabling, the Metropolitan Board of Works to expend a sum not exceeding £10,000, or any further sum, if authorized by. the Treasury in ex-

  1953
  periments, in order to determine the most efficient means of carrying out the object of the Act. As the clause at present stood it would not be lawful for the Board to apply any portion of the £3,000,000 to any purpose except that of constructing works. Considering the great amount of expenditure and the doubts which existed as to the precise mode in which the object could be attained, it was most desirable that the Metropolitan Board should have the means of ascertaining beforehand what was the best mode. There had been evidence given before the Committee which conclusively proved the necessity for further examination. At Leicester a considerable sum was expended in preliminary experiments, which certainly had not been without good effects. He thought the proviso which be suggested would be of equal benefit in the case of the metropolis.
  Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 11 to add the words:—
  "Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the said Metropolitan Board of Works to expend a sum not exceeding ten thousand pounds in experiments, with the object of determining the most efficient means for carrying into execution the objects of this Act, or any further sum, with the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury; and in making any such experiments it shall be lawful for the said Board to use powers conferred upon them for the purposes of this Act."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Where the 'honey was there were sure to be flies, and if it were known that the Metropolitan Board had £10,000 to expend on experiments, he wished them joy of the task they would have in testing the number of schemes that would be submitted to them.
  LORD JOHNMANNERSsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, inasmuch as by the 25th clause the Metropolitan Board of Works were authorized to expend such sums as might be necessary for preserving the health of the inhabitants during the construction of the necessary works.
  MR. BUTLERexpressed a hope that the Amendment would be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Appointment of Inspecting Engineers).
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL SIR BENJAMIN HALL moved the omission of words, and the insertion of others, the effect of which was to limit the functions of the engineers only to inspecting and reporting on the works.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHsaid, he thought it desirable that the Government should have some control over the expenditure of the money. Things might go wrong under the management of the Metropolitan Board, and it was absolutely essential that Government should have the power of interfering. He would move a proviso to that effect.
  Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 12 to add:—
  "And should such report, so laid before them by such inspecting engineer cause the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to entertain serious doubts as to the eligibility of the course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works to effect such drainage, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to suspend the further issue of bonds, debentures, and other securities, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, until the opinion of Parliament shall have been taken on the points at issue."
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was of opinion that such a proviso would be likely seriously to interfere with the working of the Bill, and therefore he should object to it. The object of the clause was simply to provide that a statement of accounts should be regularly placed before the Treasury. At the same time he must object to any further responsibility being thrown upon the Government. The very principle of the Bill was to give the whole power to the Metropolitan Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Metropolitan Board of Works to levy a rate of three pence in the pound on the property in the metropolis) agreed to.
  Clause 14. (Such rate to be called the Metropolis Main Drainage Rate.)
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that if the rating was to be based upon the existing poor rate it would create great inequality of rating, there being a difference of as much as 57 per cent in the assessment of different parishes. It was desirable that the assessment should be on the county rate. The amount of the assessment for county rate was nearly a million more than that for the poor rate in Middlesex.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the Board of Works were authorised to issue their precept for the rate, and the basis on which they assessed was that of the county rate.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that by certain words in the clause it would appear that the rate was to be levied on

  1955
  the poor rate assessment. In his opinion, however, the county rate represented the value much mere than the poor-rate assessment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the object of the Government was to place the assessment upon a fair tenement value.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would promise that on bringing up the Report the clause would be so shaped as to provide, according to the desire of the House, that the assessment should be according to the county rate valuation.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEconsidered that the clause as it stood was unobjectionable, provided it was understood that the rate was to be levied on the county rate assessment.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSexpressed an opinion that as this was a permanent work, the ground landlord should bear the burden of it.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 15 and 16.
  Clause 17 (Rates to be made by Metropolitan Board on default of Vestries, &c., in payment of precepts).
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSasked, on what assessment the rates were to be levied under the. Act, according to the poor rate or the county rate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended thot there was only one assessment, which served both for the county and the poor rate?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that for the county rate the magistrates in quarter sessions determined what was the value of the property of the different parishes, and a parish that was thus valued at £500,000 would probably be assessed at £300,000 for the poor rate.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that care should be taken that the gross amount was paid under the poor rate system in the same way as under the county rate assessment.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained that the assessment would be according to the county rate, and the distribution according to the poor rate.
  MR. TITEsaid, that the city of London, for the purpose of putting an end to unequal assessments, had recently been entirely re-assessed on the net rental, and suggested that the same principle should be applied to the whole of the metropolitan districts
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he had promised to alter the 13th clause, with a view to levy the rate on the county rate
  1956
  assessment. If it was found necessary to alter this clause to effect the same object he would do so on the Report.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses from 18 to 25 inclusive.
  Clause 26 (Board not to create a nuisance),
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he would move an addition to the clause, the object of which was to protect places which had spent a great deal of money on their own drainage and might have to fight the Metropolitan Board for creating a nuisance near them. Woolwich had spent £20,000 on its own drainage, and ought, therefore, to be protected against the Metropolitan Board.
  Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 26 to add
  "That the Metropolitan Board, for all works to be carried on under this Act, shall first obtain a certificate in writing from the Board of Trade stating that in the opinion of such last mentioned Board the works proposed to be carried into effect by the said Metropolitan Board are not likely to be or to create a nuisance."
  MR. HENLEYopposed the Amendment. It would give a veto over the whole proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that the constituents of the gallant General had a right to complain, for they had just spent £20,000 and turned their selvage into the river. And as we were told that the metropolis suffered most from the sewage on the influx of the tide, he thought that this complaint of being poisoned came with a bad grace from the representative of that borough. If there was any reason to apprehend the creation of a nuisance the Court of Chancery had the power to prevent it.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it was not very consolatory to tell those who might be annoyed by the Works of the Metropolitan Board that they could go to the Court of Chancery for a remedy. He thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department was the proper authority to decide questions of this sort. Why should not the Government undertake to prevent drainage nuisances in the sane manner as under the Smoke Prevention Act they prevented the carrying on of offensive trades? Deodorization was surely a trade of that class.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the Smoke Prevention Act was against common right, and therefore a power was vested in the Secretary of State for the protection of manu-

  1957
  facturers against the institution of vexatious actions.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought that the Government should consider the matter, for persons would not risk proceedings at law, but a simple suggestion from a Secretary of State might stop a nuisance which otherwise would not be abated without spending hundreds or thousands of pounds. He spoke from his experience at the Board of Health during the time of the cholera.
  MR. AYRTONthought the clause was sufficient as it stood to put down nuisances.
  MR. COXsaid, he believed that this was another attempt to introduce the system of having a veto on the proceedings of the Board of Works. He thought that the clause should stand as it was.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, if there were a nuisance it would he against a locality, and it would not be an individual merely who would have to take proceedings. The suggestion made, however, was worthy of consideration, and he would look into the matter.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that the towns on the banks of the Thames up the river should be compelled to deodorize their sewage before it went into the Thames.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would suggest that the clause should give the local authorities power to interfere, and if they did not do so, then that power should be reserved to the Secretary of State to direct proceedings.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he hoped the Government would consider the suggestions just made. As to Woolwich, that town had suffered considerably from the sewage of London being forced into the river.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining Clauses.
  On the bringing up of a clause, reserving the rights of the Lord high Admiral,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must object to the reception of the clause. The whole bed and soil of the river were vested in the Board of Conservancy, and that the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with the Thames; but that they were in the habit constantly of thrusting in arbitrary clauses in cases where they were in no way concerned.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that the Admiralty had a veto on the proceedings of
  1958
  the Conservators according to an existing Act of Parliament.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSexplained that the clause had been copied from the Conservancy Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed that the clause would give the Admiralty an absolute veto on the whole works.
  MR. COXremarked, that it would be better to let the clause pass at present, as they would be in a better position to discuss it when the Bill should be reprinted. It appeared to him, however, as he understood the clause, that it would place the Metropolitan Board in a worse position than ever; for instead of having to obtain the consent of one Board only, they would now have to get the sanction both of the Admiralty and of the Conservancy.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he did not think that it would be necessary to have the Bill reprinted, and suggested that a new clause should be brought up on the Report.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Admiralty's powers extended only to the navigation.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would adopt the suggestion made, and withdraw the clause for the present.
  Clause withdrawn.
  GENERAL CODRINGTON GENERAL CODRINGTON moved to insert after clause 3 the following:—
  "That the plans of the intended works shall be opened se public inspection for one calendar month before the commencement of the works at some convenient place within the metropolis; and public notice shall be given by the said Metropolitan Board of the time and place were such plans can be so inspected.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobjected to the clause, which, he said, would serve no good purpose, and might lead to great confusion.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that as the Government had intimated their intention of considering the propriety of giving the Secretary of State a power of interference, he would not press the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. ROUPELL MR. ROUPELL moved the following clause:—
  "The Metropolitan Board of Works shall, in the month of June in every year, make a Report of all their proceedings in relation to the main drainage of the Metropolis, and shall, in the said month, send a copy thereof, together with an account, in detail, of all sums expended during the preceding year in execution of the works authorised by this Act, to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one month after the receipt thereof, if Parliament be sitting,

  1959
  or if Parliament be not then sitting, then within one month after the next meeting of Parliament."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that what this clause sought to effect was already provided for by the Act of 1855.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was no objection to the production of such a Report; and that, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had remarked, was already provided for.
  Clause by leave withdrawn.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would propose a clause enacting that if the Metropolitan Board should raise and pay the money borrowed under the Act from any other sources of revenue which might be at their disposal for the purpose it should not be necessary to make or raise the metropolitan main drainage rate. On a former occasion he had made a statement respecting the taxation of the metropolis, and had indicated that there were several sources of revenue, wholly independent of this rate, sufficient to meet the annual demand on the metropolis; but if the Bill was passed without such a provision as he proposed he might be told hereafter that it was not open to him to raise the question, as the matter was settled by the present measure.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the clause had the appearance of weakening the security provided by the Bill, as no permanent revenue was indicated by it.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHproposed a clause, empowering the Board to elect one of its members as deputy chairman, and to grant him a salary of £500 a year. He thought that onerous duties should not be thrown on any one without adequate remuneration.
  LORD JOIIN MANNERSsaid, he did not see any necessity for the clause, as the general members of the Board had hitherto willingly rendered their services gratuitously.
  MR. WILLIAMSsaid, he knew most of the Board, and he knew that they would reject the proposal with contempt.
  Clause negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended to be considered Tomorrow.
  The House resumed.

JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved the addition
1960
of the following proviso at the end of Clause 1:—
"That nothing in this Act contained shall in any manner extend or apply to any case in which any such question as aforesaid was raised before the 1st of July, 1858."
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he must object to the proviso, as it would have the effect of prejudicing. the creditors of the Tipperary Bank by protecting a judgment for £10,000 registered by Mrs. Sadleir, the wife of the unfortunate Mr. James Sadleir, who put an end to his existence on Hampstead Heath.
MR. WYLDexpressed a hope that an exception would be made in the present case.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought that the creditors of the bank had been most shamefully plundered, but that it was unusual and unadvisable to correct a particular mischief by legislation.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must complain that up to the present time the House had not had an opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill. It was in fact a retrospective measure, and affected private interests to the extent of a million and a half, and the parties so affected had no means of defending their rights. He would therefore urge the Committee to pause before it sanctioned the principle of the Bill,
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would admit the Act was retrospective. But where there was a general mischief it was the habit and practice of the House to remedy the mischief with reference to particular cases. He might refer as an instance to the case of an Act passed a few years ago to amend the Wills Act. Up to that time the law had been that a will was not valid unless the signature was after the last clause. That led to much injustice, which an Act was passed to remedy, and that Act had reference to the general principle, not being framed for any individual case, but it was retrospective in its operation. However, it would not apply to any case in which the point had been already raised, and a clause to the same effect was in the present Bill. He could also refer to other examples of legislation under analogous circumstances. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that parties had acquired rights, but he denied it; they had acquired no rights.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, it was impossible to reconcile the statement of the right

1961
hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald). He therefore hoped that some protection would be given to the unfortunate sufferers by the Tipperary Bank.
MR. MALINSsaid, he should support the clause, as he held that any other course would promote not the cause of justice, but would promote the cause of chicanery and fraud. A general error had been committed in Ireland. It was said there a question of a million and a half of money. No doubt that was so. A judgment had been registered in the usual form against Mr. James Sadleir, but his last residence was not mentioned. However, he was described as a Member of Parliament, and there was only one James Sadleir a Member of Parliament. Would any one say that creditors had been deceived? The fact was, as stated by the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Bill was to remedy a general evil. In all cases where common error had been committed, the Legislature were bound to intercede and set things right. It was a grievous thing if the creditors of the Tipperary Bank were to be deprived of the property of that man Sadleir, to which on every principle of right they were entitled, in consequence of a voluntary settlement. But he felt, as the Attorney General for Ireland had said, that it was very difficult for the Legislature to interfere to reverse a judicial decision. However, he felt sure that the decision would be reversed on the appeal.
MR. DE VERE,said, the Act was introduced in order to remedy a certain class of wrongs, and the only case of the kind they had ever heard of was expressly excepted by the proviso. It would be very unfair to the parties concerned that a Bill affecting the case should be passed while the matter was sub judice.
MR. ROEBUCKasked what possible harm could arise from the omission of the proviso? If any right were acquired, he could understand that an injury would arise. But no rights had been acquired, as the matter was sub judice.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would yield to the general sense of the House, and agree to withdraw the proviso.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he would throw the responsibility of the Bill upon the Government, and would not offer any further opposition.
Proviso withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
The other Clauses were agreed to.
Clauses added.
House resumed; Bill reported, as amended, to be considered
To-morrow.

MILITIA (SERVICE ABROAD) ACT CON TINUANCE BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, as the Bill had been introduced without any statement on the part of the Government, he, without intending to offer any opposition, wished to ask, what were the reasons for renewing powers which ceased at the termination of the Russian war. The Bill differed from an ordinary Continuance Bill, as it was for the purpose of reviving an Act which was considered to have expired. He did not doubt that the state of affairs in India had induced the Government to introduce the Bill; but in order to afford an opportunity for some explanation, he would ask whether it was intended to increase the number of European troops serving in India.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would allow that the Bill was not properly a continuance Bill, but one to revive the law enacted in 1854. When he introduced the Bill he mentioned that fact, but it being at a very late hour he did not make any lengthened statement, nor was any particular statement necessary. It had been introduced for a very simple reason. The recruiting for the army had been continued with great spirit, and during the last two months with greater success than could have been expected, but it would readily be understood that it was undesirable to send out raw levies to India. They all knew the danger, if not the certain consequence of sending out green youths to India, and therefore it was highly expedient that the Government should have the power of availing themselves of seasoned troops, some of whom were still in this country, and others serving in our colonial possessions. For that reason the Government deemed it their duty to ask Parliament to give them the power of employing, if necessary, a portion of the militia in relief of those veteran soldiers, until the new levies should be fit to undertake the duties. That was the only reason for introducing the Bill, and he hoped Parliament would not refuse to grant the powers asked for, and which might, under certain circumstances, be most important for the efficient conduct of the war in India.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned whether it was intended to send additional troops to India beyond the complement of Europeans now in that country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the number of troops in India would not be increased by the Bill. When he introduced it there was no intention of sending out additional troops, but the Government of course reserved the right and duty of sending additional troops, if necessary. That was a question quite apart from the Bill, which, however, would greatly facilitate such action on the part of the Government. He did not wish Parliament to infer from anything he said that the Government did not intend to send additional troops to India.
Clause 1.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he objected to the continuance of some of the provisions of the former Act. By Clause 7 it was enacted that no officer of the militia while out of the united kingdom should rank with officers of the regular army higher than the grade of lieutenant colonel. That regulation operated unfairly towards colonels of militia, and imposed upon them certain duties from which they had a right to be exempted. The origin of that clause dated as far back as 1813, when an Act was passed to enable militia regiments to volunteer for active service, and it was thought that colonels of militia in the field ought not to be permitted to hold the rank of brigadier in command. The intention now was to employ the militia in garrison duties, and he could not see what difference there could be between those duties performed at Malta, or Gibraltar, and those performed at Portsmouth. A militia colonel was not likely to be in the command of the garrison, because besides the governor there was always a full colonel of artillery and one of engineers, but even should such an event happen for a few days there need be no fear that the dependency would be lost, for the only duty of the colonel would be to receive official letters. He did not mean to say all militia colonels were equally good; neither were the colonels of the line. Some colonels are civilians, some military; but had we no civilian colonels in the Peninsular war? As examples of civilian officers he might refer to the Marquess of Anglesey and Lord Lynedoch; and he never heard it was necessary, even in the early part of their brilliant and successful career, to put dry-nurses over their heads. The Duke of
1964
Richmond also was in the militia; and was a young officer in the line to be put over his head, suppose he were with his men in Malta or Gibraltar? Nothing in his opinion could more tend to damp the ardour of the militia regiments than the abrupt dismissal of some of the regiments a short time ago, and he could not help thinking that it was unfair to require of them to go beyond the sphere of their constitutional duties, and then to alter the Queen's regulations to their prejudice.
GENERAL PEELsaid, the clause was by no means a new one, but was to be found incorporated in every Act of Parliament upon the subject. Nothing could be further from his intention than to say one word which could bear the construction of being disparaging to the colonels of militia. There were many of them quite capable, no doubt, but, upon the other hand, there were several who were not fit to perform the duties of commanders of garrisons. What he was anxious to guard against was the entrusting the command to such places as Malta, for instance, to militia colonels who happened to have little or no military experience. He would not, however, hesitate to meet the objections of the hon. and gallant Gentleman so far as not to call upon those officers to do duties abroad which they would not be called upon to do in garrison here. He would bring up a clause with that object on the Report.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that the question of promotion in the milita appeared to be entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenants of counties, and that the impression prevailed that favouritism to a great extent was the consequence. Militia officers would feel much more confidence in the justice of the system if promotion were given upon the responsibility of a military authority such as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself.
GENERAL PEELsaid, there was a Commission now sitting whose duty it was to inquire into the whole question of the organization of the militia, and that the point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred would no doubt form one of the subjects of investigation.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he thought that a matter well worthy of the consideration of the Secretary for War was the youth of the recruits who were at present enlisted in the service. Many of them were so young as to render it

1965
much more likely that they would have to be sent to hospital than to the headquarters of their regiment upon their arrival in India.
MR. BLACKsaid, he wished to call attention to the inconvenience to which the billeting system gave rise in small towns in Scotland.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill under discussion was one the object of which was to send the militia out of England.
Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining Clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve o'Clock.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this was merely a continuance Bill, and although it contained amendments of the law on three points, they by no means affected the general character of the measure.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he should move the omission of the first clause. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had the same object as he himself, namely, to render the mode of election less corrupt; but the clause enabled a candidate to pay the travelling expenses of voters, and a more mischievous proposal could scarcely have been made to the House. Once let that principle be legalized and candidates at a contested election would no longer stand on an equality. The election would then simply turn on the question of which candidate had the longest purse. He had heard that at elections in this town cabmen even had been offered £1 for every voter they brought to the poll. Let the House imagine £1,000 spent in that way, and its effect upon a contested election. If this clause were omitted from the Bill he should move that candidates be recouped from the county rates the money expended by them in conveying voters to the poll. But he contended that it ought not to be paid at all. Voting was a public duty, for which one ought not to be paid. It would be the old story, "I have bought you, and I will sell you." A more mischievous Bill than this he had never seen, for it struck a deadly blow at all purity of election, by making a return to that House a mere matter of personal ambition and personal
  1966
  aggrandizement rather than of public duty.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman treated the matter as if the Bill went to introduce something new, but he would remind him that the payment of travelling expenses had never been declared illegal unless corruption could be connected with it. The case in which large sums were alleged to have been paid to cabmen at a metropolitan election had occurred under the existing law; and if corruption had been charged and proved against the candidate he would have been unseated.
  MR. SPEAKERremarked, that an Amendment which was proposed in the clause must be discussed before the question of adoption of the clause itself could be entertained. And, moreover, before that could be done, the new clauses proposed to be added to the Bill must be considered.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he would then move his Amendment, when
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, notice had been given to bring up several clauses, and they must be brought up first.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTthen rose to move the following new clause, namely:—
  "That it shall not be lawful for the collector on rates and taxes of any borough, county, or city, or his partner or agent, to act as agent, clerk, or canvasser for, or to be employed on behalf of, any candidate for such borough, county, or city; and any such person who shall so offend shall for his said offence be liable to forfeit the sum of £50 to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suits."
  He meant to cast no reflection upon the collectors of rates and taxes in counties and boroughs by proposing this clause; nor did he wish to insinuate that as a class they were likely to be guilty of using any undue influence derivable from their office to coerce poor voters. But he thought it highly objectionable that tax collectors should act as agents for any candidate at an election; and such a practice must have a tendency to impair that purity and independence in political matters which they must all desire to preserve and encourage. The rate collector who went about to solicit votes with his canvassing book in one hand and his rate book in the other would naturally possess an unfair advantage over his rivals; and he ought, therefore, to be put in the same position as election auditors, police constables, and other local functionaries.
  Clause brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would move that the House do now adjourn. The hour was too late to proceed with such a Bill, and if Government did not consent to the omission of the clause, allowing payment of expenses, they would meet with the most determined opposition from that side of the House.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the House had had ample opportunity of considering the Amendments. He would not, however, oppose the wish of the House, but would propose to consider the Amendments on Friday.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow at Twelve o'clock.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Gifford.
2a Art Unions Act Amendment; County Property Conveyance; Chelsea Bridge Act Amendment; Returns to Secretary of State; Detached Parts of Counties.
3a Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Administration of Oaths by Committees; Army Service; Universities (Scotland); Stipendiary Magistrates; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he wished to draw the attention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to the fact, that certain alterations agreed to in Committee on the Government of India Bill had not been inserted in the measure as now printed. By the 28th clause of the Bill it was proposed that the Secretary of State, without the intervention of his Council, and not the Secret Committee, should in future be the organ of communication with the Governor General. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, in consequence of some remarks made on both sides of the House while the Bill was in Committee,

  1907
  consented to alter the clause so as to provide that the Secretary of State should be assisted in such matters by the Vice President of the Council and one of the Members of his Council to be nominated by himself. He had looked at the Bill, and found that no such alteration was made on the bringing up of the Report. There was another trifling inaccuracy, in the 52nd clause, which, as well as that in the 28th clause, would, he hoped, be rectified before the third reading was moved. The noble Earl would recollect that the 52nd clause, as it originally stood, provided that, when an order for the commencement of actual hostilities was sent to India, notice thereof should be given to Parliament within one month after the issuing of such order, or, if Parliament were not then sitting, within one month after it met. The noble Earl, after considerable discussion, agreed that three months, instead of one, should be inserted. But, as the clause now stood, the order need not be produced till within one month after the meeting of Parliament, if Parliament were not sitting when the order was issued; so that, although three months might have expired from the time it was issued before Parliament met, another month must expire before the Government could be called upon to produce it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had been occupied for some time in going through the Bill carefully, together with the Gentleman who drew the Bill, in order that the alterations that were to be made in it should be duly inserted. He did not make any alterations on the bringing up of the Report, but proposed to make them before he moved the third reading. With regard to the first point to which the noble Duke had called his attention, he had to state that the 28th clause, as it would stand when the third reading was moved, would provide that with reference to communications with the Governor General the Secretary of State should be assisted by the Vice President of the Council and such Member of the Council as he might from time to time nominate. With regard to the other point, the noble Duke seemed to misunderstand the clause. The clause was quite correct. It provided, that if an order should be sent authorizing the commencement of hostilities, notice thereof should be given within three months if Parliament were then sitting—that was to say, at the expiration of three months—but if Parliament were not then sitting, then within one month after it met.

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
On Motion that this Bill be now read 2a,
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it ought to be made clear that the £17,000, which had accumulated as interest, was to be repaid, as well as the £80,000—capital sum—borrowed from the Exchequer Bill Loan Commissioners, before the opening of the bridge toll-free to foot passengers. This did not appear to be distinctly provided in the Bill, which only mentioned the suns of £80,000 with interest; but the interest already accrued raised the sum to £97,000. He was extremely glad that both the present and the late Governments had resisted the applications which had been so strenuously made to them for the abandonment of the whole of this sum, because, if they had yielded, it would have been a gross breach of faith, and might have led to the introduction of a very inconvenient and objectionable precedent. So far as the public interests were concerned, there was no argument in favour of opening this bridge free of toll which did not apply in a greater degree to all the metropolitan toll bridges.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to provide by the Bill for the payment of the interest as well as the principal, and if that were not made sufficiently clear at present, the clause should be altered so as to leave no doubt upon the subject.
Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

COOKING APPARATUS FOR THE ARMY.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved an Address for Copy of Proceedings of Two Committees assembled at Woolwich on the 6th March and 26th April, to report on Captain Grant's Cooking Apparatus; and, Copy of Correspondence between the Quarter Master General and Captain Grant, respecting the Erection of a Cooking Apparatus at Shorncliffe. The noble Earl also asked the Under Secretary for War, whether after the three years' experience that has been had of Captain Grant's Cooking Apparatus, there appears any reason to doubt its superiority over every other previously in use; and, if not, whether any or what steps were being taken to extend its adoption generally throughout the army?
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, there was no objection to the production of the papers

  1909
  moved for by the noble Earl. The last meeting of the Woolwich Committee took place on the 20th of April, and the evidence laid before the Secretary of War had induced him to come to the conclusion that Captain Grant's cooking apparatus—the great saving of fuel and other desideratœ being most satisfactorily proved—was the best that ever had been submitted to him. The report, however, recommended that before the general adoption of the apparatus in the army, Captain Grant should be desired to superintend the erection of a model kitchen on his principle for 500 men at some station or other—to verify his estimate of prime cost and test its capabilities; and hence it was that the further trial at Shorncliffe had been determined on. If the report of that experiment should be as satisfactory as the other reports had been, the Secretary for War, he believed, would take steps for the general adoption of the cooking apparatus in the service. The delay of three years mentioned in the noble Earl's question had not occasioned any great inconvenience, but it had certainly been productive of great improvement in the apparatus, for every time a new one had been erected, some additional improvement had been effected. The last submitted to trial was very different from that originally erected at Aldershot.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'clock, till To-morrow. half-past Ten o'clock,