Sitting of 18 June 1858

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT—for Norfolk County (Eastern Division), v. Sir Edward North Buxton, Baronet, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Railways Act (Ireland) Continuance; Portendic and Albreda Convention.
2o Funded Debt.

THE GERMAN CORPS AT THE CAPE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE L. EVANSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War from what fund the German Legion at the Cape of Good Hope have been paid during the last year the Field Allowances and Full Pay which the Governor of that Colony is stated to have issued to them. He would also beg to ask by what authority the Governor has placed those Troops on Field Allowance at a time when there was no war.
  GENERLAL PEELsaid, that he was instructed to say that the Field Pay and Allowances were paid out of the Commissariat Chest, by order of the Governor. But when this order came home his predecessor, Lord Panmure, gave directions that no more Allowances to this force should be paid out of the Imperial Fund; that if they were to be paid it must be out of the Colonial Chest. In that direction he entirely agreed, and the House would observe that there was no sum charged in the Estimates this year for the Cape Corps.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he rose to put a question which, to make intelligible, he must preface with a short statement. He had himself brought in a measure to put a stop to attacks made on defenceless females. But since that Act was passed he had reason to believe that it was perverted to purposes to which it was never intended to apply, and such a case he believed had occurred now. He begged, therefore, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case which has recently occurred before the Wareham Petty Sessions, when a carpenter of the name of Craft was sentenced, under the Aggravated Assaults Act, to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for kissing the daughter of the Rev. H. C. Collins of Farringdon Rectory, Devon, on landing from a steamer between Poole and Swanage?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in answer to the question of his right hon. Friend, he had to state that his attention had not been called to the case; but if his right hon. Friend would cause the facts of the case to be laid before him in the ordinary way, he would look into it, and see if the Act of Parliament, of which his right hon. Friend was the author, required amendment, as might very possibly be the case.

THE CHINESE EXPEDITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any truth in the reports which appear in the French Papers of an arrangement restricting the discretionary powers of the Plenipotentiaries in China, and ordering them to negotiate at Canton, Pekin, or elsewhere?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had to inform the hon. Member that there was no truth in the statement contained in the French papers that any arrangement had been made restricting the discretionary power of the Plenipotentiaries in China. Those Plenipotentiaries had full discretionary power to negotiate either at Canton, has they had hitherto done, or to proceed to the North in order that they might have more direct communications with the Chinese Government. The step which the British Plenipotentiary had recently taken in proceeding North appeared to him to be most judicious, and he hoped that that step would lead to an early termination of the differences, at which Her Majesty's Government, in common with the rest of their fellow countrymen, would sincerely rejoice.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTON MR. G. A. HAMILTON moved that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday.

THE AFRICAN SQUADRON.—SLAVE TRADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, be had given notice of his intention to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the inexpediency of maintaining the large Naval Force at present employed upon the West Coast of Africa and on the West Indian Waters for the suppression of the Slave Trade, a question which was at the present time of absorbing importance. But he had been told by gentlemen of great experience and authority on both sides of the House that this was a question of too great importance to be brought forward on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, and with this explanation he would beg to withdraw his Notice.
DISEMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War if it was his intention to recommend the disembodiment of any additional regiments of Militia, and if he will inform the House on
  12
  what principle the sixteen regiments lately disembodied were selected. He should not have been induced to make the inquiry had the Secretary for War given a decided answer to the question put a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier.) That hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked whether it was intended to replace the regiments sent to India by embodying an equal number of militia regiments. No decided answer was given; and he was rather surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend had not followed up his question. However, he wished now to follow it up with reference to his own regiment, the Roscommon Militia, which, he believed, had not been fairly treated. Every officer and man of that regiment had volunteered to serve in India or China, and when he wrote to communicate that offer to the War Office the only answer he received was in the cold official style, informing him that the offer had been sent to the Horse Guards. A short time afterwards he heard from the Horse Guards that he ought to have made the offer to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He wrote accordingly to the Lord Lieutenant, and received a reply thanking the regiment for the offer, and that was all he had heard of the matter. The regiment was then at Roscommon; shortly afterwards it was sent to Aldershot, and after remaining there a short time it was ordered to Portsmouth where its efficiency had elicited the praise of Lord William Paulett. While there, orders were issued for the regiment to hold itself in readiness to proceed to Ireland, as it had been included in the sixteen regiments selected for disembodiment. The reason given was that it had not furnished its quota of recruits to the regular army; but that was simply because no opportunity had up to that time been afforded to it for volunteering. When an opportunity was at length afforded them they availed themselves of it, and 136 men were accepted. He imputed no blame to the right lion, and gallant Officer opposite, but he complained of the system. If he had had only one authority to deal with he could have satisfied it of the justice of his claim, but the system under which persons were bandied about from one authority to another was calculated to excite the greatest dissatisfaction. He could not but express his fears that if the militia regiments were dealt with in this manner, considerable difficulty would be experienced in inducing the men to come forward upon future oc-

  13
  casions, besides occasioning a vast amount of dissatisfaction amongst the officers.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend were somewhat different from the notice he had put upon the paper, which was merely an inquiry as to whether the Government intended to disembody any more regiments of militia. His hon. and gallant Friend also referred to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) the other evening, as to whether it was the intention of the Government to embody any more regiments. He would advert to both these questions. In the first place, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government either to embody or to disembody more militia regiments at present. The only reason why he did not answer the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark at the time was, that his question was based upon a misunderstanding of what was contemplated for India. There was no additional force of 10,000 men going out to India, and therefore there was no necessity for embodying ten more militia regiments to replace them. The drafts that were about to be sent out were the usual monthly drafts, which were larger than usual this month, because the drafts for last month were delayed till now, that the recruits might not arrive in India in the middle of the hot season. As to the principle on which the sixteen militia regiments were disembodied, he had often explained it to the House. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that this was no case of divided responsibility between the Horse Guards and the War Office. It was perfectly and completely within his power as Secretary for War to have selected the regiments for disembodiment in the most arbitrary manner, but instead of that he had laid down the principle that those regiments which had given a certain number of recruits to the line by a fixed date, and still remained efficient, were first to be retained; afterwards, those that had given the number nearest approaching to that standard and still remained efficient. He, therefore, sent to the Horse Guards for a return of the recruits received from the different militia regiments up to the day agreed upon, and all the responsibility that rested upon the Horse Guards in relation to the matter was for the accuracy of this return. He would be the last to deny the great services of the Roscommon or any other militia regiment, but he had rigidly
  14
  adhered to his rule, and he must add that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would refer to the return he had alluded to, he would find that the Roscommon had given the smallest number of recruits to the line of all the militia regiments.

THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to order any one of the Prize Designs for the Wellington Monument, now exhibited in the Conference Room, to be executed for Saint Paul's? and if not, whether he will state the course which the Government proposes to adopt with regard to the design and construction of the Monument? The result of the competition for the Wellington Monument was the exhibition last year in Westminster Hall of a number of designs, which, as a whole, he must say, with all respect, turned out to be a failure. In this opinion he was fortified by the concurrence of every one with whom he had conversed on the matter. This was, in the main, a subject of great regret; for it was a melancholy thing to see so much time, thought, and genius, as must have been expended in their preparation completely thrown away. There were, no doubt, monuments of great merit exhibited; but many of them were wholly in-applicable to the purpose for which they were intended. There were designs in the rich and fanciful style of the sixteenth century, very beautiful in themselves, but totally incongruous with the severe and chaste architecture of Wren. He thought that these mistakes and all this waste of labour were greatly owing to the want of more explicit conditions than those which had been laid down for the guidance of the competitors; for those who had issued the conditions appeared to have forgotten the important fact that in these times sculptors were no longer architects, as was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when every great sculptor was also a great architect, and every eminent architect was a sculptor. As an instance of this, it was sufficient to name Michael Angelo and other eminent men. He thought he might safely say that since those professions had been separated monumental art had declined, and very few good monuments had been erected in the churches. As for Poet's Corner it represented an undertaker's shop rather than a

  15
  collection of works of art. A piece of sculpture placed in a building depended as much for the effect which it produced upon the architecture which surrounded it as upon its own intrinsic merits; for a work charming in the studio might be utterly destructive of effect if placed in an inappropriate situation. The fact was that if anything really good were to be expected in this direction the architect and the sculptor must work hand in hand, and the sculpture must be made subordinate to the architecture; for the latter was, as it were, the cloth, and the former was the mere trimmings which adorned it. Taking this into consideration, it appeared to him that the instructions which had been issued for the guidance of the competitors were extremely meagre and insufficient. The instructions issued to the artists contained a ground plan, showing the proposed site of the monument, and that was all they had to guide them. They were told that it was to be placed in a certain position—that the space was not to exceed thirteen feet by nine feet, and that the cost was not to exceed £20,000. The consequence was that artists all over the world seized their moulding tools, many with very little knowledge of architecture; the result was the loss of their time, pains, and trouble; for some of the designs were more fitted for a confectioner's shop than for Saint Paul's. If it were to be a mural monument an architect must be employed. If it were to be an isolated monument, which he hoped it would not be, very strict directions should be given as to its dimensions and outline. He hoped that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) would not adhere to the site which had been chosen, and which was under one of the arches on the north side of the church, next the centre. If the monument were placed under that arch it would necessarily interfere with the north window immediately behind it. Saint Paul's, as it was, was by no means too light, and he was sure that those who visited it in November would admit that there was no window in which marble could with advantage be substituted for glass. There was also this objection—that for the sake of symmetry it would be necessary at some future time to erect another monument, which would block up another window, or at least have partially that effect. Moreover a monument erected on the site selected would interfere with the space that it was to be hoped would be required by the worship-
  16
  pers at Saint Paul's, and the monument itself would be very badly seen. Everybody knew how difficult it was to observe the features of a face behind which was a strong light. The monument should not only be worthy of the Great Duke of Wellington, but also a landmark of our national art. What had been done hitherto had been done extremely well. The sarcophagus in which rested the remains of the Duke was one of the most beautiful ever erected in this country. It was made from a single block of granite, and altogether. was one of the finest monoliths of modern times, and he saw no reason why the monument should not, in accordance with the wish of the House and the country, be worthy of the man and the place—of the man whom they delighted to honour and the place which was the most beautiful and classical church in the world.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that with the permission of his hon. Friend he would postpone his answer, as another question on the same subject was to be asked him.

TRIAL FOR TEE MURDER OF MR. ELLIS.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHOEsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Notes taken by the Solicitor General for Ireland in his examination of the informer Burke, after the revelations said to have been, made by Burke to the policemen and driver of the car who took him from Nenagh to Roscrea; and also a copy of Burke's evidence on the trial of the Cormacks. He was induced to give notice of this question by the great excitement which prevailed in the county he had the honour to represent on the subject of the execution of the two Cormacks for the alleged murder of the late Mr. Ellis. This excitement had its origin in no unworthy feeling of sympathy for the crime of murder, but from a general belief that the course adopted at the trial, and previous to that event, was contrary to the ordinary mode of judicial investigation in a free country, and evinced on the part of the authorities rather a desire to punish some one than a determination to discriminate carefully between the innocent and the guilty. If this unfavourable impression was not removed from the minds of the people by the removal of all unnecessary secrecy and mystery, the consequences to the cause of or-

  17
  der would be most injurious, for the reliance of the people on the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice would be seriously diminished. The circumstances of the case were so extrordinary that he trusted the House would allow him to recapitulate them. Mr. Ellis met his death in October last as he was returning from Dublin to Templemore. He left Dublin by the half-past seven train, and arrived at Templemore at eleven. The night was extremely dark. While a boy named Burke, about sixteen years of age, was driving home to Templemore on an outside car, he, suddenly perceiving an obstacle in the road, got down from the car to remove it. While thus engaged a shot was fired by some one concealed behind the hedge, or a stunted tree, and the result was the death of Mr. Ellis. The usual Coroner's inquest was held, and among the jurors sat one of the Cormacks, who was eventually executed for the murder. The boy Burke was one of the witnesses at the inquest. His evidence implicated no one. He, however, subsequently changed his mind, denied all that he had said, accused the Cormacks, and became the principal witness, on whose testimony they were sent to the gallows. Hence, it was very evident that Burke was a perjurer, for he must have sworn falsely, either at the inquest or at the trial. After the inquest Burke was taken in charge by the police, and from October to the 15th of January he was kept in the gaols of Thurles and Nenagh. The resident magistrate, Mr. Gore Jones, threatened to keep him in gaol until he rotted unless he told all he knew about the matter. That Mr. Gore Jones had thus threatened him appeared to be true, for although Burke's statement to that effect had been long made public, Mr. Jones had not contradicted it. One of the other witnesses was a man named Spillane, the son of a policeman, who had seen the placards offering a large pecuniary reward to any one who would bring the murderers of Mr. Ellis to justice; and another witness was Sadler, the gaoler at Thurles. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had represented the Crown at the trial and he (Mr. O'Donoghoe) wished to be informed by him whether he did not think that Burke and Spillane, the two witnesses, were quite as culpable as the Cormacks, and whether he concurred in the summing up of the Judge, who told the jury not to regard Burke as an accomplice, because
  18
  but for that expression of opinion it was, probable from the disinclination of the jury to believe Burke, that the Cormacks would not have been sent to a premature grave? At the first trial, which was that of only one of the brothers, the jury were discharged. That was on a Saturday. The whole of Sunday was spent in scouring the county for jurors. (On the Monday following both the brothers were placed on their trial, and the Crown stretched their right of challenge to the utmost—challenging persons because they were Roman Catholics, or on some equally justifiable plea. After some difficulty a jury was got together which seemed to have stomach for such a proceeding. The new trial commenced with the same witnesses, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite exhausted his eloquence and imagination in his cause; but the thing reached its climax when the learned Judge charged the jury in a way in which he trusted juries were seldom charged within these realms. The court was crowded, and there was not one of that large assembly that must not have been shocked and dismayed by the speech of the learned Judge, who, setting aside the calm and impartial bearing which ought to distinguish the judicial bench, addressed the jury in the excited tones and language of an impassioned advocate. Mr. Justice Keogh addressed the jury as if he were determined not to expound the law to them, but to frighten them into returning a verdict for the Crown. They did return a verdict for the Crown, and the result was that the estimation in which the law was held had been very seriously diminished, as had also been the reliance upon the impartiality of justice. The two Cormacks were sentenced to death, and between the sentence and the execution every effort was made to obtain a commutation of the sentence. He had himself, with an hon. Friend of his, waited upon the Home Secretary upon the subject, and they had been told that the matter rested in the hands of the Executive in Ireland; the Executive in Ireland however, acting no doubt upon the advice of Mr. Justice Keogh, allowed the law to take its course. Upon the 11th of May the two unfortunate men were hanged, and since that time many things had occurred to shake all reliance in the credibility of the witnesses who had given evidence on the trial. He did not know what had become of Spillane, but Burke, the principal witness, when he was being taken

  19
  out of the country confessed to two policemen and the driver of the car upon which he was being driven, that the whole of his evidence upon the trial was a fabrication. That statement produced a strong impression upon the public mind, for it was impossible to forget the dying declaration of their innocence by the two unfortunate men, and also the fact that Burke had been proved to be a perjurer. The confidence also in the credibility of the witness Sadler had been much shaken by what had taken place at the petty sessions at Thurles last Saturday. Sadler had written to the professional gentlemen engaged on behalf of the Cormacks, stating that he was in possession of information which would enable them to test the falsehood of the statements made at the trial, and last Saturday, before a large bench of magistrates, he had acknowledged having written such a letter, but denied that there was a single word of truth in it. Now, that was a grave matter for investigation, and it was an extraordinary thing that Burke should be got out of the way, and thus prevented being examined upon the subject. It was said that Burke wrote that letter, in order to please certain persons, but it appeared to him that, if credible at all, which was very doubtful, he was as credible in the one case as the other. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would produce the documents he had asked for, but whether he did so or not he was determined not to abandon the subject until it should be made apparent who were the guilty parties.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that he thought the hon. Member had done great service in bringing the matter forward. He himself had received numerous communications from various parts of Ireland—from Dublin, Clonmel, Waterford, Cork, and other places—which clearly proved that the impression generally prevailed that the men who had been hanged were
  as Innocent of the crime for which they were executed as the learned Judge himself. He had to acknowledge the courtesy which he had received from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in all the communications which he had had with him on the subject; but the fact was, that it was generally believed in Ireland that there had been a failure of justice. In some of the newspapers opinions had been expressed that these men had not got a fair trial, and that they were innocent of the crime for which they had suffered. The Limerick Reporter spoke of
  20
  the charge of the Judge as being violent and passionate, and as being more like the harangue of an advocate than the impartial summing up of a Judge. He was told that it was not an uncommon thing in Ireland to send witnesses who had given evidence on such trials out of the country. He regretted it should be so. He concluded by expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would grant the paper asked for by his hon. Friend, and that the House would institute a most searching investigation into the subject in order to give security to human life in Ireland.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to confirm in every respect the statements which had been made by the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him. He had no hesitation in saying that there had never been a trial which had created so much excitement, or in which there was so strong an impression that justice had not been done. Indeed, until the law of Ireland was made the same as the law of England with regard to the police, it would be difficult to satisfy the people of Ireland that justice was impartially administered in that country. At present, if any crime were perpetrated the executive had the power of sending any number of police they pleased to any district in Ireland, and keeping them at the expense of the district until there was a conviction, and, consequently, a readiness to convict was the very natural result.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in bringing forward this question the hon. Gentleman was taking a course which was hardly legitimate, as it was making the House of Commons a Court of Appeal from the regular and ordinary tribunals for administration of justice. In this case two men had been tried and found guilty, according to law, for the crime of murder. They had been executed, and now, some two months after their execution, the statement which they had just heard had been made by the hon. Member. When he succeeded to office, he found that this case had been partly advised upon by his predecessor, and a most frightful case it was. The murdered gentleman (Mr. Ellis) was an agent, and, at the same time, an active and successful farmer in Tipperary. He was a Scotchman, and a strong man in the prime of life; and he attended the market in Dublin every Wednesday, on which day it was known that he usually returned. He was murdered within a short distance of his own home; and an investi-

  21
  gation was instituted on the part of the Crown, in order to discover the perpetrators of the deed. There was, and there ought to be, sympathy for the accused; but there sometimes was a great want of sympathy for those who endeavoured to assert and maintain the law. The House was called upon to believe that twelve gentlemen, as grave, serious, and considerate as any panel he had ever seen in a jury box, had consigned two of their fellow-creatures to death upon insufficient evidence, and that the learned Judge who tried the case had not merely erred in point of law—for that was not pretended—but had taken a false and prejudiced view of the facts. The two prisoners had been in the employment of Mr. Ellis, whose wages they received; and the man Spillane, the informer, was likewise in his service. Burke, the driver of the car, a lad about eighteen years of age, was also the deceased's domestic servant. The two Cormacks lived a short distance from Mr. Ellice's residence; and that gentleman could not reach or return from the railway without passing by their door. It was said there was a popular impression in favour of their innocence. On the night of the murder there was a card party at their house; and, he must say, that though he had some knowledge of strange trials, he had been astonished to learn, in the course of that inquiry, the amount of the demoralization that existed. The card party broke up about half-past nine o'clock; and the accused were proved by independent evidence to have been not long after that time at a place within twenty minutes' walk of the spot where the murder was committed. Spillane stated that the Cormacks wanted him to wait till all the rest of the company had left, and they saw Mr. Ellis's car driven past by the boy Burke, whom they knew perfectly well to be going to the railway station for his master. Spillane also swore that they had arranged with him before for the murder of Mr. Ellis. No doubt this witness admitted that he had previously borne a hand with the same two men in a business of the same kind; but he said that they had missed the gentleman, and it was not necessary to name him because he was still alive. Spillane swore that the prisoners desired him to leave the house with the rest of the company, and then to return. The hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention a most material fact. An innocent man, who had come from Connaught in search of work,
  22
  and who, with his family, occupied a room in Cormack's house, gave important testimony. He stated that he went out into the kitchen after the company had gone and saw the two Cormacks, and heard them talking about going to bed. This man retired to his own room, and he afterwards heard the latch of the door raised, and the sound of the footsteps of some persons leaving the house. These men had exhibited a dexterity and ability which, if applied to a better purpose, might have made their fortunes. They laid their plans skilfully. They went with a blunderbuss to the part of the road where the car must pass and placed a number of branches at a particular spot. As soon as the vehicle approached, Mr. Ellis naturally asked the driver to get down and see what was on the road. Burke got down accordingly. The blunderbuss had been loaded with pieces of iron and slugs obtained from a blacksmith's forge, and the whole charge was discharged at the body of Mr. Ellis, who fell without a groan. The blacksmith proved that the punch with which he punched his iron had a defect in it, and two bits of the charge found in the deceased's body contained exactly the same mark as was borne by the pieces of iron in the smithy of the blacksmith. The informer swore that to load the blunderbuss in the most deadly manner they sent to the forge for the pieces of iron. Burke, the driver, said he was much terrified; that to save his own life he stooped down and took away the branches, and that he looked into the very faces of the men. After the shot had been fired, what followed? The nearest house to go to was the Cosmack's; but instead of hastening there, the lad Burke galloped as fast as he could to the police station, then to the doctor's, and next to the clergyman's. Meantime the prisoners separated, one of them going to hide the blunderbuss in a haystack a mile distant. One of them was nearly arrested by the police before he got back to his house. These men had had the benefit of a fair trial. They challenged thirty or forty jurymen, and three or four were challenged on the part of the Crown. It was easy to say to the counsel for the Crown, "Why did you take that course?" Being a stranger in the county, if he were informed that there was a man in the jury box who was not indifferent between the parties, he had a right to ask him, while he was unsworn, to stand by. The counsel for the prisoner had thanked him for

  23
  What he had done, because when the men were both put upon their trial they got the advantage of the full challenge; and there was not a scintilla of objection taken to the mode of proceeding. It was true that, connected with the coroner's inquest, there was this extraordinary fact—that one of the Cormacks was empannelled as a juryman; and that constituted one reason why the jury law ought to be corrected. And when the young man Burke was asked on the trial why he had not told the coroner that he knew who it was that had murdered his master, his answer was, "Because the murderer stood before me, and I was terrified out of my life." Nobody, who had not had personal experience of them, could tell the difficulties which encompassed those who had the task of administering justice in Ireland, and it was most unfair for the hon. Member to say that twelve gentlemen, every one of whom had given his verdict at the peril of his life, had given that verdict against his conscience, and contrary to the evidence. [The O'DONOGHOE explained that he had said nothing of the kind]. He certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman had impeached the trial, and spoken somewhat severely of the learned Judge. Now he could state that he had seen the Report of the trial, which had been drawn up by the Judge, and it was only due to that learned person to say that it was a most faithful and minutely accurate report. He (Mr. Whiteside) gave no opinion upon the case, the executive Government decided upon the advice of the Judge, assisted by the Lord Chancellor. He had only one word further to say. It was stated there were only two witnesses against them. That was not so. There was the third, who heard them leave the house; and the very circumstances were witnesses against them. There was one witness, Mr. Sadler, on whom some reflection was attempted to be cast; but what did he prove? He was the keeper of the Bridewell in which the Cormacks were at first confined. He swore that when the man named Connaught Jack, who had been arrested along with the other inmates of the house, was being taken to the Bridewell, one of the Cormacks asked the other, who could see the road from his cell, "Whom have they got now?" "Connaught Jack."—"What do they want with him?" "Because he was in the house."—"Has he been examined yet?" "No."—"Tben if you see him tell him to be sure and say we did not leave the house that
  24
  night." That was all the evidence given by Mr. Sadler. Had this evidence been obtained by corruption or other unworthy means, of course it was worth nothing; but when one conspirator chose to address another, and was overheard, it was quite right to give in evidence what he said. It was true that on the Saturday, when only one of these men was tried, the jury did not agree; but he understood that there were ten for a conviction and only two against it. On the Monday morning he felt it his duty to put them both upon their trial. The hon. Gentleman complained that the whole country was scoured for jurors. It was true the usual notices were served, but the reason was that the panel was then nearly exhausted, and it was necessary to obtain additional jurymen. The summonses were sent out in the regular manner, and he denied that any man was set aside on account either of his politics or of his religion. Some one had said that the members of the jury were descendants of the old Cromwellians. He did not know whether or not that was the case, but he could say that they appeared to be honest and conscientious men, and to be affected by the solemnity of the occasion. They tried the case, they found their verdict, and that House had no authority to sit in review upon that judgment. He did not blame either the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county, or the other hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gilpin) who had spoken according to his own humane feelings and convictions. He had been before asked what had become of Burke and Spillane. If the Crown had allowed Spillane to be seen in Tipperary for an hour after he gave evidence he would have been torn into a thousand pieces. He would not tell the hon. Gentleman what had become of Spillane, because it might reach the ears of those who had no sympathy with a witness. As to Burke, he must say a more dangerous witness to an accused person could not be found, for he was an ingenuous young man, with a countenance which betokened innocence, and from whom the counsel for the prisoners were not able to extract the confession of a single act of which he need be ashamed. Burke, however, was not an informer, although Spillane was. He was the servant of the murdered man, and under such circumstances, was he to be censured for giving evidence of what he swore that he saw? After the trial, however, it was thought desirable to remove him from the country. The Crown never deserted a witness—and it

  25
  was important that this should be known—whose life was put in jeopardy by his giving evidence of the truth, and so long as he had anything to do with the administration of justice it never would. It was necessary to send the young man to the seaport to embark. He was placed on a car with two policemen. The car driver began to question him, and said, "Are you the fellow that gave evidence against the Cormacks?" The whole of this notable charge was got up out of a conversation under such circumstances between the young man and the driver. Neither of them were on their oaths, and anything they said could not be allowed to impeach the testimony given on oath, sifted by cross-examination. The car driver's report spread through the country, and the hon. Gentleman was quite correct in stating it had created a great sensation; the local papers were full of charges against the administration of justice. As soon as the Solicitor General heard of the matter he had Burke fetched from Liverpool, a step which, although well intended, was not, in his (Mr. Whiteside's) opinion necessary, inquired into the facts to discover whether there was any reason to impute perjury to him, and came to the conclusion that there was not. The result was that Burke was sent to a place which he (Mr. Whiteside) would not name, even if he knew it. These were the facts of the case, and he trusted that after this statement the observations of the hon. Gentleman, with regard to the Judge, would not be thought to be any impeachment upon that learned person; because one Judge might speak more decidedly than another, and if he stated the law and the facts fairly to the jury, it would be unjust to censure him for what might be no more than his ordinary manner. The trial took place according to law, the judgment was submitted to Lord Eglinton, six weeks elapsed between the passing of the sentence and its execution, the learned Judge furnished his report upon the case; from first to last the proceedings were conducted according to law and ought to be satisfactory to that House.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that as might be expected, they had heard an excellent oration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But these unfortunate men had been tried and convicted upon evidence, particularly from one of the witnesses, of a most unsatisfactory nature, and he must add, after a most partial charge from the presiding Judge. He thought the whole of
  26
  the evidence in this case was wholly un-substantiated, and the witnesses unworthy of belief. The ends of justice had not been attained in the manner in which they ought to have been. He believed that Burke spoke the truth when he stated that the whole of his evidence was a fiction, and therefore he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would feel it to be his duty to lay the whole of the papers on the table of the House.

THE CONFESSIONAL IN BELGRAVIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLERsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice in consequence of the practices alleged to have taken place at the Confessional in the district of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, and the statements that similar practices are adopted by other ministers of the Established Church in that neighbourhood. In asking these questions, he (Mr. Butler) desired to say that he had always been of opinion that matters affecting religious feelings and prejudices were better avoided in that House; at all events, if it were necessary to mention such subjects, it would only be under a strong sense of public duty. He felt that with reference to this important question he had a duty to perform to those who had sent him to that House. The borough of the Tower Hamlets contained a population of over half a million of souls, and it was scarcely necessary for him to say that his constituents were deeply interested in the matter; on their behalf he desired to know if the time had not arrived when the serious question whether they were to have Auricular Confession in the Established Church of England should be decided? He (Mr. Butler) had only this morning been informed that the decision of the Bishop of London in the case of the Rev. Mr. Poole would be appealed against, and that the matter for which that rev. gentleman had been censured would be brought under the cognizance of the Primate of England. God forbid, therefore, that he should prejudge the case, or utter one word in that House to the prejudice of the rev. gentleman. He had the utmost confidence that justice would be done. But other cases had occurred, and the subject was one of the greatest importance, not only to the inhabitants of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, but to the whole community, from the Queen on the Throne of these realms but to the

  27
  meanest of her subjects. Without trespassing further upon the attention of the House, he would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Government in that House, the questions which he had put on the paper in order that the people might receive the assurance of Her Majesty's Government, that such practices would not be allowed to be continued. Those questions were, whether it was the intention of the Government to take any steps in consequence of the practices alleged to have taken place at the Confessional in the district of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, and the statements that similar practices are being continued by other members of our Church in that neighbourhood, and whether the Government is in communication with the proper ecclesiastical authority, in order to the punishment of all who may have taken part in such practices.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have other questions to answer, and could address the House only once upon that occasion, the hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, allow him (Mr. Walpole) to offer the explanation which the Government had to make upon that subject. He had no hesitation whatever on behalf of the Government, in distinctly stating that if such practices as those complained of had taken place as alleged, the sooner they were put an end to the better; but if, on the other hand, doubts existed that those practices had taken place as alleged—and denials had been made as to the truth of the charges—it would be better to leave the matter for the present in the hands of those under whose judicial cognizance it would come, and as the subject would come under judicial cognizance, the less they discussed it in that House the better. He believed that all discussions at present would be premature, and therefore they ought not to be sanctioned by the House.

STATE OF THE THAMES.—QUESTION.
MR. R. D. MANGLESsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to preserve the health of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament from being destroyed by the present pestilential condition of the River Thames. When he asked a question—cognate with the present—on a former occasion, the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) referred him to that august body constituted by Act of Parliament, and called the Metropolitan Board of Works, and told him that the
28
matter was under their consideration. He had noticed the proceedings of that body since they first began to enter upon their duties. At first he was pleased to see that their proceedings were practical and energetic, and gave hope that something would be done to purify the river, but latterly they had been completely futile, and he had ceased to take any notice of them. Indeed he believed that the public press had discontinued to report their proceedings, and had left them to their own devices. He had been told that the only plan before the Board at the present moment for abating the dreadful nuisance which was oppressing not only the Members of both Houses of Parliament, but the whole community on the banks of the Thames, was one for delivering the whole sewage of London into the middle of the Thames, instead of the sides of the river; and that scheme seemed to exhaust the wisdom of the body. He would also state another fact, for the purpose of showing how they managed the business committed to their care. They sat, he believed, with great regularity, and one of the Resolutions which they had to consider that very day was a Resolution of which Mr. Wright, one of their members, had given notice in the following terms:—
"That he would draw attention to the present polluted state of the river Thames, and move that the Board will, on a day to be agreed upon, inspect the river in a steamboat hired for the purpose."
They had thus to consider whether they should parade the river in a steamboat, with a view to ascertain what was its condition at a time when, as we suppose, no rational men could have any doubt upon the subject. If they were to go on that voyage of inspection, he (Mr. Mangles) hoped that they would take a good supply of brandy and other condiments with them, for the purpose of obtaining relief from the sickening sensations they must experience. An hon. Friend of his who had gone down the river the other day to see the Leviathan had told him that he had been obliged to stop on the way to take a large dose of the stimulating alcohol to which he had referred, in order to counteract the nauseating effects of the voyage. He (Mr. Mangles) believed that the House had committed a great mistake in handing over a matter of that importance to any municipal body. The question was really one of an imperial character, and ought to have been so treated by the Legislature. He felt persuaded that Parliament ought at once to arrest its past error, and take the

29
matter into its own hands. This metropolis was by far the most populous and the wealthiest city in the world, and yet it appeared that its inhabitants were unable to relieve themselves from the pollution of their own filth. If cholera were to visit the metropolis while the river was in its present state, the mortality would be something dreadful, and a great responsibility would rest upon the Legislature. Every one would remember the remarkable chapter in Lord Macaulay's History of England, which described the state of England in the reign of Charles II., but that which struck us as most wonderful and strange—the unpaved streets, for example, infested by highwaymen—would be as nothing, to the astonishing fact for our descendants that we so long submitted to this dreadful nuisance. Parliament had handed over the whole matter to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and nothing was done. When he was a young man, he remembered Thames salmon were celebrated. The salmon, wiser than Members of Parliament, had avoided the pollution, and he was informed that cartloads of fish were taken out of the Thames which had died in consequence of the state of the river. A noble mansion was prepared for the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair, but could any hon. Gentleman expect Mr. Speaker to live in an atmosphere into which they would not put their worst enemy? They had built on the banks of the Thames a most magnificent palace for the Legislature, but how could they direct the attention of any foreigner to it, when he would be welcomed by a stench which was overpowering? God had given to them a most magnificent river, and they bad turned it into the vilest of sewers. The country could provide £320,000,000 for railways, but £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 could not be applied to diminish this great evil.
MR. CUBITTsaid, he rose to beg permission to vindicate the Board of Works, of which he was a member, as far as he could from the aspersions which had been cast upon it. The fault was with Parliament. Parliament invented a scheme which was not practicable, and appointed the Board of Works to carry it out. The Board were directed to carry the sewage below the metropolitan district, and they set about the work by calling upon engineers to produce a plan, which, if the scheme were good, was a good plan. They sent it up to the Chief Commissioner of
30
Works, whose duty it was to say whether it was a proper scheme. He naturally shrank from the responsibility, and called in professional aid. The engineers to whom it was referred said the sewage would come back too far up the river, and the Chief Commissioner sent the plan back. The engineers of the Board produced another plan, which carried the sewage lower down the river. The Chief Commissioner was in the same "fix"—either to put a veto on it, or take the responsibility of it. He very wisely called in three engineers who had never had anything to do with the matter, and said to them, "Advise me whether this is a proper thing to do." They looked into it and said, "The metropolis will in a few years be three times as large as it is now, and you ought to provide for the future." The engineers of the Chief Commissioner prepared a plan, and it was sent to the Board of Works. The Board, besides ordering the work to be done, had to find the money to do it. The estimate for the plan sent to them was between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and those who were called upon to advise the Board said, "It is a monstrous plan, and will cost twice as much as the estimate." The Board had to consider whether they ought to spend £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, to be raised by a rate exclusively on the metropolitan district, and, besides that, many persons doubted whether the scheme was a proper one. He confessed he very much doubted the propriety of returning the 80,000,000 gallons of water which they received daily, half of it from the Thames west of London at a point thirty miles distant. They had provided a daily supply of thirty-two gallons of water for every man, woman, and child, and by that means there was in London a perfectly healthy internal system; but the question was, whether in hot dry summer weather they could take out that bulk of water without affecting the supply if it were returned at so distant a point. He had been on the Thames for the last three or four days, and he entirely agreed in everything which had been said as to the vile state of that magnificent river. Something must be done. If the Board of Works had been appointed to consider what was to be done they might be charged with neglect of duty; but Parliament did not charge them with that duty. They said, "Make a great sewer and take the sewage away," and there was a dispute whether they proposed to carry it far enough or not. Within the last few weeks

31
a Committee had been appointed to hear the scheme of Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney. He was a Member of the Committee, and he took upon himself to say that it would be a very valuable auxiliary to any scheme which could be proposed. But it would not do alone. There must be some means by which the water could be returned into the Thames almost as pure as when it was taken out, and it was his decided opinion that it would not do to send the water away thirty miles from London. He had no doubt that it was possible to devise some scheme which would be satisfactory.
MR. WARRENsaid, that he found himself suddenly forestalled by the hon. Member for Guildford, not having been aware that he had intended to put his question on the Votes relating to the subject to which his (Mr. Warren's) Motion referred, and least of all that he had intended to go into the question at large. The subject, however, was much too important and pressing to be passed over without further notice; and he still intended to call the attention of the House to it, but very shortly. The root of the whole mischief, from which we were now beginning to suffer so seriously, lay in the enormous fallacy of supposing that a local Board could cope with a national exigency of such magnitude. For was not the salubrity of this great Metropolis a matter of national moment? Here was the seat of the Imperial Legislature, and here were collected together annually the élite of the intellect, the social power, the learning of the whole realm. What was meant by the "season"—the height of the season—but the presence of these? If Paris might be said to be France, much more might London be pronounced Great Britain, where all its vast interests were consulted and cared for. Had the nation at large, then, no interest—an interest great and direct—in the arrangements which ought to secure not so muchs the comfort, as the mere safety of those whose presence and services here were of such moment? Then if the injury were a national one, it ought to be provided for by national arrangements, and those on a commensurate scale of efficiency, and by a measure worthy of the energy and utility of the nation. But what had been the result? The insupportable and pestilential atmosphere, generated by the reeking river outside, now, and for a long time, in a condition which was a scandal to us before all Europe. The House had trifled with a great opportunity and ruined a noble river, and done it by Act of Parliament.
32
Just three years ago, namely, on the 14th of August, 1855, was passed an Act "For the Better Local Management of the Metropolis"—the preamble of which recited that the principal object was, "to provide for the Sewerage and Drainage thereof." It constituted and incorporated a Metropolitan Board of Works, and vested in them all the main sewers, till then vested in the Commissioners of Sewers, and which were recited in a schedule to the Act to be seventy-one in number—fifty on the North, and twenty-one on the South side of the river Thames—each one of these huge conduits having great numbers of tributary sewers pouring into it, and all the seventy-one pouring their loathsome contents daily and hourly into the Thames. Well, to enable this new Board to deal with this matter, it was armed with all manner of powers, of even the most arbitrary character—powers of making, repairing, closing, enlarging, narrowing, altering the direction, and increasing or diminishing the number of sewers, the grand object being, as recited in the Act, "to prevent all or any part of the Sewage within the Metropolis from flowing or passing into the River Thames in or near to the Metropolis;"—and the House should observe that the Board was to cause "all such sewers and works to be completed on or before the 31st December, 1860." The Act came into operation on the 1st January, 1856,—this was the 18th June, 1858, and what had been hitherto done? Nothing; and, on the contrary, matters had got worse—infinitely worse than before. The 126th section of the Act required the Board, before commencing any of their sewers and works, to submit the plan, and an estimate of the expense of them to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, whose approval was necessary before the plan was carried into effect. The Board et to work, with the engineers, at once; but, up to the present moment, when matters remain at a dead lock, nothing had been the result, but a series of abortions—abortive plans, crudely conceived by the Board, and as ruthlessly condemned by the right hon. Baronet late the First Commissioner of Works. He (Mr. Warren) would not, as he had fully intended, go through them in detail, but confine himself to the very first of these precious schemes, which was in flat defiance of the plainest possible provisions of the Act which had called the Board into existence. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone gave an account to this House,

33
on the 11th December last, of all the various dealings between himself and the Board down to that time. He said that on the 3rd of June, 1856—that was within five months of the Board's being in existence—the Board sent him a plan which he took for granted was in conformity with the spirit and intention of the Act; but on examining it, he found that it provided that the sewage should flow into the Thames at a point within the Metropolis! And so they went on, from bad to worse,—their second plan providing outfalls just ouside the river, and insuring the constant re-flux of the sewage, with the tide, into the Metropolitan area. Thus we had been trifled with up to the present moment—even when matters had become past all bearing. The Metropolitan Board of Works had proved itself utterly impotent to effect the object for which it had been called into existence, and the Government ought at once to address itself vigorously to the subject, which brooked no further delay. It was a duty which challenged their best energies. If they wished to anticipate support in the House, and especially the suffrages of the Metropolitan Members, they could not more effectually gain that aid, than by putting an end to the dangerous trifling which had hitherto gone on. The Government were at present, from all he heard and observed, conducting the business of the country admirably, but let then not underrate the magnitude of the task which was now set them, nor shrink from undertaking it. They might depend on the House supporting them.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must apologise to the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) for not having answered at an earlier moment the question he had put to him relative to the monument to be erected to the late Duke of Wellington. The hon. Member, however, had very fairly stated the past history of the matter. In 1856, the artists of all countries were invited to compete; in 1857, the judges made their award, that award being signed, among others, by Lord Lansdowne, Lord Overstone, the Dean of St. Paul's, and his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. The judges selected the designs for which they awarded the prizes without regarding the question of their adaptation to the site which was then indicated in the Cathedral where it was intended to place the monument, and they suggested, and he thought most properly, that before they determined
34
which, if any, of the designs should be selected, the Government should consult some architect of eminence as to the local effect which would be produced by the erection of any particular monument in St. Paul's. When he came into office no practical step appeared to have been taken beyond the presentation of the report of the judges. He, therefore, thought it to be his duty, considering the time, thought, and cost which had been devoted to the designs, to endeavour to come to some definite opinion, in his own mind at least, as to whether any one of the designs which had obtained prizes was worthy of being placed in St. Paul's Cathedral. In all the discussions in that House upon art and taste, hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords were apt to dogmatise in a manner which might be pardonable in Spanish Inquisitors pronouncing on matters of Christian faith, but which appeared to him singularly out of place when they were discussing what—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond)—were mere matters of opinion; and in stating the conclusion at which he had arrived on this subject, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to claim infallibility. Having then given the best attention in his power to the designs, he came to the conclusion that he should not feel himself entitled to recommend Her Majesty to set them all aside, and say that none of them were worthy of being erected in the Cathedral. Under the circumstances, he had thought himself bound to act on the recommendation of the judges, that some one competent to advise on the subject should be consulted as to the local effect which would be produced by the various designs. No one appeared to him better qualified by position and accomplishments to give advice than Mr. Penrose. They went over the designs together, and the design which they both thought the best was that known as No. 18, the design of Mr. Stevens. It was a great relief for him to find that the judgment which he himself had formed was sanctioned by Mr. Penrose. They then examined the area of St. Paul's, to see whether the site indicated was the most worthy, and, after consulting with various high authorities, they had come to the conclusion that the site indicated in the proposals for competition was not the best calculated for the erection of the monument. The site ultimately chosen was a side chapel at the west end of the Cathedral, which had hitherto

35
been need as a consistory court; and it had been willingly ceded by the Dean and Chapter for the purpose. One great advantage would be derived from this circumstance. His hon. Friend, Mr. Stirling, had pointed out most truly that in former times it was not thought sufficient in such a case as that under consideration to have recourse to sculpture, but the sister arts of painting and artichecture were called in aid. The site which had been selected would enable them to act on that principle in this instance. He proposed that the adaptation of the chapel and its architectural ornamentation should be confided to Mr. Penrose. He thought it advisable, acting again on the recommendation of the judges, to call in the assistance of some artist of eminence, and that those three gentlemen should form a committee to whom should be confided the execution of a monument worthy of the great Duke whom it was intended to commemorate, worthy of the pile in which it was to be placed, and worthy of the state of English art in the nineteenth century. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. R. Mangles), he was satisfied that he was quite right in the answer which he gave to a similar question the other day, which was, in effect, that so far as the draining of the metropolis was concerned, the First Commissioner of Works had no power beyond that of vetoing any scheme which might be submitted to him by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Member, however, after admitting that he had no power over the London drainage, had asked him whether he had done, or was prepared to do, anything for the preservation of the health of hon. Members while they were sitting in that House. He could only say, in answer to that question, that he had that day received from Mr. Gurney a report in which he stated what he proposed to do to carry out his (Lord J. Manners') wishes on the subject. Mr. Gurney said:—
"Sir,—do not lose a moment in answering your letter received last evening, requesting me to report to the First Commissioner what is already being done to improve the condition of the river Thames, in the neighbourhood of the two Houses of Parliament, and also what, if anything, I propose to do in the matter within my jurisdiction. With regard to the river itself, there is nothing done, or can I do anything. Before the meeting of Parliament and during the recess the mud outside the terrace was removed; but during the sitting of the House, and while the river is in its present state, the accumulation cannot be moved. In answer to your latter question, I beg
36
to say the means by which I propose to relieve the river (according to my report to the First Commissioner, printed by the order of the House, 12th December last. Sessional No. 21) is now under consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons. I think it right to state, for his Lordship's information, that the air entering directly the House of Peers and Commons through the proper ventilating channels is purified from the river effluvia by the spray jets. For the purification of the air coming in through the windows of the House of Lords and Commons, should either be opened, I have placed canvass moistened with a weak solution of chloride of zinc and lime. The same is being fixed at all the windows likely to be opened towards the river in the libraries and committee rooms."
He might inform the House that, in accordance with the recommendation of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, which was concurred in by himself, Mr. Gurney had been engaged all that day in distributing throughout the Thames, in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, four or five boat-loads of lime, and in spreading lime over the mud banks. Such was the simple means adopted for the purpose of effecting the object mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and at present he really did not know what more could be done. The question raised by his hon. Friend was a very large and serious one. He had no hesitation in saying that in his own opinion the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act in reference to the drainage of the metropolis, and the veto given to the First Commissioner of Works, were not satisfactory. The House had been engaged the whole of the Session in endeavouring to meet the evils that were supposed to flow from a double government and a divided responsibility; but under the provisions of that Act there were a double Government and a divided responsibility of a most hopeless and inconvenient character. They called together a body of gentlemen elected by the popular voice; they tied them down by stringent words in an Act of Parliament to do a certain thing in a certain way; and they declared that none of the plans which might be approved by that popularly-elected Board should be carried into effect until they had received the sanction of the First Commissioner of Works. But there was no provision requiring the First Commissioner of Works to inform himself upon the subject, and he might strictly perform every obligation that was thrown upon him by never leaving his room, and simply refusing his sanction to everything that was proposed. He would not enter into a discussion of
that Act, however. The Metropolitan

37
Board had from time to time submitted such plans as they thought fit; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir B. Hall), in the exercise of his discretion, had rejected those plans. He understood that a new plan had recently been submitted to the Board, which had been prepared by able engineers, but it had not yet come under his cognizance, and he was unable, therefore, to express any opinion upon it. He thought that some change should be made in the relations between the Board of Works and the Government, and he should be very happy to confer with any one who could suggest any means by which a useful change might be effected. The difficulty was this:—if the Government took upon themselves the main drainage of the metropolis, at an enormous expense, they could not in justice call upon the metropolis to pay for that drainage; while, on the other hand, if the metropolis were called upon to do the work, it was but fair that it should do it in what manner it pleased. The responsibility and the burden must be imposed on the one party or the other.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that until the relations of the Metropolitan Board with the Government should be placed on a more satisfactory footing, and somebody be invested with more discretionary power and the means of carrying out such works as might be advisable, the question would remain in the same unsatisfactory state that it had been in for the last five years. With reference to the Wellington monument, it was not his intention to dogmatize upon the subject, but his belief was that the exhibition of designs was anything but creditable to the character of British art. If, therefore, the conclusion of the noble Lord in the choice of a design were not irreversible, he hoped that time would be allowed to elicit the artistic opinion of the country before it was finally resolved upon, in order that a monument might be erected worthy of the great man whose memory it was intended to commemorate, and of the magnificent temple in which it was to be placed.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould briefly state to the House the exact course of events with respect to the main drainage scheme. In 1855 he introduced a Bill for the better local management of the Metropolis. And with the entire approval of the House it was provided in that Bill that, before any great works should be undertaken by the Metropolitan Board in reference to street improvements or to the main drainage,
38
the plans should be laid before the First Commissioner for his approval, and the clause which defined the manner in which the main drainage should be carried out contained a provision to the effect that the drainage should not flow into the Thames at any spot in or near to the Metropolis. Soon after the Metropolitan Board of Works were called into existence they presented to him a plan which had its outfall within the Metropolitan area, and which, consequently, was contrary to the provisions of the statute. Of course it was his duty to reject that plan. Some months afterwards they presented another plan, which was also contrary to the statute, because the outfall was so near to the Metropolis that all the filth of the sewage would have flowed back into the metropolitan area. He therefore rejected that plan; and he thought that the fact of these two schemes being submitted to him showed the wisdom of the provision, which has been sanctioned by Parliament, that the drainage works should not be executed without the sanction of the First Commissioner, because, but for that, a plan would have undoubtedly been carried out which would have allowed all the sewage to flow back into the Metropolis. He then put himself into communication with the Metropolitan Board, having previously requested the then First Lord of the Admiralty to let him have the assistance of Captain Burstall, who was probably better acquainted with the Thames than almost any other person. Captain Burstall made a Report, pointing out where the outfall ought to be, and some time afterwards—in December, 1856—the Metropolitan Board submitted to him a plan, which had its outfall at the point defined by Captain Burstall. It would, he thought, have been presumptuous in him—an unprofessional person—to take upon himself to decide at once upon that plan, and he therefore took the precaution of submitting it to three eminent engineers. Those gentlemen reported on it, and at the same time they presented to him another plan. He gave no opinion upon it, but sent it at once to the Metropolitan Board, and said that he thought it might be worthy of their consideration as it was suggested by men of great eminence in their profession. They referred it to their own engineer, in conjunction with Mr. Hawkesley and Mr. Bidder, who submitted another plan to the Board of Works. Instead of communicating that plan to the noble Lord who had succeeded him in the office of First

39
Commissioner the Board passed a resolution that they would defer all consideration of it until the month of October next, leaving the whole summer to pass without any care for the state of the river or the condition of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. That was the exact course of events down to the present time. The question now was, not as to the past, but what should they do for the future. The noble Lord had stated very truly that if this work were to be undertaken by the Government the Metropolis could hardly be expected to pay for it; while, on the other hand, that if it were to be paid for out of the local rates it ought to be executed by the local authorities. He thought that the time had now come when the Government should consider whether it would not be better to take the whole of this great work into their own hands—whether they should not appoint some Commission of able and responsible persons, subject, of course, to the approval of the Treasury, and leave it to them to carry out both the main drainage of the Metropolis and the embankment of the Thames—works of such magnitude that it was impossible that they could be paid for wholly out of local rates.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to express a hope that the decision of the noble Lord with respect to the Wellington monument was not final; the competition had failed, and all they had to consider was, what was due to the artists. The terms of the competition were so drawn up that it was possible for the Government to do what was fair to the artists, but it was questionable whether a desirable result would be obtained by the plan of the noble Lord; and he hoped he would reconsider his decision. The House was most anxious to do honour to the memory of the Duke of Wellington, as was shown by voting so large a sum of money for the purpose of erecting a monument for that purpose, but at the same time they were bound to see that that large sum of money was laid out in the most effective manlier possible.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was not a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Mangles) had been rather hard on that body. If he only knew the difficulties with which they had to contend as well as he knew Indian affairs he would not throw so much blame upon them. It was not so easy as his hon. Friend thought to decide how the Thames was to be purified. His hon. Friend said that the
40
House of Commons made a mistake in putting the matter into the hands of a board elected by the metropolitan ratepayers, but he (Sir John Shelley) believed that the real mistake which the House made was that of rejecting the 141st clause of the Metropolitan Local Management Bill, which would have enabled the Treasury to advance money for the purification of the Thames, to be repaid by instalments with interest. The Metropolitan Board were now called upon to drain an area beyond their jurisdiction, but on the part of the ratepayers whom they represented they very properly refused to do so, unless they were supplied with the necessary funds. The state of the Thames was no doubt, infamous; but if the Government would furnish funds the Metropolitan Board of Works would purify the river. He protested against the whole expense of the work being thrown upon the present ratepayers. Like the cost of draining settled estates, the expense ought to be spread over a number of years. The sewerage of London was only one question with reference to the purification of the Thames, as he was convinced that the main cause of the nuisance from which they were suffering was the state of the banks of the Thames, and until those banks were improved by quay walls or some other means, it would always continue.

THE NAWAB OF SURAT'S DEBTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to refer the claims of Meer Tamer Ali Khan to the private property of the late Nawab of Surat to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In explanation of his question he had to state that the East India Company having sequestered the property of the Nawab, had passed an Act legalizing that which they had done, and providing that there should be no appeal from the decision of their Commissioner, into whose hands the Nawab's affairs were put. On appeal being made to the Privy Council, that tribunal decided, on a somewhat technical ground, that they had no jurisdiction over the matter, as it had not been the subject of judicial decision. The President of the Council then gave the Nawab twelve months to endeavour to arrange his disputes, and as this arrangement had not

  41
  been come to, and the twelve months expired in August last, he had put his question to the noble Lord.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think the House is very much inclined to go into the affairs of the Nawab of Surat. At any rate I will only say now that as there is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, a considerable legal difficulty in the way of adopting the course which he recommends the Government to take, it is my intention to consult the law advisers of the Crown, and until I have received their Report I cannot state what course we shall be prepared to take.

THE SLAVE TRADE—OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the proceedings of the English squadron engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade, and with respect to our relations with the United States. He did not wish at all to enter into a discussion of the question alluded to, although it was a question which was just now exciting so much interest in the public mind, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, as he understood that, before very long, an hon. Member who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and who had for many years taken an interest in the slave-trade question, had determined to submit the whole question to the consideration of the House. He might, however, observe that his (Mr. Bright's) own opinions had always been very adverse to maintaining an armed squadron for the suppression of the slave trade. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had received any information with regard to the unfortunate matters which have occurred in the Cuban waters—information which could be laid before the House, in order to place the public in full possession of all the circumstances of the case, and to allay the apprehension which existed in this country and perhaps also in America. What was said in that House passed over the world as soon as the post, and the present was precisely one of those occasions in which great frankness and openness on the part of the Government would prove most advantageous. There might be some persons in both countries who would not object to something like a quarrel, but he believed that the great bulk of
  42
  the people, both in this country and in the United States, were disposed to take a rational and moral view of the question, and would sincerely regret anything which might promote discord between the two countries. Perhaps, also, the hon. Gentleman would have no objection to state the number of vessels sent out last year, and whether the officers upon that station had received any new instructions. He perceived that the Earl of Aberdeen had stated on the previous evening in his place in the other House, that, if the instructions of 1844 had been strictly acted on, it was impossible that transactions such as had been complained of could have taken place. Now, of course, he did not know whether any further instructions had been sent out, but he thought that it was highly improbable that British officers could have committed the acts alleged, unless they had received fresh instructions beyond those referred to by the Earl of Aberdeen. He asked the question that evening instead of postponing it until Monday, because the steamer left Liverpool on the following day, and, in his opinion, it was very desirable that anything which might be said should be said that night, in order that it might reach the United States as soon as possible, and he trusted that what might be said would tend to allay the alarm which existed both in that country and in this.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I concur with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) in deprecating any extended discussion upon this subject, which is one of a very delicate nature, and which, if it has not produced alarm, has certainly occasioned much uneasiness and anxiety both in this country and in America. I shall then content myself with making as concise a statement as I can in reference to the question now before us. The hon. Gentleman first asked me whether we had received any more explicit information upon the occurrences that have recently taken place in the Cuban waters. On a former occasion I took the opportunity, while speaking on this question, of stating that the information which Her Majesty's Government had then received was not of an official character, and that we had not received such information in reference to those circumstances as would enable me to give a satisfactory answer to the inquiry put to me. But from the continuous statements made by several American journals, I think it is possible that the over zeal of

  43
  some of our officers may, in some few instances, have led them into acts somewhat beyond the instructions they have received. I can only say, if that be so, it is the most anxious wish of Her Majesty's Government to acknowledge the error, and to repair, as far as possible, any wrong which may have been committed by any of our officers—indeed, to meet that wrong with the most frank and candid acknowledgment. I hope, Sir, that the time is far distant when this country will be willing to give up any one of her rights to which she considers herself justly entitled; but I equally trust that that day is also far distant when, from any motives of mistaken pride or dignity, this country shall ever refuse to acknowledge she had committed a wrong, and to make a full reparation for any wrong which through her officers she may have committed. Now, in reference to the hon. Gentleman's questions; first, whether we have received any additional information upon those transactions? We have not received any further information on the matter, and I trust the statement I have just made will be considered so far satisfactory. But there is One point upon which I hope I may be permitted to make one or two observations, because I think the House will see that they justify the hope and confidence I entertain that upon a fuller explanation and consideration of the facts, both on this side of the Atlantic and in America, all those circumstances which have hitherto created feelings of an anxious and disagreeable character will be peacefully and satisfactorily arranged. The first point to which I desire to refer involves an act of simple justice to our officers abroad. As I have before stated, although there may have been a few instances in Which over zeal may have led some of our officers to exceed that discretion which generally characterises their conduct, yet it is obvious, from all the circumstances that have come to our knowledge, that the statements which have been made in relation to what are termed British outrages have been most grossly exaggerated. I will not at this moment enter fully into the explanations contained in the papers which I hold in my hand; but in the last statement published in a New York paper, and carefully copied into every other journal in the country, it was alleged that there were thirty-two American vessels which were improperly detained and searched, and which proceedings are classed under the fame of British outrages. Now I may be
  44
  permitted to state what this affair really turned out to be. I take the ease of the brig Charles F. O'Brien. According to the statement,—
  "She was boarded on the 2nd of May, in the harbour of Sagua la Grande, by an armed boat from a British steamer. The boat pulled alongside without hailing, and boarded without asking permission to do so. The usual questions as to the name, ownership, and destination of the vessel were asked and answered, and the captain was requested to produce his papers. These, he informed the officers, were at the office of the American Consulate. He made no further search of the vessel, and having satisfied his curiosity, departed. His behaviour was civil, and no threat or intimidation was suggested.'
  I will also read a concise statement which appeared in one of the American newspapers, and which, as it gives the name and residence of the party making it, I think may be considered important. In this appear the names of three vessels said to have been boarded by us:—
  "Ship Escort was on her voyage from Havre to New Orleans; when off the south side of Cuba, the wind being quite light, a British steamer ranged alongside, and her commander said that he wished to communicate with the ship if her captain had no objection. Captain Bryant said he would be happy to receive any communications the steamer pleased to make. The ship was not requested to heave to, but the steamer ranged ahead of the ship and dropped a boat, which came alongside. An officer from her went on board, asked where the ship was from and bound, but made no request to see her papers. He stated that the steamer was from Port Royal, Jamaica, and was then under sealed orders, to be opened off Cape May. The officer asked if he could render the ship any service, and, being thanked, returned to his boat. Captain Bryant states that from first to last the conduct of the steamer, her officers, and men, was friendly. He states, Moreover, that the ship's hold might have been filled with negroes for aught the officer seemed to care. His visit was not prying in any sense. Captain Bryant could not call to mind the name of the steamer without referring to the ship's log,"
  "The brig Pulaski, Captain Hawthorn, from Cienfuegos, arrived here last evening, and reports that on the 11th inst., in lat. 23 deg. 21 min., long. 83 deg. 34 min., she was hailed from a British war steamer, barque-rigged, and asked where she was from and bound, but was not requested to heave to, nor was she boarded, nor did the steamer fire at her. Captain Hawthorn says the commander of the steamer conducted himself just as any decent shipmaster would when speaking another vessel at sea.
  "The brig Eliza Merrithew, Captain Gordon, from Sagua la Grande, arrived here yesterday afternoon. While at Sagua her captain says she was not troubled by the British, and he believes two-thirds of the stories in circulation about outrages, &c., are made out of whole cloth."
  In America it is usual to say, in reference to a statement not quite correct, that the party making it was "spinning a yarn,"

  45
  but as regarded a statement which was Wholly untrue, the Americans called it "whole cloth." Here is another statement of Captain Cline, who is the boarding officer of the Merchants' Exchange of Boston. This gentleman says:—
  "Captain Cline, the boarding officer of the Merchants' Exchange news-rooms, says that he has conversed freely with the officers and crews of every vessel from Cuba which has arrived at this port, and he declares that not one of them considered himself damaged to the amount of one cent. Many of the stories about having been fired into need confirmation. In two cases where the captains report having been fired at, neither the crew nor the mates knew anything about it; and the nonsense about the overbearing conduct of the officers was too often invented. Frequently a man-of-war's boat has dropped alongside, and the officer, without leaving her, has asked questions and shoved off again. Those who wish to create a sensation, and see their name in print, make outrages of common courtesy. The British officers generally, the crews of our Cuba trade report, appear anxious to avoid giving offence."
  Now, I do not wish by making those observations to throw any doubt upon the bona fides of the American Government or to deny that they thought that they had really good grounds for their representations. I only desire to place those facts before the public eye, first in justice to our own officers whose conduct has been called seriously into question, and also to explain to the House why I entertain the confidence that upon further inquiry into the circumstances of the case which first appeared so extraordinary it will be satisfactorily arranged. The other point to which I wish to refer strengthens me in the opinion that, from the documents even laid before the Congress by the American Government itself, the use or rather the abuse of the American flag to cover the slave trade has become prevalent. I do not say this in an offensive sense. What I mean to say is this, that the American flag was made use of by other ships than American—by ships which had no right whatever to the use of it, for the purpose of enabling them to carry on this abominable traffic—that that flag, instead of being the ensign of liberty and civilization on all occasions was frequently prostituted to the foulest purposes. I cannot, therefore help thinking, and with the greatest confidence, that when all these circumstances are brought to the notice of the American Government, when they find that this country is disposed to deal with them in the most frank and friendly spirit—that our relations upon the other side of the
  46
  Atlantic will be inclined to meet us in a similar spirit, and that a satisfactory settlement of the whole matter will be the result. As we are all, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, most anxious to allay any queasiness or irritation that may exist in the United States, I beg leave, in reply to another question of the hon. Gentleman, to make a brief statement as to the course Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take, and what are our views as to the right of search or visitation. The question, then, is this—whether we are prepared to abandon that principle as a right, and what course we mean to take under these circumstances? In reference to this right of visitation, it is no doubt a positive source of irritation between the two countries, and whatever may have been the practice of preceding Governments of this country, the right of boarding her vessels has never been admitted by America. Consequently it becomes our duty, in the face of circumstances so serious, to ascertain what our rights really are; whether we are prepared to stand by them, and if not, candidly to acknowledge our intention of giving them up. Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, taken the advice of the law officers of the Crown upon the whole question. It is their decided opinion that by the international law, in times of peace, we have no right of search or visitation whatever. And that being the case, we think we should be acting in a manner unworthy of the British Government if we delayed one minute communicating that information. But while we admit we have no right to visit American vessels peacefully pursuing their ordinary trade, it would be wrong of us, and-unbecoming this great country, to say that we are willing at once to abandon that great policy which has so honourably distinguished her and cease our efforts to put down the slave trade. In reference to this point the position taken by the English Government is the same as that distinctly laid down in one of the best papers I have ever read on the subject. I allude to the document addressed by General Cass to Lord Napier, which, with the permission of the House, I will now read.
  "A merchant vessel upon the high seas is protected by her national character. He who forcibly enters her does so upon his own responsibility. Undoubtedly, if a vessel assume a national character to which she is not entitled, and is sailing under false colours, she cannot be protected by this assumption of a nationality to which she has no claim. As the identity of a person must be determined by the officer bearing a process for his

  47
  arrest, and determined at the risk of such officer, so must the national identity of a vessel be determined at the like hazard to him, who, doubting the flag she displays, searches her to ascertain her true character. There, no doubt, may be circumstances which would go far to modify the complaints a nation would have a right to make for such a violation of its sovereignty. If the boarding officer had just grounds for suspicion, and deported himself with propriety in the performance of his task, doing no injury, and peaceably retiring when satisfied of his error, no nation would make such an act the subject of serious reclamation."
  Now that, I believe, is strictly the position we are entitled to take by the authority of international law. The American Government have themselves acknowledged it on the face of General Cass's State paper to be such as no nation would make the subject of serious reclamation, and consequently that is the line of conduct which it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to instruct the officers commanding our cruisers to follow. In reference to one other point to which the hon. Member referred; the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any addition to the fleet which is stationed in the Cuban waters, and whether any addition had already been made to it. I beg to say, that during the time Her Majesty's Government have been in office, no increase whatever has been made to that fleet; and I may say further, that it will necessarily come under the consideration of the Government whether they will continue to maintain this squadron in the Cuban waters. Whether the squadron there is necessary to carry on the object we have in view—whether, in fact, objections of a more or less serious character are not applicable to the maintenance of our squadron in those waters. It is obvious that a squadron on the coast of Africa is altogether differently circumstanced from one maintained on the coast of Cuba. In the latter case the squadron is stationed upon the highway of American commerce, and each day they could scarcely fail to meet a number of American vessels peaceably engaged in trade. It is, therefore, obvious in carrying out those instructions which were necessarily given to our officers, that a considerable amount of discretion must be allowed, and that when there is much discretion given there must be a far greater risk of misunderstanding occurring, if not of actual collision. Whereas, on the coast of Africa, where the general commerce is more scattered, it is much easier to ascertain the character of suspicious vessels than amid a crowd of foreign ships. It is,
  48
  therefore, under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be desirable to withdraw altogether our squadron from the Cuban waters. The original plan by which a species of blockade was instituted, was instituted on the suggestion of the American Government, though neither that Government nor ourselves seemed to see the serious objections to it that afterwards arose. The last question of the hon. Member for Birmingham was, whether any additional instructions had been sent out to our squadron. In reference to that question, I have to say that the instructions to which the hon. Member for Birmingham alluded, which were given by the Earl of Aberdeen at the time of the late Sir R. Peel's Government, applied to the position of our cruisers on the coast of Africa. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty thought it necessary, since he came into office, to give more stringent instructions enjoining greater caution and discretion on the part of our cruisers on the coast of Cuba. Whether there were any other instructions given in the meantime giving rise to increased activity on the part of our cruisers there, I am not in a position to say. I can only assure the House that all our earliest efforts were directed to enjoining the greatest caution and prudence on the part of those who were engaged in our behalf on the coast of Cuba. Sir, I do not know any other information I can communicate to the hon. Gentleman. I can only say, expressing I believe not only the sentiments of every hon. Gentleman in this House, but also the sentiments and opinions of every man in this country, that a more fatal thing to the civilization and the happiness of either country could not occur than a misunderstanding between us and the United States. We shall meet the case in a frank and generous spirit, and fully confiding in the justice of the American Government, and in a reciprocity of feeling upon the part of the American people. I entertain, Sir, a firm hope and confidence that the questions at issue between us will, at an early date, end in an arrangement satisfactory for both nations.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, the position which I hold in this House, I think, makes it desirable that I should express very humbly the view which I entertain upon this question. I do not think the time of the night is any objection to my stating very shortly what I desire to say.

  49
  Sir, things have recently happened in America which, if properly understood by Americans, would lead them to a very different conclusion than that to which they have arrived. At the present time there are two peoples in the world at the head of civilization, and who are marching steadily onward in their course, as I believe, to the civilization of mankind. They are identical in language—they have the same institutions, and they have nearly the same form of Government. They are identical in race; they are derived from the same origin; they are, in fact, one nation. Now, these two nations are, I have said, at the head of civilization. They are going onward in that course; and, if in that course any obstruction unhappily interposes, surely it is the business of those who wish well to mankind to brush away that obstruction, and to make and keep those two nations friends. I think, Sir, the statement of the hon. Gentleman to-night is in accordance with these sentiments. The hon. Gentleman has, in a most satisfactory manner, stated the views of his Government upon this occasion. Not one word has escaped his lips derogatcry to this country or
  insulting to America. He has shown throughout that he understands the delicate position in which he is; and he has shown that he knows full well the great—I may say the overwhelming—duty which is now imposed upon both nations. Sir, certain language has been employed by gentlemen on the other side of the water, and I am bound to take notice of these facts, because it is supposed that we shall notice them. I am quite prepared to admit the destinies of the great nation we have planted on the other side of the Atlantic. I believe that from their country, their position, their institutions, their character, which they have derived from us, they are destined to be the leaders of mankind. But, Sir, I am not one of those who wish to derogate from the dignity of England. Language has been used in the American Congress which is not worthy of gentlemen—which is more worthy of ancient Pistol or of Bobadil than of the representatives of a great people. It has been assumed that England desires to insult them. Let them take a lesson from what has been said to-night as signifying the disposition of the people of England—that we do not desire to do anything which will give offence to our brethren over the water—that we are
  50
  desirous of maintaining good relations with them, that we are desirous of maintaining our institutions and dignity; but that we do not intend to wound or alarm them. I thought myself bound to say these few words, because it has been said we shut our ears to the statements made by leading men in America. Sir, things have been said there which cannot pass unnoticed. I have been insulted through my country by what has been said. People on the floor of the Congress—to use the language of America—have only been gratified to meet with an opportunity to insult England, and as an Englishman I am bound to answer that insult. I say that we, acting as a great people, have only the desire to put down a great blot upon humanity—I mean the slave trade. In order to do this, we have given certain instructions. Be it that in the heat of the moment, and in the desire to do their duty, your officers have been induced to go beyond the very letter of their instructions, would a great people, a friendly people, have made this an opportunity for indulging in abuse of this country, from whom they suppose those instructions emanated. I believe that reports have been exaggerated. I believe that our officers have merely done their duty, and I believe that people, pandering to bad appetites, had put into papers in America what is not true. A cant phrase has been used by the hon. Gentleman, to signify stories which are not true. I will use a shorter word, and I hope it will go across the water—I say that they have been telling "lies." I say that, pandering to bad passions, they have been telling lies. Sure am I, that the people of England wish to maintain kindly relations with the people of America. Sure I am, that the people of England wish to employ their great power—and we have a great power, though we don't wish to boast about it—I say we only wish to employ that power in the service of mankind. If we wish to put down the slave trade, it is merely for the good of mankind. We may have injudicious or generous officers, but I don't believe one-half or one-tenth of the stories talked about, and I won't believe that any Englishman has done anything which calls upon the Government he has served to believe that he has deviated from his duty. Sir, the people of England will maintain that great position which they have ever held; they will not be bullied out of their rights; they do

  51
  not wish to maintain a power which they ought not to have; they do not desire to do anything which shall excite hostility with America, which shall wound feelings or injure relations on the other side of the Atlantic, but they will take care of their own honour.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I wish to say that Her Majesty's Government may rest assured, if they conduct the affairs of the country in that temperate spirit in which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated it to be their intention to conduct them, while at the same time they are determined to maintain our rights, this House will afford them its ready support. With regard to the facts of the case immediately under consideration, it appears to me that there is much remaining to be told. The instructions given by the Government of 1844 to our cruisers have never been altered since, except, as it appears by the statement of the hon. Under Secretary, by those additional instructions which were given by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty, advising greater caution and prudence in the demeanour of our officers towards American ships. With regard to the original instructions, the order issued by the Earl of Aberdeen was framed after much consultation and advice of the most eminent authorities, and amongst others Dr. Lushington. The instructions were framed in the most temperate spirit, and previous to being issued they were communicated to the Government of the United States. During the fifteen years they have been in operation they have been acted upon without any interruption of the amicable relations which have existed between this country and the United States. The question is, whether the complaints which have recently arisen have arisen from the increased vigilance of our cruisers, or from the fact of our commanders overstepping their duty; or whether they arose from the unwillingness of America to submit to the carrying out of those instructions, although for a period of fifteen years she had recognized them. What is the duty of Her Majesty's Government under the circumstances? In the first place, it is their duty to restrain the over-zeal of our commanders, and if it be found that they have exceeded their instructions, it then becomes us as a great nation to acknowledge that fact, and to repair any wrong that we may have committed. On the other hand, if the American Govern-
  52
  ment are prepared to say that these instructions are objectionable to them, it is the duty, and at the same time true wisdom, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to advise with the Government of America as to the nature of the measures which ought to be adopted in order to effect the objects which both countries have in view. I will not venture to say what those measures ought to be. But it is quite clear, as admitted by General Cass himself, that this right of search is absolutely necessary for both countries, in order to protect the national interests of both on the high seas. The Americans are a maritime nation as well as ourselves, and it would never suit their commerce in the China seas, for instance, where piracy prevails, if after a pirate ship had taken and plundered an American vessel, and perhaps killed the crew, she had only to hoist the British ensign to protect herself from all examination on the part of American Commanders. They should have the right, as well as ourselves, of searching a suspicious vessel hoisting a flag to which it was not entitled. I think too much importance has been attached to the statement made even in the American Congress. It is obviously the interest of the two nations to remain united; and I am happy to hear from the Under Secretary of State that whatever may be the decision of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the squadron on the coast of Cuba, it is not their intention to deviate from that great line of policy which we have followed for so many years, and which has been justified by so many treaties into which we have entered with foreign Powers for the suppression of the slave trade. I now only wish to express the pleasure I have felt at the explanation given by the Under Secretary of State, which, while upholding the dignity of this country, has, at the same time, been characterized by much good temper and ability.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, as some questions have arisen with regard to the grounds upon which our cruisers have been sent to suppress the slave trade upon the coast of Cuba, I beg to remind the House that that arrangement was adopted in deference to the frequently expressed wishes of Parliament and of numerous deputations which waited upon the late Government, recommending the adoption of such a course. The Under Secretary of State has truly stated that the arrange-

  53
  ment had been acceded to by the American Government itself; therefore, there was nothing whatever about those proceedings which were not prompted by good and sufficient reasons. It is always, no doubt, to be expected that when an additional number of inspecting and preventing ships appear on a particular station, those with whose traffic they interfere should endeavour to raise a cry against it, and misrepresent the objects we have in view. I hope, Sir, it may turn out that the complaints we have recently heard so much about have originated in some such source. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, every reasonable and proper complaint will be attended to by Her Majesty's Government. It is but just to the American Government, however, to say that they have always not only expressed, but actually manifested, the same feeling which has actuated the people of England with regard to the suppression of that most abominable crime—the slave trade. The American Government actually made it a law that the slave trade was an offence liable to the heaviest punishment, and whenever the American cruisers have been stationed to operate with the British cruisers for the suppression of that trade, the American officers have done their duty, and co-operated in the most cordial manner possible with the officers of the British cruisers in every step thought necessary to be taken with that object in view. Those of them especially that were employed on the coast of Africa did their duty in the most prompt manner and with the best spirit. I think, therefore, Her Majesty's Government might urge upon the American Government to send cruisers to the coast of Cuba to prevent, by their own legitimate action, the abuse of her flag which is now practised by Spaniards, Portuguese, and bandits of all nations, whose conduct has, in fact, led to the present disputes. I concur with my noble Friend the Member for London, in thinking that it is impossible we can assent to the naked principle that the hoisting of the flag of a particular country is to be adopted as a conclusive proof that the vessel belongs to that country whose flag it hoists. It is well known that vessels are in the habit of carrying flags of different nations for the purpose of making signals; and if it came to be understood that the hoisting of the flags of England, or of France, or of the United States, or of the numerous States of South America, were to be a sufficient proof of the identification of a vessel, piracy of the most frightful
  54
  description would be rampant over the seas, and every country possessed of a mercantile navy would soon feel the necessity of combining to put an end to the system. I do not understand that the hon. Gentleman said that Her Majesty's Government have admitted the principle to the extent I have mentioned. I may state that I was informed the other day, by my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that no instructions had been sent to our cruisers on the coast of Cuba different from those instructions which were issued by the Earl of Aberdeen. I believe, therefore, that our officers are still acting on the instructions issued with the consent of the Americans themselves; and I presume that if any fresh instructions are sent they will be communicated to Parliament, so that we may see the extent of the modifications.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had listened with very great satisfaction to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for London, and he agreed with him that the best answer to the violent speeches that had been made in the American Senate would be the calm and dispassionate discussion that had taken place that evening. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in his very clear statement on the part of the Government, had not stated what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might mention, that without conceding the point to which the noble Lord had just referred, and which they had not in any way conceded, Her Majesty's Government, after pointing out the terrible abuse of their flag under the present system, and that piracy of the most flagrant character might be committed, had invited the Government of the United States to favour them with their suggestions as to the mode by which such things might be prevented, and had offered to take those suggestions into consideration, and, if possible, to combine with that Government in any arrangement that might promise a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which both Governments at present experienced. They had not as yet received any answer to that proposition, but he was inclined to believe that it would be received by the Government of the United States in the same spirit as it had been offered. His hon. Friend had so fully entered into the question, as far as at present we were masters of the de-ails, that it was not necessary, nor indeed would it be convenient for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to go at any

  55
  length into the subject. He confessed he looked forward with great confidence that the existing misconceptions would soon disappear, and that their occurrence now would lead to an understanding upon this subject that would prevent a renewal of them hereafter. He was sure that both the American Government and the American people, when they had examined thoroughly this subject, and had paused and pondered over all that had occurred, would feel that it was for the advantage of both countries, and for the benefit of civilization, that there should be some clear understanding as to the united course which both Governments should take upon this matter. Far from being alarmed, he was not displeased to hear that American ships of war had been sent into the Cuban waters, because the crews of those vessels would themselves be witnesses of what was taking place there, and he did not doubt that they would act with the same promptness and fidelity they had shown on other occasions and to which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had borne witness. There was also another reason why he took no gloomy view of our relations with the United States, however threatening they might appear. It was because upon all the great principles of policy which influenced the system of the United States there was between the Government of that country and that of Her Majesty, generally speaking, a complete accordance. We witnessed with no jealousy the expansion of the United States; we did not find in the general course of their policy any of those causes which create distrust between States; and knowing that their was in general among the public men of America a sincere desire to cultivate friendly relations with the Government and people of this country, he could not allow an accidental ebullition to induce him to believe that a policy founded upon deep reflection and an intimate acquaintance with the mutual interests of the two countries could be terminated or disturbed by circumstances which could only be regarded as of a transient nature, but which, if neglected, might no doubt assume a far more serious character than their essential merits could justify.
  MR. WARREsaid, he thought it was not to be regretted that this discussion had taken place. There was one point to which he wished to advert. He thought he collected from the Under Secretary of State that our Cuban squadron would shortly be withdrawn. [Mr. S. FITZGERALD:
  56
  I said it was under consideration.] He thought he was justified in assuming the probability of its withdrawal. If, however, we withdrew our squadron, and the United States did not substitute one of their own, then slavers under any flag, once escaping from the coast of Africa, had nothing to fear, and could not be prevented from landing their cargoes on the island of Cuba. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had thrown out a hope that the American Government would themselves undertake to maintain a squadron off the coast of Cuba. How far her Majesty's Government in their negotiations upon this delicate subject might be disposed to suggest such a course he could not tell, but he was strongly impressed with the belief that if there were no squadron in those waters, impunity, if not encouragement, would be given to the slave trade.

IRISH ASSISTANT BARRISTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to bring in any Bill to make better provision for the retirement of Assistant Barristers, and whether any such measure has been prepared either by the present or late Advisers of the Irish Government?
  LORD NAASsaid, this was a question of great importance, for the administration of justice had suffered in Ireland in consequence of persons retaining their seats as Assistant Barristers when they were too old to perform their duties. The question had been under the consideration of the late Government, and they had a measure in contemplation to put an end to this unseemly state of things. The question was also under consideration of the present Government, and late as the Session was they hoped to be able to pass a measure on this subject before its close.

NETLEY HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War when the Reports of the Commissioners on the Hospital at Netley will be laid on the Table of the House, and whether any steps have been taken to suspend the works or any part thereof? A Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) was at the head, reported against the site of this hospital, but the gallant Officer opposite refused to act

  57
  upon it till he had made further inquiries. He wished to know when the result of those inquiries would be laid before the House. For his own part, he was well acquainted with the neighbourhood of the hospital, and he believed the site was unobjectionable; but he believed the construction of the building was faulty, and he would urge upon the right hon. and gallant Member not to spend more money on the buildings till those faults were removed; and further, he would advise him to trust no more to Commissions or Committees, but to take the advice of a competent architect on the subject.
  SIR F. SMITHsaid, he had known the site of Netley Hospital for many years, and he was convinced that it was most salubrious. He also thought that with regard to the construction of the hospital, it contained no faults which might not be easily repaired. There were two systems on which hospitals were constructed—one was the block system, which was advocated by the French, the other was the continuous system which was in use among ourselves. As the block system was adopted at Aldershot they would have an opportunity of testing the merits of both; his own experience led him to prefer the continuous building system as best, both for the medical officers and the men.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had repeatedly urged the presentation of the Reports referred to, and he hoped that in ten days or a fortnight he should be able to lay them upon the table of the House. He believed that the scientific and medicial men who were sent down to Netley had reported in favour of the site. As, however, alterations might be proposed in the construction, directions had been given to the officers in charge of the works to arrange with the contractors not to proceed with those portions which might hereafter require alteration, but at the same time to do nothing which would vitiate the contract.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 3.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he proposed to amend this clause by inserting the word "three" instead of "two," the intention
58
being to retain the services of Mr. Hargreave as one of the Judges of the Court.
MR. MALINSsaid, when the matter was under discussion on Tuesday last there was a strong opinion in favour of two Judges, and he did not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman had since changed his mind in favour of three.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, there was a very good reason in its being the unanimous wish of the Irish landed proprietors. It was hard the hon. Member for Wallingford would not let Irishmen manage their own affairs. They knew what they wanted, and they were determined to have it in spite of all the professional Members of the House.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the gallant Officer was going too far. He had still heard no reason, and he was not to be detered from expressing his opinion by such language as that adopted by the gallant Member for Roscommon.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he had received representations from a number of gentlemen informing him that a greater quantity of landed property would be likely to pass through this Court than he had anticipated; and also a recommendation from the Society of Solicitors that the services of Mr. Hargreave should not be dispensed with. On these grounds he had purposed to alter the number of Judges from two to three.
MR. DOBBSsaid, he for one thought two Judges were enough, and he thought it very extraordinary when everywhere else there was a disposition to reduce the number of Judges, that they should be anxious to multiply them in Ireland.
MR. MALINSsaid, that although he did not wish to oppose the decision of the Government, he entertained a very decided opinion that there was no prospect of more than two Judges being required to transact the business of this Court. He did not think that the landed gentry of Ireland were the best judges of how many Judges ought to be appointed.
MR. S. B. MILLERthanked the Attorney General for Ireland for the concession he had made in retaining Mr. Hargreave—a concession which he thought was wise and judicious.
MR. ADAMSsaid, he could agree in the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Mem-for Roscommon (Colonel French) that none but Irish Members ought to interfere on Irish subjects. He was in favour for uniting Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen as

59
much as possible. With regard to the question before them, he considered that two Judges would be ample for the amount of business. He had heard nothing to induce him to suppose that three Judges would be required.
MR. P. O'BRIENcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) on having made a concession to the wishes of the suitors and others in retaining the services of Mr. Hargreave.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he agreed that it was desirable to have English Members taking part in this discussion, and all the rather that it was possible a similar measure would ere long be applied to England. With respect to the question before the Committee, he would, for himself, prefer two Judges, but the whole question was an experiment. Whether they began with two Judges and afterwards increased them to three, or whether they began with three Judges and afterwards reduced them to two, was more a dispute about words than anything else.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 4, (regulating the appointment of future Judges.)
MR. MALINSsaid, the clause, as it stood, would exclude any English barrister from the appointment, and among them, therefore, Mr. Hargreave, to whom everybody seemed to say the success of this experiment was mainly owing. It would also exclude chamber counsel and conveyancers, who could not be said to have practised in "the superior courts." Now, there were in Lincoln's Inn eminent practitioners who had hardly ever in their lives addressed a Judge on the bench, and it would be very unwise to prevent such gentlemen from being appointed. He should therefore move the omission of the words requiring each Judge to be "a practising barrister of at least fifteen years' standing, who shall have actually practised fifteen years' in Her Majesty's superior Courts in Dublin."
MR. BUTTsaid, that he should support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) if pressed to a division.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. He conceived that a practising barrister was not a person who had a particular number of briefs, but who, if a brief were offered him, was prepared to take it.
MR. COGANsupported the Amendment. He thought any barrister should
60
be eligible under the Bill, although he was not a practising barrister.
MR. P. O'BRIENsuggested, that the words should be "fifteen years called to the Irish bar."
MR. MALINSsaid, that if the clause were passed as it stood men who had practised at chambers for many years, and had attained great eminence there, but who had only been a few years at the bar, would be ineligible for the appointments.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the clause was advisedly framed. In Dublin there were some conveyancers who were among the most ignorant men on the face of the earth. Moreover, the law of Ireland was still, in some respects, peculiar; and for such an appointment as that in question an Irish barrister would be better qualified than an English barrister.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he would support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford. Under an impartial Act the position of the Irish and English barristers ought to be the same.
MR. MALINSsaid, he would propose to withdraw his original suggestion, and to move the omission of the words, "in Her Majesty's superior courts in Dublin."
SIR DENHAM NORREYSobjected to the withdrawal of the original Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that, although the hon. and learned Gentleman had withdrawn the Amendment he had proposed, he thought the clause should be put into such a form as would enable the Government to obtain the best lawyers, whether English or Irish, who could be appointed to these judgeships. Mr. Hargreave had been selected for his position, because he was a man fully acquainted with a particular branch of the law. He (Sir D. Norreys) believed there were no men more eloquent than Irish barristers, but it was requisite that gentlemen who were appointed to the important position of Judges under this Bill should possess a thoroughly practical knowledge of their profession. He believed that his countrymen engaged in the legal profession were as eloquent as any men could be, but he doubted whether they were such deep lawyers as the members of the English bar, because in Ireland barristers pursued all the branches of their profession, while in this country there was a division of labour. He objected to the Bill in its present form on the ground that it might preclude them from obtaining for the Landed Estates

61
Court in Ireland Judges who possessed the highest legal acquirements, and he would move that after the words requiring that the Judges of that court should have "actually practised fifteen years in Her Majesty's superior Courts in Dublin," the words "or at Westminster" be inserted.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 12, after "Dublin," to insert the words "or at Westminster."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 114: Majority 87.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses up to Clause 11.
Clause 12 (Appointment of Officers).
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the House had for many years granted large sums of money to sustain the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland so long as it was of a temporary character; but the object of the present Bill being to establish permanently in its stead a most important court, which would not fail to be attended with great advantages to suitors, his right hon. and learned Friend had judged—and judged rightly—that under those circumstances the court should be self-supporting, and the manner in which he proposed to do this, was by imposing a tax on the land which was sold and transferred through the instrumentality of the new court. But in order to rigidly maintain the principle which it was his (Mr. Hamilton's) duty as representative of the Treasury to look after, it was necessary, in consequence of the change made in the number of Judges, to make an alteration in this clause with regard to the salaries of those Judges. Mr. Henry Martley, one of the present Judges, was in the receipt of £3,000 a year; and of course it would be unfair to make any diminution in that. The other two Judges possessed a salary of £2,000 a year each. His right hon. and learned Friend contemplated when it was intended to have but two Judges that the scale of remuneration should be higher; but inasmuch as they were now to be three Judges, he proposed that Mr. Martley should receive, so long as he continued to hold the office, the salary he received at present; that each of the other Judges should receive £2,500 a year; and that when a vacancy occurred in the office held by Mr. Martley, the uniform salary of all the Judges should be £2,500 a year each. In conclusion he would move to amend the clause accordingly.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYapproved of the Amendment as indicating the exercise of a wise discretion on the part of the Government.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYremarked, that the arrangement was calculated to lower the position of the other Judges in relation to that occupied by Mr. Martley.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he should be sorry if it were supposed that, in fixing a smaller salary for the other two Judges than for Mr. Martley, any disrespect was meant towards those gentlemen. The larger amount proposed to be granted to Mr. Martley was in consideration of the fact that he was in the enjoyment of that salary at the present moment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked, if the officers of the Incumbered Estates Court would be employed in the new court?
MR. WHITESIDEreplied, that they would, every one of them, and they were all perfectly competent.
Amendment agreed to, and the clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 (Retiring Allowances to Judges).
MR. WILSONasked, if the Judges would be entitled to the allowance after a certain number of years' service?
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could inform the hon. Gentleman that, whatever might be the case in England, it was not the practice for Irish Judges to retire.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20 struck out.
Clause 21.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the inadequacy of the provision made for Mr. Locke, one of the most efficient officers of the court, and a gentleman to whose ability in the discharge of his duties every one who had had any business to transact in the Incumbered Estates Court could testify. He trusted that his case would receive the attention it deserved at the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland.
MR. GROGANsaid, he concurred in the hon. Member's remarks, as he could bear testimony to the value of Mr. Locke's services.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he would feel great pleasure in attending to the suggestion he had just heard; he was aware that Mr. Locke had discharged his duties in a most efficient manner.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he wished to advocate the claims of all the officers of the Incumbered Estates Court, and trusted

63
they would also be taken into consideration.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 22, 23, 24, and 25, the three last with verbal Amendments.
Clause 33,
MR. DOBBSsaid, he wished to move the substitution of the words "seventy-two" for the word "ninety." The object of that Amendment was to enable the law stationers to make their charges for seventy-two words in each folio.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 12, to leave out "ninety," and insert "seventy-two."
Question put, "That 'ninety' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 140: Majority 105.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 31, 32, and 33.
Clause 34,
SIR ERSKINE PERRY SIR ERSKINE PERRY moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 14, line 33, the words "and generally, the examination as to all disputed facts shall be according to the rules of common law."
MR. WHITESIDEobjected to the restriction which these words would impose.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he also should resist the proposal, on the ground that in many cases the mode of proceeding by affidavits was preferable; but power was given to employ viva voce examinations whenever it was thought proper.
Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 35, 36, and 37. Clause 38,
MR. BUTTsaid, he should move, as an Amendment, the omission of the clause, The effect of the clause as it stood would be to send to the Judges of this Court questions which ought not to come before Judges who had not had experience at nisi prius. Two of the existing Judges of the Incumbered Estates Court had not had that experience. To give gentlemen so situated the jurisdiction which this clause would confer was the more objectionable, inasmuch as under the present Bill the Judges were to sit separately, and the appeal was to themselves.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could not see any objection to giving the Judges of the new Court authority, if they should think fit to exercise it, to empannel a jury and try questions of fact. The Judge of
64
the Probate Court had that power at present. The clause was only permissive.
MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, that the person, of all others, who could form the best judgment, and would be the most competent to try a question of lease would be the Judge who presided in the Court which tried the question of title.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, that the Clause was merely a permissive one, and could be retained without disadvantage.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYhoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
MR. BUTTsaid, he would not withdraw the Amendment, but he did not wish to press it to a division.
MR. VANCEinquired what would be done in the case of applications for new trials; would the Judge who tried the case decide the question, or would the Judges sit in banco upon it?
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in the Court of Equity the Lord Chancellor decided whether a new hearing should take place, and therefore there would be no inconsistency in the Judge who tried the case in this instance granting a new trial; but by a subsequent clause the Judge could call in the asisstance of another if necessary.
MR. MALINSsaid, that if this were a compulsory clause, he should certainly vote against it.
Clause agreed to, as was Clause 39.
Clause 40 (granting of New Trials).
MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved an Amendment, to the effect that the appeal should be to the full Court, consisting of any two of the Judges or the three Judges sitting together for the purpose of such appeal, and, if not so appealed from, every order of such Judge should be deemed and taken to be, and shall be called, the order of the Court. Such an appeal would be especially necessary on new trial motions.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. He had followed the analogy of the Court of Bankruptcy in the clause, and he might observe that the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court considered it as so much lost time to be called on to sit certain days in the week to review the decisions given by them singly.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYthought that one appeal was quite sufficient, and he suggested whether it would not be better to give a direct appeal to the House of Lords at once.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he thought

65
that the course proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland was the best, and such was the universal opinion of the profession. The appeal now would be direct to the regularly constituted court of appeal—namely, the Court of Chancery.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 41 (Proceedings in Appeals).
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the time, thirty days, allowed for appealing was too short. He should move to extend the period to three months.
MR. SEBJEANT DEASYsupported the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked, that at all events a period of sixty days was desirable.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, that this clause applied to the case of parties coming to the Court for a title, and therefore a period of at least three months was essential.
MR. BUTTalso supported the Amendment.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would consent to the insertion of three months instead of thirty days.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 42 to 46 inclusive.
Clause 47 (Vendor or Vendee may apply for investigation of title).
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he must object to this clause, as giving to the Judges of this Court power, in contentious cases of disputed claims on the part of contracts, and of disputes with regard to sales. This would be to make the Court a new Court of Chancery; the Judge in the Court would have his time withdrawn from the proper business of his office; and when he had decided it, the case would be certain to be carried by appeal to the Court of Chancery. Why not let it go there at first? He moved that the clause be omitted.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the clause was divisible into two parts. One was where both parties, vendor and vendee, agreed to present a petition to the Court about which there could be no dispute. The other part was where the contract upon the face of it declared that it should be carried out by the instrumentality of the Court. There could be no good reason why parties should not be allowed to make a bargain of that nature. The case had been put of the contract having been, obtained by fraud, but in such a case there was not a word in the clause to prevent the Court of Chancery from setting aside the contract.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSfeared lest
66
the interests of other parties than those entering into the contract would be affected by the title to be given by the Court.
MR. BUTTthought that the words of the clause as they at present stood would go much further than the right hon. Gentleman represented.
MR. COXsuggested, that in accordance with a salutary suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no discussion should take place after twelve o'clock at night, and this was more particularly desirable as there were not fewer than nineteen other orders of the day to be disposed of. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that this was not exactly his suggestion. What he proposed was, that they should not go into fresh debateable matter, but he had no idea of stopping discussion in the middle of a clause.
Mr. COXhaving withdrawn his Motion,
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 48 and 49.
House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.
House adjourned at a Quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act Continuance.
3a. Law of False Pretences Amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwished to ask a question to which he did not expect to receive an answer until the noble Earl at the head of the Government was able to be present, but it referred to a subject of overwhelming importance, which indeed, was not yet under the consideration of their Lordships, but which could not but be constantly within their view. He referred to the new settlement of the government of India. That subject required as much deliberation by their Lordships' House as by the other House of Parliament, but although a great many weeks had passed the matter had not yet come before their Lordships. It appeared from those sources of information with which they were daily supplied, that this great question, after assuming various aspects, and presenting itself in every possible form, had at last lost its way in the House of Commons, but by great good fortune it seemed now to have recovered the right road. Having determined to proceed no further with the Resolutions and to bring in a Bill the Go-
  2
  vernment were now able to communicate to their Lordships the progress they had made. He had no other object than that there should be an early despatch of this great measure so far as was consistent with that opportunity of full consideration which their Lordships were entitled to demand. He wished therefore to ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the other House of Parliament that the Resolutions agreed to by that House should be communicated to their Lordships without waiting for the passing of the Bill? He was willing to acquiesce in what seemed to be the general feeling of the Government and of their Lordships, but it appeared to him that by the communication of these Resolutions the House might have the advantage—if advantage it were—of being enabled to enter upon the consideration of some of the most important topics without waiting for the Bill itself, which might possibly not come before them for a long period, and such a course might contribute to the saving of time when the Bill did at last reach them.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, he must ask the noble Marquess to allow him to postpone a positive answer until Monday. He very much feared that his noble Friend would not be well enough to appear in his place on that day, but he would communicate the

  3
  question of the noble Marquess, and he was sure his noble Friend would give it that attention which any suggestion coming from him always deserved.

PRIVATE BILLS.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present System of Proceedings in Parliament on Private Bills, and to consider whether any Improvement could be effected to facilitate such Legislation and diminish its Expense. The noble Lord, having described in some detail the present mode of proceeding in reference to Private Bills, and the alterations which the system had undergone from time to time, said, the great evil of the existing mode lay in the expense to promoters of such Bills consequent upon their having to prove their case first before a Committee of the House of Commons, and then before one of the House of Lords. One way of meeting or diminishing this evil would be to assimilate, as far as possible the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament, in reference to private Bills. When this was done the Question whether these Orders had been complied with might be referred to some officer or officers of each House, in the case both of opposed and unopposed Bills. He submitted also, that with respect to unopposed Bills that Parliament should be satisfied with one proof, which might be made before a joint Committee composed of Members of both Houses who should give their decision once for all. He urged upon the House that it was worth while to inquire whether alterations could not be introduced into the present practice in the hope of diminishing expenses, improving the mode of procedure, and facilitating the transaction of business. One proposal which he should be disposed to make with that view would be the organization of a panel of chairmen who should, as in the case of the House of Commons, preside over the Committees of their Lordships' House, and give their advice and assistance in matters of difficulty. The delay in fixing the time of hearing had always been the subject of complaint, and something ought to be done to remove that ground of vexation. Again it would be highly desirable to adopt some means for the purpose of more equalizing the distribution of business throughout the Session. It was desirable to inquire whether it was not possible to reduce the expense and faci-
4
litate the transaction of business so as to remove from the public mind an impression that now prevailed that their Lordships' tribunal was not only expensive but unfair and dilatory. The best means of doing that, he thought, would be the appointment of a Committee, and, therefore, he had now to submit a Motion to that effect to their Lordships.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that since the great improvements in the proceedings with respect to private business originated in that House in 1837, he thought the Committees had worked as well as anything of that sort could; but at the same time he did not think a Parliamentary Committee was the best tribunal for inquiring into these matters. With regard to the expense, he did not think the expense was heavy, except when the Bills were opposed, and, with regard to them, a great portion of the expense was attributable to the parties who had the conduct of the inquiry, and the frightful length of time occupied in consequence. He was not quite sure that something might not be done by requiring that the parties should send in a list of witnesses stating the several points on which they proposed to call them, and that that list should be submitted in the first instance to a Standing Committee, for this purpose, which should limit the number of witnesses that each might call. The investigations before Committees of this House were always shorter than in the other House, and the reason given was that the matter had already been investigated. With regard to the double procedure between the two Houses, he did not think that a great deal was to be gained on that head, because, as he had stated, the great expense was on opposed Bills, and he thought that on opposed Bills a double investigation was desirable. But there might be something done by mutual communication between the two Houses to prevent the necessity of a double investigation on points that were not disputed. Another suggestion was, that there should be in the House a panel of chairmen; but he did not think they could work that in the same way that they did in the House of Commons, which had much more command over their Members than this House had. Another was, that the two Houses should work together, and that they should exchange Bills. At one time he was strongly in favour of something of that sort; and supposing that some great stress of business were to occur, as

5
in 1845, he thought some such arrangement would be desirable: but in ordinary times he did not think it would; because the more time they allowed to the agents the longer would they delay. He would observe that the greatest good had arisen from the Order he was the means of getting passed, that after a certain day no Private Bills would be taken. He thought that from the appointment of the Committee some small good might arise, but he was afraid from the nature of the subject that very little was to be done in the way of remedy for the evils complained of.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was more sanguine than the noble Lord who had just spoken as to the result of the appointment of this Committee. The improved mode of conducting the business commenced in this House in 1837, and was suggested by him to the Duke of Wellington. He suggested that there should be a joint Committee, seven of the Commons and five of the Lords, for each Bill, by which means double investigation, which was the great evil, would be avoided. Another suggestion was, that the Committee should sit with a legal assessor. He greatly lamented that these plans were not then adopted, as the root of the evil was the double investigation. Great good had arisen from the appointment of Examiners, though their functions were confined to the Standing Orders. He thought that the same principle might be applied to the merits of the case. If the Committees wore appointed, and a good understanding was come to between this Committee and the Committee of the House of Commons, which he understood was to be appointed, he would fain hope that some good would be effected.
LORD PORTMANsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that there should be an examination in each House into the merits of the different Bills, and that the doing away with such deliberate examination would not conduce to the public advantage. He thought, however, that the investigations, and consequently the expense, might be curtailed with great advantage. One important step towards an improvement of the system would be by giving the Committees the power of directing which side should begin in the Private Committees. For instance, in cases which had been determined by the other House, the opponents of a measure might be called upon to state their objections, and then the promoters would have those objections only to
6
meet. He had seen that done in some cases with great success. He also thought it would be a considerable improvement on the present system if a number of Peers, who would attend punctually, would undertake the labour of attending to Private Bills; they would by this means qualify themselves to be very valuable chairmen of Committees, and would render a great service to the public. With respect to the Motion of his noble Friend, he should be happy to render the Committee any assistance in his power in carrying out his inquiry.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he rather doubted the useful working of a joint Committee of both Houses. Perhaps such a Committee might be beneficially employed in deciding questions relating to Standing Orders, but in other cases he thought separate Committees most desirable. It was to be regretted that Parliament had not yet arrived at some definite conclusion as to the principles on which railway legislation was to be carried on; it would be very advantageous if some regulations could be laid down to enable the public to judge whether certain projects were likely to receive the sanction of Parliament, for at present it was impossible for the parties interested to know how any proposal would be received by the Committees. He admitted the difficulties which surrounded the subject, but thought it possible that some general directions might be given as to the settlement of particular questions affecting the interests of the public, when competing railway measures were submitted to Parliament; and perhaps it might be desirable to have some public department to report on each railway project, so that the rights of the public might be protected.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY in reply,
Motion agreed to.
Committee named.

VICARAGE OF CAMBERWELL.—LAW OF SEQUESTRATION.—PETITION.
LORD ST. LEONARDSpresented a petition from the vestry of St. Giles, under their corporate seal, for inquiry into the circumstances connected with the sequestration of the vicarage of Camberwell, and for Amendment of the Law of Sequestration. The petitioners, the members of the vestry of Camberwell, represented that the number of souls in that parish was 60,000, and that the income of the vicar was £2,309

7
per annum. The vicar had been compelled to leave the parish in consequence of being greatly in debt, owing at the time he left about £30,000, secured by sequestration, and the balance now due being £20,000. Under these circumstances, the ministerial duty, for which £2,300 a year was paid by the parish, was performed by two curates appointed by the Bishop, who had no power under the existing Act of Parliament to give a larger salary than £200 a year between them. The petitioners complained, and most justly, of this state of things, and desired an inquiry to be made into the condition of the parish, and prayed that their Lordships would originate some law with regard to sequestration. He regretted that none of the members of the right rev. Bench were present, but he trusted that the case would become known to them by some means or other, and that they would suggest a remedy for such a state of things. No one could deny that the law as it stood required some alteration. There were three parties concerned in a sequestration—the minister himself, the parishioners, and the creditors of the clergyman. The parishioners had a right to complain if, while they were paying a large sum for the services of the church, those services were performed by one or two curates in the receipt of £200 a year, the surplus being paid over to the creditors of the incumbent. By law, a clergyman could not charge his living with any debts that he might incur. If a judgment were obtained against him, he could not charge his living with the payment of the debt; and yet by the operation of the law, and by the judgment creditor praying a sequestration by the Ecclesiastical Court, a sequestrator was appointed who took possession of the temporalities of the living, provided curates at not more than £200 a year, and allotted the remainder of the clergyman's income to the payment of the debt; so that when an incumbent was embarrassed he applied to the money dealers, who were perfectly aware of the nature of the security they could obtain. The moment things went wrong these money dealers took out a sequestration and seized the whole of the temporalities, to the exclusion of the general creditors. The tradesmen of the parish, for example, who might imprudently have trusted the clergyman were cut out by the sequestration. He held that a clergyman was bound to the spot where his duties were to be performed; and, although an excuse might be made for improvidence,
8
he ought never to be excused for wilfully running into debt, and being thereby prevented from executing the sacred duties of his office. Instead of allowing a clergyman to obtain a license to reside from his parish or to reside as an outlaw abroad for the purpose of avoiding his creditors, he ought to be bound to remain at his post, and execute his duties; and if he could not do this, from having wilfully and recklessly run into debt, he would declare the living void and strip his gown from him, as being incapable of performing his duties. Without taking from the creditors all the security they now possessed, he certainly would not suffer a sequestration to take place which enabled one great creditor to take the whole surplus income of the living. He would have one person appointed by the Ecclesiastical Court to receive the whole income of the living. The incumbent should receive a certain allowance, fixed by the Bishop, but should be compelled to reside and perform the duties while he was endeavouring to become a better man. He would then let all the tradesmen and other creditors share equally in the payment of the debts. The object he should have in view would be to prevent clergymen from becoming improvident and incapable of performing their duties to their parish; and on the other hand, it would render persons cautious how they allowed him to get into their debt. Creditors, again, who wished to obtain a great interest for their money would not be able to avail themselves of the necessities and improvidence of clergymen. He trusted that the petition would receive the consideration of the Government and of the heads of the Church, and that some remedy would be devised from the evils to which he had called their attention.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, in common with his noble and learned Friend, regretted that none of the right rev. Prelates had been present to hear the statement he had just made. He thought the House ought to be grateful to his noble and learned Friend for calling their attention to so important a subject. He himself (Viscount Dungannon) knew many instances in which the incumbents of populous parishes had been living abroad for many years, while their livings were under sequestration, and the duty of the living had been discharged by one or more curates on meagre salaries. This was a most lamentable state of things. The proposed scheme of the noble and learned Lord was one of a most important character. He (Viscount Dungannon) had seen evils

9
result from the present state of the law in more parishes than one, and trusted that the subject would have the serious attention of the Legislature, and he thought that no one would be better able to give the required attention to the subject than the master mind of the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the topic.
LORD REDESDALEhoped that the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the subject would take the matter into his serious consideration; for it was well-known that unless some individual took it up earnestly, it would never be taken up in a general way. The evil had gone on for a great length of time; every one was sensible of it, and no attempt at any remedy was proposed. The evil in a great degree arose from the fact that people did not consider sufficiently the trust connected with their living. They treated it too much as property, and in a great many other matters connected with the livings and preferments of the Church that feeling was allowed to prevail. A Bill had been introduced for depriving Members of either House of Parliament of their seats under certain circumstances, and great benefit would be done to the Church if the same system were adopted in respect to livings made vacant under certain proceedings. There was a trust connected with Church livings as well as seats in Parliament; and it was necessary that the example of the clergyman should be beneficial to his parishioners rather than the contrary, and if he got into difficulties and embarrassments it was desirable that he and his living should be separated. He, however, did hope that while provision was made for the due performance of spiritual duties in the Church, the question of property would be no less considered in connection with Church preferments and the due performance of ecclesiastical duties.
Petition to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.