Sitting of 22 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Militia Pay; Union Relief Aid; Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance.
2° Polling Places (New Shoreham, &c.)
3° Fortifications (Provision for Expenses); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Copyhold, &c. Commission; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2).

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYtook the opportunity of asking the Secretary for the Treasury, whether it was intended for the future that in the case of all charges connected with Civil Contingencies, they shall form the subject of special Votes to be brought before the House.
  MR. PEELsaid, that under the new system every change relating to Civil Contingencies would be made the subject of a distinct Vote.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he also wished to draw attention to the fact that there was no detailed estimate of the Militia Expenditure, similar to that of the Army Expenditure furnished in the Estimates on the authority of the War Office, and wished for an explanation.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the expenses of the Militia stood on quite a different footing from the expenses of the Army. The Militia Estimates were not in form prepared under the authority of the Crown. They were kept quite distinct from the Army Estimates, and were formally prepared by a Committee of that House. In former times, the privilege of the direct control of the House over the
  662
  expenditure upon the Militia was highly prized as one of the safeguards of the liberties of the country, the Militia force being considered a constitutional force as distinguished from the King's standing army. Of late years that feeling had undergone an entire change in consequence of the control which the House had acquired over the regular army in Committee of Supply, and there did not seem any very good reason for keeping up the distinction in the mode of preparing the Estimates. It was not, however, a matter on which the Government could with propriety initiate any change; but if the House were to express an opinion that it would be desirable that the Militia Estimate should be prepared by the executive Government, and should in some manner be embodied with the ordinary Army Estimates, it seemed to him that that would be an improvement in their practice, and would lead to a clearer view of the entire expense of our military establishments. They did vote in the Army Estimates the expenses of the Yeomanry and of the Volunteers, and it seemed the practice had been to give a fuller account of the expenditure included within the Army Estimates than of that for the Militia. The accounts for the Militia were kept in the War Office; and if it were the wish of the House that a fuller account should be presented, there would be no difficulty in complying with that desire.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSthought it would be better that the Militia Estimates should be embodied with the other Estimates of the Army, and would recommend the Secretary for War to make this change without waiting for a Vote of the House.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISwished to explain that the Militia Estimates were in fact prepared in the War Office, and were afterwards assented to by the Militia Estimates Committee. The proceedings of that Committee were therefore to a great extent formal.
  Resolutions agreed to.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL No. 207.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved that the Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) Bill be now read the third time.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that having generally voted in the minority on all occasions respecting this measure, he wished to repudiate the charge brought against him and those with whom he acted, that they had any intention of treating the Defence Commission and its Report with the slightest disrespect. He denied that the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out in the Bill, and therefore the absurdity of the charge was obvious. When they found such men as Sir John Burgoyne, Sir Frederic Smith, and other eminent authorities differing in opinion from the other members of the Defence Commission, those with whom he acted felt that they had a perfect justification for the course they had taken. He would again urge upon the consideration of the House that many of the works recommended by the Commission were wholly unnecessary; and he trusted the Government, would see the propriety of still further reducing the proposed scheme of fortification.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he was a zealous supporter of the policy of placing our dockyards and arsenals in a proper state of defence; but he held that a superfluity of defence was almost as objectionable as an entire absence of defence. No one could dispute the right of civilians to express an opinion on these subjects. The greatest improvement that had been effected in the armaments of this country had originated with a civilian, Sir William Armstrong, and the Government had recognised the value of the opinion of civilians by making one a member of the Defence Commission, and by placing upon that Commission Members who had had no practical experience of warfare. The Government had itself indicated an opinion, that the recommendations of the Commissioners were in excess of the requirements of the country by reducing their scheme of fortifications to a considerable extent. They had reduced, for example, from ten to five the number of forts proposed to be constructed on Portsdown Hill; but even five forts were, he could not help thinking, more by two or three than were necessary. Two forts would be, he ventured to think, sufficient on Ports-down Hill, and those need not be of a large description, but secure against escalade. The idea of bringing an army to defend Portsdown Hill or Portsmouth was preposterous. The forts proposed to be erected near Plymouth were very numerous, and he doubted the expediency
  664
  of constructing so many. He must express his hope that the Government would reconsider again the subject of these defences, and would not be deterred from carrying their reductions still further. If the practice of entering protests which prevailed in the other House existed in the Commons, he should, with great humility, but earnestly, protest against the approval by the Government of the excessive recommendations of the Defence Commissioners.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

GRANT'S COOKING APPARATUS.

  RESOLUTION.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he was induced to bring this subject before the House, because he considered, that though Captain Grant, who had been engaged since 1855 in improving the cooking system of the army, had by his attention to the matter considerably benefited the service, he had not received that consideration from the Government or War Department to which his public services entitled him. Previous to 1855 the barracks were supplied with nothing but the old boilers, which cooked the food so as to pall upon the appetite and drive the soldiers out of the barracks for a change of diet. In 1855, in consequence of the establishment of the camp at Aldershot, Captain Grant was sent for by Lord Hardinge to introduce his system of cooking, which it was thought might be beneficial to the service. Captain Grant established a system of cooking there for 20,000 men, which remained in use at the present day; and, in consequence of the success which attended this first operation, the system was afterwards introduced at Shorncliffe, Woolwich, and, in 1859–60, at the Curragh. He therefore felt he might, without fear of contradiction, state, that unless the Government had found Captain Grant's system successful, they never would have introduced it into other large camps. Now, the services of Captain Grant, the time and labour he had expended in the perfecting of his apparatus being taken into account, deserved, he thought, recognition at the hands of the Government; but he had as yet, he was sorry to say, not only received no compensation whatsoever, but was actually out of pocket—not certainly of a large sum, but to the extent of £280. From 1856 to 1858 various boards and officers had been

  665
  required to report upon the subject, and every succeeding report was more favourable than its predecessor to Captain Grant's invention, especially on the score of economy; for it seemed that the cost had been reduced from an average of 5s. 10 d. to 2s. 6d. Among other officers who had reported in its favour in 1858, were General Maunsell from Shorncliffe, and Colonel Bloomfield from Woolwich. All the reports were favourable to the ambulatory part of Captain Grant's system. Lord Rokeby, Sir Richard Dacres, Sir John Pennefather, Colonel Hudson, Captain Hutchinson, Brigadier Staveley, Colonel Thomas, Colonel St. George, and others had borne strong testimony to its value and efficiency. Captain Grant complained that his system had not been fairly tried. For example, at Aldershot, his kitchen had been cut in two, while at the Curragh his flue had been made nine inches square, instead of twelve inches, thus defeating the object which he had in view. The fact was that Captain Grant had been guilty of a great success, and that success had brought upon him many enemies. It was only just that an officer who had devoted his time to the public service should receive some recognition from the Government. Up to the present time Captain Grant had not got anything for his services, although his new system of cooking had been adopted for 10,000 men at Aldershot, for 3,000 at Woolwich, for 5,000 at Shorncliffe, and for 5,000 at the Curragh, and although he had paid all the preliminary expenses out of his own pocket. He thought that one year's ascertained saving in the consumption of fuel on two-thirds of the strength of the British army in England would be a fair and liberal mode of remuneration. If Captain Grant's system were bonâ fide carried out, it would, he believed, effect a saving of £50,000 a year in fuel. What he proposed was that three or four competent persons should be appointed to inquire whether Captain Grant's inventions were not beneficial to the service and economical to the country. If it were not found to be so, Captain Grant would seek no remuneration from the country. On the part of the army, he must say Captain Grant was looted upon as a great benefactor to the service; his ambulatory arrangements for cooking, where great masses of men were collected together, would be found one of the greatest blessings to the army in the field that had ever been proposed by
  666
  any officer in the service. He concluded by moving—
  "That it is the opinion of this House that the services which Captain Grant has rendered to the public by the economy and improvement which he has introduced into the system of Field and permanent Cooking in the Army, and by his invention of the Ambulatory Cooking Apparatus, are entitled to recognition."
  MR. J. R. O. GOREseconded the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer was substantially for a grant of money; and if the words of his Motion left any doubt upon the subject, his speech and the letter of Captain Grant, dated June 10, entirely removed it. With regard to the expenses incurred by Captain Grant in his invention, he had already been reimbursed. His present claim was purely for remuneration; and the hon. and gallant Member had given an assessment as to its amount, because he said Captain Grant considered that a saving of £50,000 a year had been, or might be, effected by carrying out his system of cooking, and he suggested that two-thirds of that amount for one year should be awarded to Captain Grant by way of remuneration. Now, according to the Standing Orders of the House, a petition for a grant of money relating to the public service must be recommended by the Crown, and a Resolution to that effect must be agreed to in a Committee of the Whole House; whereas, this Resolution was moved with the Speaker in the chair, and was in substance a violation of the Standing Orders. He therefore objected to the Motion upon that general ground. But, adverting to Captain Grant's claims, the hon. and gallant Officer seemed to think that he (Sir G. Lewis) had declined to go into the merits of the question, and had given no time to its investigation. He could assure him that was not the case. He had investigated the question, and, as far as documents to which he had access could inform him, he was unable to say that there was any sufficient ground for altering the decision of his predecessor; for he must contend that a decision had been arrived at, and was formed on the report of Messrs. Warriner and Guerrier. Of course it was quite competent to Captain Grant to dispute the accuracy and fairness of that report, and, undoubtedly, inventors were often dissatisfied with the judgment pronounced on inquiry with regard to their claims for remuneration. He could only

  667
  say that there was no prejudice against Captain Grant's cooking apparatus; it had received a fair trial, and the result was not to induce the War Department to extend it any further, or recommend it where it was not now used. It was not advantageous on the score of economy. The quantity of fuel it consumed for a small number was quite as great as by the cooking apparatus on the old system. Where the number was great there was some economy. But there were several other cooking processes in which the economy was greater than in Captain Grant's. It must be remembered that there was not here any great field for novelty or invention, and he who came forward with any great secret in cooking, founded on any abstruse or refined system of combination, must be supposed to draw very largely on the credulity of the world. The fact was that Captain Grant's system had received a fair trial in the judgment of those most competent to form an opinion, and it was not considered so beneficial as other systems which were also used in barracks. Captain Grant had already been compensated for all the expenses he had incurred. He was originally on full pay and was now on half-pay, and he could not therefore be said to be unremunerated for his services. With regard to his ambulatory apparatus, an investigation was going on, and he could not at present express an opinion; but he must say no ground had been laid for voting public money to the extent of £25,000 or £30,000 to Captain Grant for the invention of his cooking apparatus.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had listened with great regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for it pained him to hear a Secretary for War, with an army such as ours, attempt to turn the minds of Members from the real question under consideration. No one whose duty it was to make daily visits round the messes of the soldiers could fail to believe that the person who improved the System of cooking in the army was entitled to the gratitude and reward of his country. Until Captain Grant's invention the soldiers in the army could get nothing but boiled meat every day of their lives unless they obtained it at their own expense. Yet no remuneration had been given to Captain Grant for his services and loss of time, and he was even a considerable sum out of pocket. The right hon. Baronet said the case had been closed by his predecessor; but the correspond-
  668
  ence continued for several months after the death of Lord Herbert, and reports had been published speaking in the highest terms of Captain Grant's apparatus. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: That is, of the field apparatus.] With regard to the other, the case was never considered closed. With respect to the case having been settled by the opinion of "competent persons," all he could say was that the most ample testimony to the merits of Captain Grant's inventions had been given by officers who were well qualified to form a correct opinion, and who had had every opportunity of doing so. Captain Grant had been shabbily and improperly treated. The country, however much it wished to save money, could not wish Captain Grant to be a loser, and he hoped the House would be just enough to remunerate him.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The cost out of pocket has been reimbursed to him.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that such reimbursement could not be called remuneration. It had been suggested to Captain Grant, by the Commission appointed by the Government, that he should make experiments in order that the results might be seen, and surely he ought to be remunerated for expense incurred by those experiments.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not suppose there was anything irregular in the Motion, or else the Speaker would have stopped the discussion. The question was, whether Captain Grant's inventions were successful or not. He treated with contempt the adverse opinions of Mr. Warriner and M. Guerrier; and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would consent to the proposition for the appointment of three or four proper persons to inspect and report upon Captain Grant's invention.
  MR. MONSELLfelt bound to add his testimony to the services rendered by Captain Grant, who had for six or seven years bestowed his attention upon the subject, and had conferred great benefit upon the service by doing so. His exertions had resulted in considerable economy to the public service and increased comfort to the men. The food of the men used to be badly cooked; and with the improvements that had been effected in the cooking of it, there had been a diminution in the cost. Was a gentleman to devote six or seven years' attention to such a subject, with such results, and to receive no remuneration? He never saw a more reason-

  669
  able man than Captain Grant, who, he was persuaded, would be easily satisfied.
  GENERAL BUCKLEYthought that Captain Grant had not received the remuneration to which he was entitled, and that his apparatus, if properly carried out, would be very beneficial to the service.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in explanation, said, he had distinguished between Captain Grant's two inventions, one of which was intended for use in barracks and the other for use in the field. As to the first, the War Office were in possession of very ample information, and were not likely to be assisted by the appointment of any new Committee. The field apparatus was now under the consideration of a Committee of persons appointed by the Government.
  GENERAL LINDSAY, in reply, stated, that it was upon the barrack apparatus that Captain Grant had given his whole time to the benefit and improvement of the service, and that consequently the remuneration, whatever it might be, should be for that, and not for the field apparatus.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That it is the opinion of this House that the services which Captain Grant has rendered to the public by the economy and improvement which he has introduced into the system of Field and permanent Cooking in the Army, and by his invention of the Ambulatory Cooking Apparatus, are entitled to recognition."
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 52: Majority 1.

RAILWAY ENGINE DRIVERS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. COBBETTrose to call the attention of the House to the Petition of Engine Drivers and Firemen, working on several lines of railway, complaining of the excessive number of hours during which they worked continuously; also to other Petitions on the same subject; and to move "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter of the said Petitions." The grievance complained of affected a large body of working men and the public also. Some eighteen months ago he was applied to by a number of engine-drivers and firemen on the Great Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and four or five other railways, to bring their case before Parliament. They represented that they were kept at work for so many hours continuously that their health was injured, and the lives of passengers
  670
  placed in jeopardy. The averages of their hours on certain railways were respectively 14, 16½, 15, 16, 14, and 15 in the 24 hours. The greatest number of hours during which men had in some instances been required to work consecutively were 20, 25, 23, 26, 28, and 24 on different railways. That was a state of things most injurious to the men, and highly dangerous to the public. He had presented fourteen petitions, one of which was signed by upwards of 700 men. The class of engineers and firemen consisted of many thousands, who were respectable, and had great influence. The complainants said that their hours were unnecessarily long, and, with proper management, might be shortened. It was only on seven lines of railway that complaints were made. On others, including the Great Northern, there was no such grievance. When first applied to, he recommended these men to appeal to their directors, and then to the Board of Trade. They had done so, and had failed to obtain redress, and therefore he brought the subject before the House. In one of the many cases which had been laid before him a man had worked as many as fifty-six hours in three days—pretty nearly fifty-six consecutive hours—and in another case, a man who had worked nineteen and three-quarter hours was obliged to resume duty after a rest of two and a quarter hours. An article in the Quarterly Review traced a collision on one of the Scotch lines to the exhaustion from overwork of the men in charge of the train. One man had told him that he frequently slept for miles on his engine; and when he awoke, he could tell where he was only from some peculiarity in some posts by the side of the line. The danger to the public from requiring this amount of exhaustive labour from railway servants was too obvious to need any statement from him. In addition to the Petition of the engine-drivers and firemen, he had presented thirteen Petitions from the inhabitants of towns on the railways in question, signed by mayors, town councillors, magistrates, clergymen, and merchants, who stated that they knew that the engine-drivers on the lines on which they travelled were overworked, and that their own lives were jeopardized; they, therefore, prayed the House to pass some measure upon the subject. He would move, according to his notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the statements of the petitioners. He was

  671
  aware that at that period of the Session such a Committee would not be granted; and he should therefore make his Motion as a matter of form, with a view to elicit an opinion on the subject. But if this opinion had no effect, and these complaints continued, he should certainly in another Session do something more than call attention to the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter of the Petition of Engine Drivers and Firemen working on several Lines of Railway in the United Kingdom, complaining of the excessive number of hours during which they work continuously; and also of the Petitions of inhabitants of certain cities, boroughs, and other towns on the same subject."
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I will state to my hon. and learned Friend that a deputation of engine-drivers waited upon me at the Board of Trade to represent that they suffered under a system of very long hours of labour; but it did not appear from what passed that it could be said with truth that all the engine-drivers, taking the whole body as a class, agreed in the necessity of any interference on the part of Parliament between themselves and their employers. The particular persons who were moving in this matter formed only a small proportion of the engine-drivers. I have no doubt there is a great deal of truth in what my hon. and learned Friend says. There are instances of persons working long hours; and if a system of over-working were generally practised throughout the railway companies in the kingdom, which prevented the exercise of due vigilance on the part of the engine-drivers, a case might be made out for the interference of Parliament. But I am informed that in cases of accident it has rarely occurred that hours of work of the engine-drivers had any bearing whatever on the question. Signalmen have been employed too long, and, having fallen asleep, have neglected the usual signals. What my hon. and learned Friend asks for would be a departure from the general rule. We should be setting up a new principle; for, though Parliament has interfered to protect women and young children in factories, it has never interfered to limit the labour of adult males. The question is, whether it is not wiser to allow the engine drivers to settle their affairs with their employers instead of taking them under the protection of Parliament. They are a most intelligent class, and are
  672
  quite capable of taking care of themselves. They are men of highly skilled labour, and can make their own arrangements with their employers. And be it observed, they are paid extra for these extra hours, and it is of their own will and pleasure that they work such long hours, for the purpose of getting more money. My hon. and learned Friend says he would prevent that, because they are unable to give that attention to their engines which is necessary to secure the public safety. If my hon. and learned Friend can point out any system of railway management which seriously endangers the public safety, the Board of Trade will make any representation to the railway companies that it may think would be useful. I do not think that a case has been made out for legislation, and I am of opinion that we had better leave the responsibility for taking care of these matters to the managers and directors of the railways. If they, by working their men too long, or by any other neglect of precautions necessary for the public safety, cause any injury to life or limb, they are by juries made to pay heavy damages. Do not let Parliament lessen their responsibility, so that, when an accident occurs they may say, "Oh! you manage our railways for us." I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow the matter to rest where it is.
  MR. COLLINShoped that at this period of the Session the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  MR. HADFIELDasked the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the names of the railways where this system prevailed.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that these railways were seven in number—The Blyth and Tyne, the Great Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the London and North Eastern, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, the Midland, and the South Yorkshire. He should not press his Motion, but might state that several accidents had happened in consequence of the guards and engine-drivers being rendered unfit, by over-work, to attend to their duties.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Grievances alleged to exist and complained of by the Persons employed in the Post Office Department,

  673
  said, that at the commencement of the Session he had presented a petition signed by more than 1,500 men employed in the Post Office complaining of their grievances, and he did not think that Parliament ought to separate without considering their statements. The object of the Post Office originally was to raise a revenue; but a change took place when the penny postage was introduced, that system being based upon the principle that the Post Office ought to be regarded as a Department of the public service, and that the question of revenue should be a matter of secondary consideration. At all times, even after the penny postage had been introduced, a certain amount of revenue was derived from the Post Office; but Sir Rowland Hill and others undertook to make it pay as well, or nearly as well, as it did before. That object could only be carried out to any extent by diminishing the pay and emoluments of the persons employed, by diminishing the number of the persons employed, and by the adoption of other economical measures which, in his opinion, were not fair to the employés nor consistent with the proper administration of the Department. The consequence was, that the men were overworked and underpaid. Great dissatisfaction and great disorganization arose, and something like a revolt had shown itself among the letter-carriers. Three inquiries had been instituted into the subject, one in 1834, one in 1858, and the last in 1860. In the last-named year there was an inquiry instituted by a mixed Committee, composed partly of persons employed in the Treasury, and partly of persons employed in the Post Office. The chief complaints were general inadequacy of pay and overwork. That great distress existed among the letter-carriers and sorters might be shown by the frequent collections which were obliged to be made for the families of those persons, and even for the burial of their relations. What the result of that inquiry was he was unable to say, because the report had never been made public, and the annual reports of the Postmaster General gave no information on the subject. He would, however, quote a few figures to show that the pecuniary position of the letter-carriers had been gradually deteriorating. From a statement compiled out of official returns, it appeared that in 1845 the annual amount of wages received by twenty-five senior letter-carriers was £962; but then there were emoluments amount-
  674
  ing to £2,364; making a total of £3,326. In the same year the annual amount of wages received by twenty-five junior letter-carriers was £1,324 8s., with no emoluments. In 1861, the annual amount of wages received by twenty-five senior letter-carriers was £1,950, their emoluments, Christmas gratuities, &c., amounting to £175, making a total of £2,125; and the amount of wages received by twenty-five junior letter-carriers was £1,170, without any emoluments. The result was that there was a loss in 1861, as compared with 1845, of £27 2s. 4d. per man. The average wages and emoluments of a letter-carrier in 1845 were £93, but the average wages in 1861 were only £75; so there had been a loss per man of 10 s. a week since 1845. He should, perhaps, be told that a system of promotion had been established; but he would remark that the poor letter-carriers derived very little benefit from it, because when a man was promoted from the highest class of one grade to the lowest class of the class just above him, in some instances he actually lost money by his promotion. An employé must wait a long time before he could get any wages except such as were grossly inadequate. One must begin as a supplementary man at 18 s. a week, and then, after three or five years' service, he would get £1 a week. How was it possible for a man to maintain himself and his family on such a pittance? It might be said that men could be found to do the work for lower wages still—and, indeed, men had been engaged as extra letter-carriers at 10 s. a week. He did not think, however, that public offices should be put up to a sort of Dutch auction. He had no doubt that persons could be found who would perform the duties of the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for smaller salaries, but he held that when they gave a man arduous duties to perform they ought to pay him liberally. The result of the cheap labour system adopted at the Post Office had been that a great many persons had been introduced into the establishment who had betrayed their trust, and there had been numerous convictions of men for stealing letters. But then there was also the question of overwork. He knew that men were worked to such an extent that towards the conclusion of their work they did not know what they were about. That was the case both with the letter-carriers and the sorters; and the consequence was that letters were mis-

  675
  sent, mislaid, and perhaps even lost. The first consideration ought to be the efficiency of the public service, and that efficiency could not be attained unless the men were liberally paid, and a sufficient force employed for the performance of the duties. He felt that at so late a period of the Session he could not move for a Committee; but he should bring forward the subject early next Session, and he hoped that there would then be a full inquiry into this important subject. Nobody could deny that there were great grievances, otherwise there would not be the large amount of discontent now existing, and which had been the object of inquiry by three different Commissions. The last inquiry took place in 1860; and he had frequently asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Report of the last Commission; but the right hon. Gentleman had always refused to give it. Why, he would ask, should the Government keep back the result of that inquiry? If the result had been satisfactory, tranquillity would have been restored to the Post Office. It was clear the result arrived at had not been satisfactory, or it would have been communicated. He hoped, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would that evening undertake to lay that Report before the House. The great discontent had clearly not disappeared, although it had been said that something had been done; but he believed that what had been done had been entirely insufficient, and he hoped at some early period the whole question would be taken into consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Grievances alleged to exist and complained of by the Persons employed in the Post Office Department."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his hon. Friend exercised a wise direction in not proposing to press his Motion on the present occasion, for it was obvious that the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry at the present period of the Session must be perfectly futile. He should have felt it his duty, however, at any period of the Session, to oppose the Motion, which he regarded as being of a most dangerous character not only to the good order of the Post Office Department, but to the entire public service. His hon. Friend asked, why was there discontent at the Post Office? But his hon. Friend could answer that question better
  676
  than any other man. There would be discontent in any public department when the persons employed in it found a gentleman of ability and character willing to take what might be called a partisan view of their case and encourage them in demanding greater wages for their labours. He trusted, however, that other hon. Members would consider the responsibility which rested on them before they gave the strength and aid of their character and ability to inflame the minds of men who, though very competent for their duties, were yet of humble station, and naturally inclined, like other men, to believe that they were underpaid when they were told so. It would be totally impossible for any Department of the executive Government,—whether the Post Office, the Inland Revenue, or any other Department in which the number of public servants amount almost to armies—to conduct the public service if the men employed in the various Departments were to be told by persons of authority and ability that they were overworked, ill-used, and underpaid; and it was more than could be expected from human nature, that under such incentives, discontent should not be prevalent. His hon. Friend had said that the Post Office was worked for revenue, and not for public accommodation. That observation was rather hard upon Parliament. There was a time when the Exchequer derived about £1,500,000 of revenue from the Post Office, and, with a view to public accommodation. Parliament surrendered the whole. Let it not be supposed that he blamed Parliament for so doing, for he believed that a wiser measure was never adopted, or one which effected a greater amount of public accommodation; but then it ought to shield Parliament from the reproach of having used the Post Office exclusively, or in an exaggerated degree, as an instrument of revenue, and not of public accommodation. His hon. Friend had asked him to produce certain documents with respect to the case of the inferior members of the metropolitan establishment; but he felt that it would be inconsistent with his duty to produce them. The state of the case was this. In 1860 that distinguished and most valuable public servant, Sir Rowland Hill, was, in consequence of the heavy burden of his labours, stricken with a dangerous illness, and it was during his absence that the discontent of the nature alluded to became serious. In the absence of that officer it was ne-

  677
  cessary to call in the aid of other gentlemen in the Post Office and from the Treasury, who, together with Sir Rowland Hill, gave their advice to the Government and the Postmaster General; and the Treasury then took the measures which they considered just, and which, in their opinion, were eminently liberal with respect to the men. It was perfectly natural that some of the members of the Department should not concur in all the details of the measure which was then adopted; and it was not to be supposed, that in a matter involving a multitude of details, and the interests of a very large class of men, perfect unanimity could be obtained; but it was perfectly obvious that it was not the most wholesome way to secure unanimity to bring before Parliament the opinions of every man who served in the Department. What did the Executive exist for? Parliament invested the executive Government with general power, and the Departments were responsible for the exercise of the power to the Government as a whole. His hon. Friend said that the servants of the Post Office were underpaid, and he was echoed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), who probably numbered a good many of these persons among his constituents. [Mr. Cox: The Government do not pay them well enough to give them votes.] In some sense, there was no part of the public service that might not be said to be underpaid. He did not now speak of Ministers of State, and he hoped his hon. Friend did not intend to institute a comparison between the duties of Ministers of State and the duties of men who carried letters. No doubt, with respect to a certain description of labour there was the test of looking to the labour-market and seeing whether a sufficient number of persons could be obtained; but if his hon. Friend meant to appoint a Minister of State on that principle, it was for him to prove that the principle was applicable. At any rate, it was substantially applicable for filling up the places of the great number, he might almost say the armies of public servants, and was applicable in the highest degree to the servants of the Post Office. His hon. Friend seemed to think the case of the lowest class of letter-carriers especially doleful. What was the case? He was appointed at eighteen years of age with a salary of 18 s. a week, had no apprenticeship to pay for, and was allowed two suits of uniform and medical attendance and medicines gratuitously. In the
  678
  course of a couple of years that young man would become a regular letter-carrier at 30 s. a week, with a pension secured to him after a certain number of years' service. His hon. Friend, if he thought that a hard case, should consider whence the money came, and should also look to other branches of the public service, and he would find that letter-carriers were better remunerated than the police. A letter-carrier was better off than a policeman, who entered the service at 19 s. a week, and served for years without an advance. Why did not the hon. Gentleman take up the case of the policeman, and say it was very hard that they should have to spend their nights in the streets for 19 s. a week and upwards? Was it not enough to show how imprudent these complaints were when he stated that the service of the police was a cheaper service than that of the letter-carriers? Men of the lowest class became letter-carriers before they were twenty years of age. Their wages rose to 30 s. a week, besides clothing and Christmas-boxes, which averaged 2s. or 3s. a week more. They could become sorters and rise to 40 s. and ultimately to 50 s. per week, and the higher ranks of the service were open to them in case of good conduct. No doubt there was a great deal of hard work; and he quite agreed that it was the duty of the heads of Departments to see that their subordinates were not overworked. That was, as a general rule, very bad economy, and no increase of payment afforded any justification for it. He did not deny that there were many cases of hard work, but how could it be otherwise? In the metropolis, where new streets were being opened and added from day to day, it was impossible to be constantly altering the beats of the letter-carriers. There must be inequality, and in particular cases there must be excessive work for a time. But those cases were limited to the smallest possible number of individual instances, and it was clear that they were wholly exceptional. The hon. Member found fault with the Post Office because they employed auxiliary letter-carriers at 10 s. per week. His hon. Friend knew, that if the words were true, the signification of those words was not true. His hon. Friend knew that those men who were paid 10 s. per week were paid for a portion only of their time. It might be scandalous to employ men for 10 s. per week; but it did not follow that it was at all scandalous to pay them 10 s. per week

  679
  if they gave only two or three hours a day for it. He hoped, if his hon. Friend dealt with this subject again, he would be careful to give an accurate impression to the House. The question had been settled by competent authority—namely, the executive Government. The executive Government were ready to defend what they had done in the face of the House of Commons, and they were ready to defend the arrangement which they had made as reasonable, just, and liberal. In proof of its being liberal, he might mention that the new men were entering the service at materially lower rates than those who were in the service before a certain date, and on whose behalf the hon. Member complained. While it was obvious that there was an abundance of men able and willing to perform the work in a satisfactory manner, the hon. Member came forward and denounced the Post Office upon the ground that its servants were overworked and underpaid. If his hon. Friend should feel inclined to renew his Motion, he should be prepared to follow him into all the details, and he thought it would not be difficult to show that nothing could be more unfortunate than for the House to accede to it. If they thought the executive Government were to blame, let them take the proper course and pronounce their censure upon the executive Government; but he was satisfied that no worse policy could be adopted than for the House to take into its own hands the management of the public services.
  MR. COXsaid, it was no answer to assert that there were plenty of men ready and willing to take upon themselves the duties which the letter-carriers had to perform. Of course there were—but would any one deny that the crime of letter-stealing had alarmingly increased, and that the remuneration of the letter-carriers had diminished? He could not help thinking that it was a proper subject for inquiry by a Committee how far the one was relative to the other, and whether the reduction of payment had brought into the service less honest and trustworthy men. It also appeared to him to be a proper subject for inquiry whether they had been endeavouring to make the Post Office remunerative by excessive reductions of the charges of the establishment. He hoped the hon. Member would take the first opportunity of renewing his Motion, and he should certainly vote in his favour.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid,
  680
  the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) was slightly in error when he stated that three Committees were appointed in consequence of the dissatisfaction of the Post Office employés with their remuneration. He was a Member of the Committee of 1854, and that Committee was one of a series appointed for the purpose of revising the public establishments, and not in reference to any complaints by the clerks or letter-carriers as to the insufficiency of their remuneration. At that time there was a particular reason for inquiring into the Post Office, for the purpose of bringing the working of the Department into harmony, and adapting it to the new postal system then recently established. The old system was under Colonel Maberly, the then Secretary, and the new system was under Sir Rowland Hill, who was called the Secretary to the Postmaster General. Up to that time the two systems had not been thoroughly fused, and the Committee went into the inquiry desiring to bring the whole office into harmony, and, at the same time, not to place the men in a worse position than they were before. There were reductions made in certain appointments, but the intention as well as the effect of the Report of that Committee was to improve the position of the men who might afterwards enter the service. One or two changes were afterwards made, and the change for which the late Government were responsible, extending superannuation to the servants of the Post Office, materially improved their position. Upon the whole, there was no disposition on the part of former Governments, or on the part of the House, to put them in a position in which, for the interests of the public, it was not desirable they should stand. He fully agreed that there was no worse economy than underpaying public servants, and there was no Department in which more consideration ought to be shown to the men employed than the Post Office. They were, generally speaking, men of humble rank, and were employed in duties of great trust and importance. They might not be overworked, but they were very hardly worked, and of late years the work of the Department had increased enormously. Sir Rowland Hill, when he proposed his reforms in the postal system, foresaw that the revenue would ultimately increase through the increase of correspondence. Sir Rowland Hill was a man of whom too much could scarcely

  681
  be said in his praise. He was a man of a suggestive and fertile mind, who was continually devising new schemes for the accommodation of the public. Of indefatigable industry himself, he was fully impressed with the importance of exacting a sufficient amount of work from others. The tendency in the Post Office was to throw upon the servants, perhaps, a little more work than they were able to bear without detriment to themselves. At the same time, as far as he knew anything of Sir Rowland Hill's proceedings, he believed that he was anxious to do what was right and fair, and to promote any arrangement for improving the condition of those employed under him. He entirely assented to the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was most mischievous for the House of Commons to take out of the hands of the Government the details of arrangements made in the various Departments. He thought it might tend to cause dissatisfaction among the persons employed, and to encourage the Government in a lax spirit of dealing with those departments, and he thought the principle applied with especial force to the Post Office. At the same time, he must say a few words in reference to the last Commission. It was quite open to the Government to inquire or not to inquire into any grievances which the Post Office employés might bring before them. But before appointing a Commission the Government ought to have considered what would be the effect of the appointment of that Commission upon the persons whose interests were at stake. The persons employed in the Post Office represented to the Treasury that there were certain arrangements in the Department which told heavily upon them, that their position was not altogether that which it was intended to be by the Report of 1854, and they made such a statement as induced the Treasury to investigate the case. When the employés heard this, they were full of expectation as to the result of the inquiry. In fact, there was great excitement in the Department; and the feeling was increased by a supposition which they were led to entertain that the Report of the Commission fully bore out their complaints, and recommended measures which would have been to their advantage. For a long time, however, they got no answer to their complaints, and, in fact, they had been totally unable to find
  682
  out what the Report was. Under such circumstances, there had been considerable agitation among the men, and they were hardly to be blamed for it. Some blame certainly attached to the Treasury in the matter. After receiving the Report they ought to have made up their minds, which they appeared to have been very slow in doing, and then to have announced to these men what their intention was. In this manner much dissatisfaction would have been spared. He saw very little use in referring the matter to a Select Committee. It would be better left in the hands of the Government. It was very desirable that the Government should present the Report of the Commission to Parliament, and he hoped, that taking warning from what had happened, they would see the necessity of dealing with these and all other public servants in a spirit of frankness and openness. With regard to the salaries, it frequently happened that the maximum of one class was higher than the minimum of the class above; but he certainly was of opinion that a man promoted from one class to another should go up at least at the salary he was receiving before.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was willing to ask leave to withdraw his Motion. According to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no grievance existed at all, and the right hon. Gentleman made out that letter-carriers were the most favoured class of all public servants, and better paid than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. There were, however, grievances, or there would not have been a Commission to inquire into them.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNION RELIEF AID BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Boards of Guardians in certain Unions in England to obtain temporary Aid to meet the extraordinary demands for Relief therein, said, that the purposes of the Bill were sufficiently indicated by its title, and the House had probably been prepared for its introduction by the short discussion which had taken place a few evenings since. He then stated, that if he should collect from the sources of information to which his Department had access that the distress which then prevailed in the cotton districts was likely to be-

  683
  come more intense, and to extend itself still further during the recess, and that if he thought that there was any defect in the powers possessed by those intrusted with the local administration of the law, he should then be prepared to state to the House in what respects he thought the law should be amended. It was simply with that view that he made his present application to the House. It was not with a view to any immediate action that he asked the House to legislate on the subject; neither did he mean by taking that course to imply that the law as it existed was not adequate for its purpose, and had not hitherto been found equal to the emergency that had arisen in the manufacturing districts; nor could he predict with confidence that any further powers which might be conferred on the guardians of the poor in those districts would be used or enforced when granted. But although this should be the case, it appeared to him that it was a matter in which it was wiser rather to err upon the side of excessive caution than to run the risk of inconvenience, and perhaps disorder, merely to spare the time and trouble of the House. To justify the course which he was about to take, it would be necessary for him only to be very brief, for he knew how much the subject of his Motion had already occupied the thoughts of those within the House and throughout the country, and the facts connected with it were perfectly notorious. It was, he believed, beyond all doubt, that there had been a large mass of operatives connected with the manufacture of cotton thrown out of employment and become destitute owing to the dearth in the supply of the raw-material. The same cause, it was equally well known, was still exercising its influence and even with more intensity at the present moment than before. Nay, more—he would venture to say that every week and every day the pressure must be still more felt, inasmuch as we were not receiving further supplies of cotton, and we were drawing only upon a given stock to furnish the employment, such as it was, which was now afforded. The result would naturally be that as the stock became diminished the price of cotton would become enhanced, and just in that proportion the manufacturers would find it more difficult to employ their mills, inasmuch as they would be obliged to work it at a loss, the price which they obtained for goods not corresponding with the cost of their pro-
  684
  duction. Such would be the obvious effect of the diminution of the stock of cotton; which was gradually decreasing, not only owing to internal consumption, but, he regretted to say, on account of the continual exportation of the material to other countries—and there were daily reports of large sales for that purpose—the dearth of cotton in those other countries being fell as it was here. The stock, therefore, which we held, and which was calculated at the best for giving employment for a limited time, was day by day diminishing. It was difficult, then, to come to any other conclusion than that there must be a further closing of mills, and that the manufacture of cotton must almost cease, unless, from a cessation of hostilities in America, we were enabled to obtain fresh supplies from that country, or from some other sources. That matters were proceeding certainly and rapidly in this direction he thought he should be able to show the House from Returns which he held in his hand. Taking five of the principal towns in the manufacturing districts, he found from these Returns, which were made from week to week, that while in the last week of May there were in Ashton-under-Lyne 8,400 living on the rates, there were in the last week of June 9,600. In Blackburn, the numbers were—last week in May, 10,600; last week in June, 11,500. In Manchester—lastweek in May, 12,700; last week in June, 14,200. In Preston 11,800 in the last week of May, as against 12,100 in the corresponding week in June, and in Stockport 5,400, as against 6,000. To show that the increase in expenditure corresponded with the number of persons who were destitute, he would refer to the expenditure for the relief of the poor in Blackburn. That expenditure was, he found, £14,475 in 1861, while the rate of expenditure now going on was £37,507 per annum, showing an excess over last year of £23,032. In Preston, he might add, the expenditure for the poor in 1861 was £16,651, while the rate of expenditure now going on was £66,612, showing an excess of £49,961. In Stockport the expenditure was £11,204 in 1861, as against £27,300, the rate of expenditure in the present year, giving an excess of £16,096 on a comparison of the two years. It must, however, be observed that the number of persons reported as depending on the rates afforded no measure of the number of those who were out of employment. In the case of Burnley, for in-

  685
  stance, where there were 13,000 operatives, there were 10,000 out of employment who were not receiving parish relief. The returns of the number of paupers, therefore, furnished no adequate measure of the amount of distress which prevailed. In endeavouring to ascertain how those who were out of employment, and who yet did not obtain parish relief, were enabled to live, he found that the monies drawn by operatives from the savings banks amounted to £4,507, those from building societies to £3,700, while they received from voluntary contributions £458; all that they received from the rates during the time to which he referred—that was to say, between Lady Day and the 1st of July—being £728. So far, indeed, it was satisfactory to observe the strong desire on the part of the operatives to preserve their independence. He regretted, however, to be obliged to state that he learnt from inquiries which he had instituted on the subject, that the deposits in the savings banks, which had hitherto enabled them to do so, were nearly exhausted. All these circumstances being taken into consideration, it was, he thought, impossible to come to any other conclusion than that distress in the manufacturing districts was rapidly on the increase, and that there was no immediate prospect of its cessation. The reason why he had directed the attention of the House to the facts which he had stated was to show, that notwithstanding the noble contributions which had been voluntarily given by individuals for the relief of that distress, yet that in future it must be on the legal liability which attaches to property to support those who are unable to maintain themselves that they must mainly rely. It became, then, of importance to know whether the property in these suffering districts was equal to meet the emergency which had arisen. On that point, from all the information he had been able to procure, he did not hesitate to say that the property of the locality in question was equal not only to the emergency which had arisen, but to any which it was probable would arise. However, though it was true that the property of the whole districts was equal to the emergency, and on that score we had nothing to apprehend, still the matter was not so satisfactory as it would appear to be; because, from the peculiar manner in which property is made liable for the support of the poor, there was no assurance that the whole of the property of any particular dis-
  686
  trict would be rated for the maintenance of the poor, though it might be in the very neighbourhood of the greatest distress. He alluded to the parochial liability of supporting the poor. The liability of a parish was not adjusted to the burden which it might have to bear. It was quite possible that a parish might be crushed by the rates which were levied within it, and that the poor might be unable to obtain the maintenance which the law undertook to afford, though that parish might be surrounded by others who had either few or no poor at all to maintain, and whose affluence might be in contrast with that other one so burthened—the poor having settlements in that parish, and not in the parishes adjoining. Such was the result of the manner in which the charge for the poor had been cast upon the property of the country; and our ancestors, when they passed the Act of Elizabeth, saw that such a state of things might happen. The parochial division of the country had, in fact, nothing to do with the support of the poor; it was originally a division solely for ecclesiastical purposes, and it could be no wonder that it should be found inapplicable to circumstances of a totally different character. The persons who framed the Act of Elizabeth, however, foresaw that such a case as that to which he had referred might arise. It was on that account, he presumed, that in the same enactment which cast upon every parish the burden of supporting its poor, a provision was made which enacted, that if any parish should be unable to maintain its own poor, the magistrates of the county should order some neighbouring parish or parishes, or the neighbouring hundred, or the county at large, to come to the assistance of the distressed parish; thereby recognising the great principle, which no one had undertaken to question, that the whole property of the country was liable for the maintenance of the poor. The circumstances which should give effect to that provision would no doubt be extreme, but they had arisen at different times; and although it was said that it was difficult to carry the law into effect, and that it had not always been successful when attempted to be enforced, still the law existed, and it might, if all the requirements of the statute were complied with, give effect to what was intended—namely, that if the property of any particular parish should be insufficient to support the poor,

  687
  the liability should be shared by the neighbouring property, or, at all events, by some property in the county. Present circumstances in the North seemed to justify the conclusion that something of the kind might arise there—that some parishes might become so distressed as to warrant the greatest doubts of their ability to support their own poor. If any parish were to find itself in such a position now, and were to attempt to enforce the law, the justices, when appealed to, would doubt less order a contribution in aid from the other parishes of the union; but it seemed to be necessary to give vitality to this principle which was found in the Act of Elizabeth, inasmuch as there appeared to be some difficulty in applying it. At such a time as the present the Government could not incur the risk of some parishes becoming perfectly insolvent and unable to support their poor with the chance of the most extreme consequences befalling those who have innocently become destitute—for, as he had said, it might at any time be possible by some legal ingenuity to prevent this provision of the law, as he had described it, from being carried into effect. Orders were constantly made under the rate in aid clause, but they were very commonly quashed in the higher Courts, and hence the necessity for some new legislation. The Bill which he proposed to introduce would, among other things, carry into effect that which was provided by the law as it now existed—namely, that when any parish or parishes should be overburdened with poor, and the charge should be in excess of the ability to meet it, such parish or parishes should be entitled to claim assistance from the common fund of the union. He proposed, that when the charge upon any parish should exceed by two-thirds the average expenditure which during the three preceding years had been incurred for the support of the poor, such parish should have a claim upon the common fund of the union, and the guardians should order provision to be made for a contribution from the neighbouring parishes. There were at present in every union two classes of poor, and two sources from which the funds for their support were derived. One fund was drawn from the parishes belonging to the union; in other words, where the poor having a settlement in any parish were chargeable upon it they were supported out of the property of that parish. In every union, however, there was a large class of poor who were supported
  688
  out of the common fund, inasmuch as they had no settlement, though they could not be removed. They were supported by a rate upon all the property throughout the union according to its value. It would therefore be a considerable relief to any parish, supposing there was an excess of charge for the poor in consequence of an increase in the number of those who were settled in the parish, to have assistance from the common fund of the union. The distress would not be so severely felt by the whole union, but the liability of the parish would be limited. No difficulty could be experienced in carrying out the provision to which he asked the assent of the House. There was a machinery available for the purpose, in the fact that there was already a union as well as a parish rate. An application would be made to the guardians, who would satisfy themselves that the parish requiring aid was entitled to it as provided by the Act, and as they had in their own hands the funds for supporting the two classes of poor to which he had referred, they would have no difficulty in transferring the excess of charge in the parish to the common fund of the union. He believed, having carefully examined the returns of the value of the property in the different unions in the North, that the provision he proposed would prove quite sufficient to meet all the necessities of the case. It was little likely that any union should be seriously distressed in consequence of the relief so provided to be given to particular parishes; but it might be well to contemplate things in their worst aspect, and to provide for the most extreme case, such as that of a union itself becoming distressed from the fresh burthens cast upon it. Some difference of opinion might exist as to the source from which funds should be drawn in order to relieve a union in distress. Pursuing the analogy of the old statute, which extended the charge from a smaller to a greater area, one would naturally conclude that a distressed union should at once seek relief from the county. No simpler remedy could be found than to charge the excessive expenditure of the union upon the county rate, just as other items of expenditure—such as those for the prosecution of prisoners and for lunatic asylums—were now charged upon that fund. In Lancashire, however, there were peculiar objections to that plan, for a considerable number of the most important places in the county were not subject to the county rate

  689
  at all. Under these circumstances, it was fortunate, that assuming the principle of the old statute to be right, there was a machinery which would enable the property of the whole county to be reached without making the burden felt to any undue extent. That mode would be to charge the excess on all the other Unions in the county, which Unions now nearly include the whole property of the county. There was such a complete organization for the management of these unions, and the connection with the Central Board was so immediate, that no more difficulty existed in calling for contributions from every union in a county in order to assist any distressed union than there was in calling upon one parish to assist another parish. The principle was right; no one even attempted to deny it, and the machinery was perfectly ready. It was therefore provided in the Bill he proposed to introduce, that should the expenditure of the union exceed a certain amount, it should have the power of calling upon the other unions for contributions in aid. Of course, safeguards would be provided, and it should be made to appear, in the first place, to the Poor Law Board that such a case had arrived to justify the application of the Act; and if the Poor Law Board were satisfied that such a case had arisen, the Queen in Council was authorized by the Act, upon the recommendation of the Poor Law Board, to issue an order sanctioning the application of that principle. He did not think it likely that any union would be reduced to such circumstances as would render such relief necessary; but if it should, this would probably be the fairest way of calling for contributions in aid; and there would be nothing invidious in such a step, as there naturally would be in selecting for the additional charge some particular parish or union. The burden to be thus imposed upon the whole county would be trivial in amount, and could not be considered unfair in principle. Another scheme had been mentioned—namely, that if the guardians found themselves embarrassed from the excess of expenditure in a union, they should have the power of borrowing money on the security of the rates. He was not alarmed at any such proposition, because he knew that guardians were extremely reluctant to raise money in this way. There were certain purposes for which they had the power of raising money, and the difficulty was to induce them to do so, because they
  690
  did not like the charge of repaying it by annual instalments. He did not dispute that this would be a simple and ready way of relieving distress—namely, to borrow money, the rates being a perfectly good security. But he thought there was no precedent for money being so raised and spent in the daily relief of the poor. They had never come to that as yet. It had always been avoided. The principle of the poor rate was directly opposed to it, and inasmuch as the mode he had proposed appeared the more legitimate and constitutional way of obtaining relief, he certainly preferred it. However, he did not deny that the circumstances with which they had to deal were quite exceptional, and such as might, perhaps, justify a deviation from the usual course of proceeding; but he believed that the fairest mode of meeting the evil was to impose the increased charge upon the parishes, first upon the union, and then upon the county at large. He did believe that what was proposed in this Bill for this purpose would not be attended with any difficulty; and it was only fair, when a disaster like the present fell upon the great industry of the country, that the rate for the poor should be distributed over the whole of its property which had derived such advantage from contiguity to the manufactures and all the industry, ingenuity, and enterprise connected with them. He ventured to say, from his acquaintance with the practical working and the local administration of the Poor Law, that there would be no difficulty in carrying out this part of the Bill. He had then stated the substantial provisions of the Bill he asked leave to introduce. There was only one other provision he would mention—namely, that the Bill should be operative only till the 1st of March next, leaving it to Parliament then either to re-enact the law or to allow it to expire, and deal with the subject afresh as it might think fit. His object in proposing this particular measure was, that Parliament should not separate without making every requisite provision to meet the extraordinary difficulties in which the cotton districts might be placed. He did not believe that the House could wisely interfere farther with this sad local calamity. When disasters of this character befell the country, sacrifices must be submitted to; and he could only say, that when they considered the great patience, calmness, and loyalty with which the poorer

  691
  classes in these districts had already borne their privations, that they offered an example to all other classes in future. For the present state of things, unfortunately there was no panacea but the revival of the trade from which employment could be derived. He ventured now to ask leave to introduce this Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would consent to wait till they saw its provisions before they expressed any opinion in regard to them.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was sure the House would readily assent to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, that they should not then enter into any discussion of the measure. He only rose for the purpose of stating that he was so convinced of the urgency of the case—he was so well aware that his right hon. Friend had not exaggerated the gloomy prospects of the operatives in the cotton districts—that he was prepared to receive with the utmost favour any proposal made by the Government for the relief of their distress. He would go so far as to say that he was so sensible of the absolute necessity that Parliament should not separate for the recess without providing for that calamity, that he was prepared to sacrifice many opinions of his own, and to support any measure which the Government might bring forward on their responsibility, rather than run the risk of their doing nothing in such an emergency. But he also hoped that the Government would be prepared to accept in a spirit of similar liberality any suggestions that might be made by Members who were unable to approve of all the provisions of the Bill. He did not say he should himself disapprove of the measure; but considerable discussion might arise as to the best mode of attaining the object which they all had in view. His right hon. Friend proposed two provisions for meeting the evil, which merely embodied the principle of the rate in aid. But the proposal for allowing the guardians to borrow money on the security of the rates might find more favour in those districts for which the Bill was specially intended. He did not say it would be so. He was himself prepared, so far as he saw the Bill, to support the second reading—but he hoped that the Government would give Members as much time as the advanced period of the Session would allow for the purpose of ascertaining what were the opinions of their constituents upon that point. He had, of course, no opposition to offer to
  692
  the Motion for the introduction of the measure, and as far as he could then form any opinion, he believed he should be prepared to support it on the second reading. He wished to add that he thanked the Government for promptly taking up the question.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he had no idea of taking any other course than that suggested by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board—namely, to wait and see the Bill itself before they attempted minutely to criticise the provisions of the measure proposed to be introduced. At the same time it was not to be concealed from the House, and could not be concealed from the country at large, that the change now sought to be made in our system of administering the Poor Law was one of the most portentous description. His right hon. Friend had recommended to the House a variation of the old law relating to rates in aid; but, judging from the sketch he had given of his measure, it seemed much more nearly to approach to that system of national rates which had been viewed with dread and alarm by all who had contemplated with any care the consequences of such a proposal. He should also observe that his right hon. Friend did not appear to have laid any ground whatever for the great change which he was about to introduce into the law. He had made no statement that in the different parishes the poor rates had been excessive. He had, indeed, stated what they must all admit and all deplore—namely, the existence of great distress in Lancashire owing to the failure of the supply of cotton. All must also join in the admiration which his right hon. Friend and others had expressed, there and elsewhere, of the attitude of patient endurance under suffering which had been assumed by the working classes who had been so deeply affected by that calamity. He had been much struck with a sentence in the letter of the vice-chairman of the Preston board of guardians, which had been printed in the Correspondence on this subject lately laid upon the table. That gentleman said—
  "I have been acquainted with the recurring seasons of depressions, the panics and turn-outs, and all the public subscriptions for relief on such occasions in our borough for upwards of forty years, and I can say that I never remember so much resignation, so little desire to blame the employers, or so few symptoms of disaffection to Government. Indeed, there is not the slightest symptom of cherishing any hope of relief from agitation or violence."

  693
  That seemed to be the testimony unanimously borne by all who had the best means of knowing the spirit and temper of the working classes in this trying emergency. But, starting with that fact, he must repeat that his right hon. Friend had not laid any ground whatever for the extraordinary departure from the recognised law which he now proposed. He had made no statement that the pressure of the poor rates in these districts was excessive—he had adduced no facts to show that the burden thrown upon the rateable property in these parishes and unions had attained proportions which could no longer be tolerated, or that it was likely to do so. He had not even asserted that there had been applications from the districts to which he had referred in favour of some such change as this. He was very desirous to know whether or not it was true that those who had the best means of knowledge—those who were engaged in administering the Poor Law in these particular districts—had appealed either to that House or to his right hon. Friend, urging the necessity of adopting some extraordinary measures to enable them to meet the pressure upon the rates in any other way than that sanctioned by the existing law. The principle of the Poor Law, embodied in the statute of Elizabeth, under which we had lived for 300 years, was that the whole of the local means of the district or parish must be exhausted before it could apply for rates in aid. Now, was there any evidence whatever, not merely of such exhaustion having been actually arrived at, but of there having been anything like an approach to that state of things? His right hon. Friend had not laid before them one single fact to justify them in drawing such a conclusion. He would undertake to show by figures that the present rates in those districts where the pressure was so great were nothing like the amount of the rates in many districts in the south of England, where high rates were the usual condition of things. His right hon. Friend had referred to three places—Blackburn, Preston, and Stockport. There was no doubt that the rates in those districts had largely increased; but it must be borne in mind that the normal state of those parishes was one of almost complete absence of pauperism, trade having been so flourishing and employment so abundant that the poor rates had been but very trifling. With respect to Blackburn, he found that
  694
  if the expenditure went on for a year at the present maximum, the rates would reach 3s. 7d. in the pound, while at Preston it would be 4s. 7d., and at Stockport 2s. 2½d. These might appear heavy rates, but for the sake of comparison he would refer to the state of affairs in other districts. In the Newbury Union, in Berkshire, the poor rate was now 3s. 6¾d.; in Colchester Union it was 4s. 2½d., in the Risbridge Union, in Suffolk, it was 3s. 4½d.; and in Petworth Union, in Sussex, it was 4s. 10½d. in the pound. He might adduce other instances of a high rate of expenditure for the poor in southern counties, but he only wished to show that the case contemplated as justifying the introduction of the Bill could hardly be said to exist yet. He rather thought his right hon. Friend admitted that there was no case now, but believed that possibly something might arise during the recess which might render necessary a recourse to a rate in aid; but no ground had been laid for that statement, nor any probability shown of the exhaustion of the ordinary resources of the poor rate or the inability of the property of the district to bear the burden that would be cast upon it. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that any parish whose expenditure should exceed by two-thirds the amount of its ordinary expenditure should have the assistance of the whole union. He (Mr. Bouverie) had always been rather favourable to a union rate; but this was not the time, nor was this the occasion, to make the change. The next proposal, however, he was still more surprised at, and he expected that it would meet with general hostility. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that where the expenditure of the Union should exceed by more than a certain proportion the average of three years, he proposed the whole county should be rated in aid of the Union. That meant that those who had the administration of the poor rates in a particular district, upon whom there was a pressure for increased expenditure, should put their hands, not into their own pockets, for the relief of distress, which was the principle of the Poor Law, but into the pockets of others resident in all the parishes of the enormously wealthy county of Lancashire. No proposal could be more likely to encourage profusion and extravagance than that. If there was to be a county rate, the funds should be distributed by the county representatives; but, according to the plan suggested, the guardians of

  695
  the distressed union, when they had lost nearly all interest in restricting expenditure, were to come upon all the other parishes of the county; and the inevitable results of such an arrangement must be profusion and extravagance, which would not only be injurious to the ratepayers, but against the real interests and well-being of the poor themselves. It was for the interest of the working classes that no encouragement should be held out to them to come upon the poor rates, except in cases of absolute necessity. The law provided that the poor rate should stand between the labouring man and absolute destitution; and any attempt to keep those suffering people in the same position which they had hitherto occupied, and to encourage them to look to the public funds for their maintenance, could end but in one catastrophe, producing an amount of misery and discontent far exceeding anything that could arise under the wise and prudent administration of the ordinary law. There was but one proposal that could be more objectionable than that of his right hon. Friend, and that was the suggestion of a loan. Upon that subject they had experience to guide them. During the Irish famine in 1847 recourse was had to loans, and the experience of that time was not such as to encourage them to support the doctrine of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten). The best thing to be done was to stand upon the ancient law, which was better calculated to meet a great emergency than any proposals such as that of his right hon. Friend; and he hoped that in the future discussions upon the Bill it would be found that the best mode of meeting the present difficulties would be to rely upon the humane principles and the sound administration of the existing law.
  MR. HIBBERTthanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board for having paid attention to the subject of the existing distress; but he could not as sincerely thank him for the Bill which he had described. He would not then revert to the suggestion he had made on a former evening, that the guardians should be enabled to borrow money for the purposes of relief, except to observe that he thought some such arrangement would enable them to meet any difficulties that might arise. Those who were interested in Lancashire did not ask for new powers to be employed immediately, but they asked that Parlia-
  696
  ment should not separate without giving additional powers to be employed in case of need. Whatever those powers might be, it was certain that Lancashire had no desire to call upon the national purse, the men of that county wishing to preserve in this time of trial the independence which had been so long their pride and boast. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) said that no case had been made out for such a Bill, and that the rates were higher in some places in the south. Now, if the normal state of the rates in Lancashire was what they were at present rents would be adjusted accordingly; but the increase in the rates had been very great, and the ratepayers therefore felt the pressure, although the rates might not be so high as they were in other parts of the country. Already there was a difficulty in raising the rates from the smaller shopkeepers and the better class of operatives; and if the tradespeople had nothing coming in, and were giving credit to their customers, the plan of borrowing money upon the rates would have been a more effectual one than that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. To show that a case had been made out for legislation, he would quote Mr. Farnall's statement respecting Stockport, where that Gentleman said that 50 per cent must be deducted from the estimated rates because the shopkeepers were unable to pay, and from this cause it was probable that as much as 7s. in the pound, or even more, would be required from the richer ratepayers. The Blackburn board of guardians on Saturday resolved unanimously that the clerk be instructed to prepare a memorial to the Poor Law Board, setting forth the distress that existed, and praying them to take steps not by a rate in aid, but by "granting powers to borrow money" to alleviate the distress. It was further stated that the rate of 3s. made in February last was nearly exhausted, and that another such rate made now would, instead of producing £18,000, realize only £12,000, so great was the difficulty in collecting it. He had received a letter from Preston that evening which stated the Board had on the previous day considered the plan of borrowing, and no doubt his right hon. Friend had received a memorial from them. He trusted that the House would not think that the people of Lancashire were coming to ask national aid, for he could assure them that they wished to meet the distress manfully and fairly from their own re-

  697
  sources. He must express his thanks on behalf of the operatives of his own district to the House and to the public generally for the great sympathy which had been shown during this distress. He was proud of the operatives of Lancashire, having seen them increasing in prudence, foresight and education, and, indeed, in everything that fitted them to be citizens of their country; but he was still prouder when he felt that they had deserved the sympathy which they had received during this time of distress.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONdid not rise to discuss the Bill upon the present occasion, but he wished to refer to an observation that had been made, to the effect that the emergency was not so great as it was thought. He could assure the House that in Lancashire they had a different opinion, where it was thought the emergency could hardly be greater, because it was feared that during the few ensuing months there would be an absolute dearth of employment in that county. Of course they could not know what Providence had in store for them, but it was to be earnestly hoped that some better day would dawn upon them. It was certain, however, that at the present the horizon was very dark, and he thought it absolutely necessary that the Poor Law authorities should, under these circumstances, be armed with greater powers. Reserving to himself the right of considering the details of the Bill, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board and the Government for introducing a measure to provide against any probable emergency.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that if the subject were entirely new, and the distress in Lancashire were not, in fact, so plain that any one who ran might read it, there might be some force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie), who now spoke without the responsibility of office. He could assure him and the House that the prospect of distress in the manufacturing districts was something appalling. He did not wish to paint too black a picture of the present state of things, but he was convinced that the Government had not taken this step one hour too early, in order to secure efficient relief being afforded during the recess. They had all heard of the manner in which the distress had been borne by the Lancashire operatives, and how their property was being dispersed little
  698
  by little; and the facts brought before the Poor Law Board left no doubt whatever, that severe as their sufferings had hitherto been, they were light compared with what might probably have to be endured, unless something unforeseen happened in the next few months. The Government were desirous to be prepared to meet the emergency, and if it did not arise no harm would be done. At the same time, they would have failed in their duty if they had not asked the consent of the House to some measure which would give effectual relief to the distress, which, unfortunately, was too probable. He was sure the public as well as the House desired that the sufferings of thousands and tens of thousands should be relieved at any price, and as far as possible without compromising that independence of which the recipients and their fellow-countrymnwereequally proud.
  MR. LYGONthought that scant justice had been done to the admirable remarks of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) when it was said that he did not appreciate the emergency. The right hon. Gentleman, as he understood, had no desire to deny the existence of distress and the probability that it would increase in the winter, and he was anxious that the sufferings of the operatives and their families should be relieved; but what he contended was that those sufferings might be relieved without taking the burden off the shoulders of the ratepayers. No evidence had been adduced to show that the pressure upon the ratepayers was now, or would be during the winter, so great that any rash or hasty measures should be taken to transfer the burden upon the property of the district to other shoulders. Those who during the last few years had benefited so largely from the manufacture, and whose property had been so largely increased in value, ought to bear their fair share of the burden, and Parliament ought not to let its sympathies for the operatives be the means of transferring the burden of meeting this distress from those to whom it legitimately belonged.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the House has done very properly in abstaining from any very minute discussion on the details of the Bill; but I think, also, that some mistake has arisen as to the nature of the plan which my right hon. Friend has shadowed forth. It is not intended to transfer the burden from the ratepayers to other quarters; on the con-

  699
  trary, the Bill of my right hon. Friend is of this nature—where the burden may become so great upon a narrow circle of ratepayers as to exhaust their means, then it is proposed that its incidence should be distributed over a wider range. But, in any event, the operation of the Bill is to be confined to the two counties, Lancashire and Cheshire, which have chiefly benefited by the manufacturing prosperity which has now, for the moment, unhappily been checked. Nothing, I am sure, can be more sincere than the feeling which prevails in this House and the country of admiration for the manly fortitude which has been displayed by the labouring classes in those districts. I think, then, it would have been a great neglect of duty on the part of Her Majesty's Government if, seeing the great amount of distress that exists at present, and forseeing that the course of events may, in the progress of the autumn, not only continue that distress, but aggravate it to a considerabe degree, we allowed Parliament to separate without providing some means and establishing some machinery by which the aggravated distress and decreasing local means might be relieved and assisted. If we allowed Parliament to separate, and called it together suddenly in the autumn for the purpose of doing that which we ought to have done before, I think we should be justly liable to censure. Now, with respect to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten), we are quite willing to hear everything that those who are acquainted with the local details of the case may suggest, either for or against the particular measure we propose. We are not wedded to its provisions. Our anxiety is to do that which, upon full consideration, may appear best calculated to meet the evil, and therefore we shall be happy to hear the opinions of those who from local knowledge are qualified to make suggestions. Our wish is that the Bill should be read a second time on Thursday—it will be printed to-morrow morning—and then we can fix such a day for Committee as may afford ample time for information to reach us from the districts particularly interested. We have no wish to hurry the Bill; and even if it be necessary to prolong our sittings for a few days, I am sure the House would not grudge the time which would be given to the subject.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as the measure proceeded on a percentage of increase in the rates, and not on any fixed amount of
  700
  charge, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House a tabular statement with regard to the rates in Lancashire and Cheshire, to enable the House to judge of the probable effect of the scheme in those counties.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, a Return had been made to the House in 1856 of the rateable value of every district in the country. With respect to the rate of expenditure, which he presumed was what the hon. Gentleman wished for, no Returns on that subject had been moved for. If they should be moved for, he should be happy to give them.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enable Boards of Guardians of certain Unions to obtain temporary Aid to meet the extraordinary demands for Relief therein, ordered to be brought in by Mr. VILLIERS, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. GILPIN.
  Bill presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° on Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 224].

LUNATICS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 216.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. HIBBERT MR. HIBBERT moved the following clause, which was agreed to:—
  "The superintendent of every asylum shall, once at least in each half-year, transmit to the guardians of every union and of every parish under a board of guardians, and the overseer of every parish not in a union nor under a board of guardians, a statement of the condition of every pauper lunatic chargeable to such union or parish."
  MR. BUTTthen moved the insertion of a clause, providing that copies, orders, and certificates shall be given on demand to any person who shall be received as a patient or alleged lunatic into any asylum.
  Clause,
  (Any person who shall be received as a patient or alleged lunatic into any asylum, registered hospital, or licensed house under the provisions of the Lunacy Acts, chapter ninety-six or ninety-seven, shall have a right to demand, orally or by writing under his hand, from the superintendent or other person keeping him in restraint, a copy of the order and certificates under which he has been received as an inmate; and in case any superintendent or other person having the control of such asylum, registered hospital, or licensed house shall not, upon such demand, deliver to the alleged lunatic true copies of same within a reasonable time after such demand, such superintendent or other person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, unless the state of mind of such alleged lunatic shall be such as to make it impossible for him to exercise any mental resolution upon the subject, or to make it dangerous and unsafe to comply with such demand),
  —brought up, and read 1°.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR GEORGE GREYopposed the clause, and stated that the subject had been fully considered and discussed by the Committee to which the Bill had been referred.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

POLLING PLACES (NEW SHOREHAM, &c.) BILL— [BILL No. 218.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. PEACOCKEhoped the Bill would not be pressed, as more general legislation might be found to be necessary.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the five boroughs with which this Bill dealt stood in a peculiar position as the Reform Act had nominated the polling places, which it would require the authority of Parliament to change.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Turnpike Acts Continuance; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Copyhold, &c. Commission.
2a Indemnity; Thames Embankment; Jamaica Loan (Settlement); Merchandise Marks; Turn-

643
pike Trusts Arrangements; Windsor Castle (Bakehouse).
3a Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation; Inclosure; Industrial and Provident Societies; Council of Medical Education.

COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONregretted to have to trouble their Lordships with a matter of personal explanation; but the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies having disputed the accuracy of some figures he had given in the Debate on Colonial Fortifications on Friday evening, and as his statement might possibly have given rise to some misapprehension, he was anxious to state at the earliest possible moment, having ascertained the facts, what those facts were. It would be recollected that on the occasion referred to he stated that there had been a considerable increase in several successive years in the public expenditure as connected with the class of Estimates commonly called colonial. His statement so far was perfectly accurate; but it had no direct bearing on the point at issue, namely, colonial fortifications, nor did he draw any inference from the figures he quoted bearing upon the subject, or intend to make any accusation against the Government. The figures he quoted were perfectly correct, and had been taken from official sources; but he felt that as they were quoted they might have given rise to some misapprehension. If he was understood to mean that those figures expressed the total aggregate expenditure under that particular class of Estimates for several successive years, he had nothing to vary or correct; but if he was understood to say (and he feared he had been so understood) that these figures represented the civil colonial expenditure of this country for several past years, that would be an incorrect impression and would lead their Lordships into error. These Estimates comprised not only colonial, but likewise consular and diplomatic expenditure. But he was wrong in this—that until he had an opportunity of looking into the official documents he was not aware how very large a proportion of those charges were brought into the consular and diplomatic side of the account. The figures he gave were the sums total of these combined services, and not those belonging to the civil colonial service only. He therefore asked permission to withdraw the statement he had made in so far that
  644
  these charges were confined to the civil and colonial expenditure, but not as to the figures quoted being the totals as they appeared in the Estimates.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, after what my noble Friend has said, I should be perfectly content, so far as I am individually concerned, to leave the matter as he has now placed it. But there are some interests which are more important than anything which relates to an individual, and this is one of them. There is a very general impression abroad that the colonial expenditure of this country has been for many years greatly increasing in all the departments, and that impression the statement made by my noble Friend on Friday last, considering the position which he held under the Government of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was calculated to strengthen. When my noble Friend made that statement, being taken by surprise by a reference to colonial expenditure on that occasion, I could only tell the House that I felt certain that my noble Friend was inaccurate, and that he was mixing up with the civil colonial expenditure a great many other charges included in the Civil Estimates No 5. I said, at the same time, I was quite certain that so far from the civil expenditure of the colonies having increased since 1856, and being still increasing, it had been diminishing, although not very rapidly, for some years past. I was perfectly accurate in what I stated on that occasion, although I spoke only from recollection. The statement made by my noble Friend was, that the Civil Colonial Estimates were in the year 1856 £320,000, and that they had swelled until in 1862 they had grown to the enormous amount of £937,000. In these figures my noble Friend had, as I supposed, not confined himself to the civil colonial expenditure, but included such items as Treasury chest, £242,000; captured negroes—bounty on slaves, £55,000; commissions for suppression of the slave trade, £10,000; consuls abroad, £167,000; services in China, Japan, and Siam, £86,000; North American boundary commission, £40,000, and other such charges. Not one of those charges has any more connection with the expenditure of the colonies than with that of the Home Department. Commencing with the year 1856, my noble Friend stated the colonial expenditure for that year to be £320,000. My Lords, the real amount is £122,000, and this in-

  645
  cludes every item that can be brought under the head "Colonial Expenditure." Your Lordships will see how liberal I am in my admissions when I include among the colonial charges such items as the "Emigration Office," which is really kept up much more for the convenience of the inhabitants of this country than for those of the colonies. The amount of the item is £10,000. I have also included a sum of £4,200 for Bermuda, which is a military garrison. My noble Friend stated the amount for 1862 to be £937,000. The real amount for the civil colonial charges is only £113,000. The grants for 1862 display a great excess over those of 1861, but that excess is wholly caused by two special items—namely, £55,000 for the purchase of Vancouver's Island, and £79,193 for British Kaffraria arrears. If these sums were added, they would swell the grants to £247,648; but deducting them, as they are not fairly chargeable to the year, the total amount is only £113,000, instead of £937,000, the sum stated by my noble Friend. One word more, my Lords. I stated, on a former occasion, that these colonial expenses were gradually diminishing. In 1856, the grants for colonial purposes were £123,000; in 1857, £185,000; in 1858, £141,000; in 1859, £183,000; in 1860, £163,000; in 1861, £112,000; and in 1862, £113,000. I think therefore I have clearly shown to your Lordships that though I was unprepared at the moment to answer my noble Friend, I did not deceive your Lordships as to the real facts of the case. I should not have thought it necessary to enter into the subject if I did not know that a mistaken impression has existed in the country on the subject of those colonial charges.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought his noble Friend the noble Duke might have been satisfied with his explanation. The gist of that explanation was, that he feared he might have led the House to suppose that the civil colonial expenditure amounted to £937,000; and that if he had done so, he wished to correct that impression. But he could not assent to the correction of the noble Duke. His (the Earl of Carnarvon's) statement was undoubtedly incorrect, in so far as it might seem to warrant an inference against civil colonial expenditure from the figures he had quoted, but was not so incorrect as the noble Duke would now make out. Many of the items which
  646
  the noble Duke would now deduct, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought he was perfectly justified in treating as expenditure for colonial purposes. For instance, there were items in the years 1860–1 and 1861–2 for expenses connected with the Zambezi and the Niger. In the year 1860–1 there was a sum of £6,330 for North American exploring, and in 1861–2 a sum of £60,000 for expenses in connection with the North American boundary, which were obviously charges incurred for colonial rather than British interests. There was a sum of £247,600 set down as the total of Classes V. and VII. for the year 1862–3. Adding to that sum two items of £1,500 and £40,000 for the Niger and the North American boundary, they had a total of £289,000, instead of 113,000, for the present year. When these and similar items were included in the amount of civil colonial expenditure, it would be found that this expenditure had not only not decreased, but had been annually increasing.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthought he had said nothing whatever to reflect on his noble Friend. In referring to what had been stated by the noble Earl on a former evening, he had not depended on his own memory only, but had referred to the report in The Times. Up to within the last two years the several colonial Estimates were included in two different Votes.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to know how it was that the diplomatic and consular Votes were mixed up with the colonial.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwould draw his noble Friend's attention to the fact that there were several different headings, such as "colonial," "consular," and "other foreign services."

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 187.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it had long been considered a most important undertaking to embank the river Thames. That embankment was now rendered more necessary by the adoption of the scheme for carrying the low-level sewer by the side of the river, rather than breaking up the Strand for that purpose—a course which could not

  647
  fail to be attended with the greatest possible inconvenience to the whole traffic of the metropolis. Various schemes had been from time to time proposed for carrying out the design of the embankment, but they had all failed, until in 1861 measures were adopted by the Legislature for the purpose, which had rendered the present Bill necessary to enable them to be carried into effect. He trusted that the present plan would be more fortunate than its predecessors, and that the result would be to render our noble river once more that object of beauty and pleasure that it was to our ancestors.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that under ordinary circumstances he should have remained silent, and he only troubled their Lordships now because his name had been brought forward, both in Parliament and in public, in a most unfair manner in connection with this subject. He was not going to offer any objection to the Bill, nor did he object in any way to the embankment of the river; but he thought he was entitled to a few words of explanation in order to set himself right with their Lordships, by placing before them the exact position in which he stood in respect to the matter. As their Lordships very well knew, he was one of the lessees under the Crown of some property situated on the bank of the river at Whitehall, a short distance from Westminster Bridge. A good many years ago—in 1837—long before the question of the embankment of the Thames was started at all, he applied for a renewal of the lease; but very shortly afterwards the question of the improvement of the river, and the best means of remedying the inconvenience occasioned by the overcrowded state of the Strand, and the constantly increasing state of the traffic, was started, and the consideration of his application was deferred until this question of the embankment should have been settled. Upon several occasions he renewed his application; but so much delay was interposed, that he had almost despaired of getting a renewal of the lease at all. At one time the decision was delayed owing to the doubts as to the carrying-out of the embankment; at another, from a question as to the site of the new Westminster Bridge. At length—he believed in 1842—a Commission, of which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) was chairman, was appointed to report on the Embankment of the River Thames.
  648
  After a delay of two years the Commission reported in favour of a scheme for embanking the Thames, which contemplated the formation of an Embankment from Blackfriars Bridge to Scotland Yard, and a road from Scotland Yard to Whitehall. That recommendation was made after a full inquiry, and without any attempt on the part of any one that he knew of to bias the minds of the Commissioners either one way or the other, and he and the other Crown lessees rested under the impression that, as far at least as the road was concerned, their recommendation would be acted upon. But the House of Commons did not depart on that occasion from its almost invariable practice of throwing over the whole of the recommendations of the Commissioners; and when, in 1861, another Commission was appointed to consider how far these improvements could be carried into effect, so as to relieve the crowded streets, a memorial was presented by the Crown lessees to the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, praying the Board to take into consideration the position of the lessees with respect to the injury which was lkiely to be done to their property. On the part of the Woods and Forests Mr. Pennethorne, their official architect and surveyor, and Mr. Norton, a surveyor of great eminence, with whom he (the Duke of Buccleuch) was not personally acquainted, on the part of the lessees, were examined before the Commission, and gave evidence; and Mr. Pennethone then stated that, in his opinion, a better line of road could be made than by continuing the road by the side of the Thames from Whitehall on to Westminster Bridge. That plan, in his opinion, was open to grave objections; the road would have to be made on a considerable incline, and coming on to Westminster Bridge just opposite the Speaker's house, the two lines of traffic would be at right angles. Not that it would signify about two streets being at right angles; but it was apprehended, that as two great lines of traffic would pass along these streets and here meet together at right angles, and on a steep incline, great inconvenience, if not actual danger, would result. The object being to have a continuous line of traffic in the direction of Victoria Street, Mr. Pennethorne suggested that it would be better that the road should be continued through Scotland Yard and Whitehall, across the end of Parliament Street, and right on to Victoria Street. When the

  649
  question came before Parliament this Session, the Crown lessees took it for granted—at least, he did for one—that that plan of Mr. Pennethorne's, being the only one which they knew anything about, would also be submitted to Parliament. The lessees were perfectly aware that even this scheme would interfere injuriously with their property, on account of the noisy thoroughfare which it would create, but they saw that it was not so bad as having a road interposed between their gardens and the river. It was a choice of two evils, and naturally they chose that which they deemed the lesser. However, another plan was submitted by the Commission to the Lords of the Treasury, who declined to give any opinion as to which would be the preferable line—that by the river side or by Whitehall—not wishing, as they said, to prejudice a matter which was to come before Parliament. The lessees of the Crown did not petition against the embankment of the Thames—they never dreamt of such a thing—but they did object to have a road carried between their property and the river, and they thought they had shown that there was another plan which, on public grounds alone, was preferential, although it did to a certain extent injure their property—they chose what they considered the least of two evils; and believing that the adoption of the road carrying the embankment on to Westminster Bridge was not of such public convenience as to warrant interfering with their rights, they had considered that the line of route had been settled by the plan of Mr. Pennethorne; but after what had passed they certainly expected that two schemes would be presented to the Select Committee, one that recommended by Mr. Pennethorne, the other that now before the House. To their great astonishment, however, they found that one scheme, and one only, was to be submitted to the Committee—that which recommended for adoption the plan of carrying the embankment on to Westminster Bridge by a road constructed between their property and the river. That was the scheme which was embodied in the present Bill. That being so, a Motion was made in the House of Commons for the production of the Correspondence on the subject for the purpose of getting Mr. Pennethorne's proposal officially before them. On that occasion the First Commissioner of Works, who was the Chairman of the Committee, stated that the
  650
  Correspondence was very voluminous, but that he would look through it and see whether it was necessary to produce the whole of it. In the Select Committee, also, his (the Duke of Buccleuch's) counsel applied for the production of the Correspondence. On the next morning, however, the Chairman said that it contained nothing important or material to the case, and therefore refused to produce it. The lessees felt that it was of great importance that the alternative scheme should be brought under the notice of the Committee, and the only way in which it was now possible to bring the matter before the Committee was to call before them Mr. Gore, Mr. Pennethorne, and others, in order to prove the plans and the Correspondence which had taken place between the officers of the Crown and the lessees. This was accordingly done, and Mr. Pennethorne's scheme was thus laid before the Committee. It was afterwards said that that course was taken at the last moment, and completely took the Committee by surprise; but the fact was, that it was what was desired most earnestly by the lessees, and every effort was made by them to have it produced, but their attempts were always rendered futile. At last a Motion was made in the House of Commons to the effect that the Correspondence should be produced, and was carried against the Government. Only a portion of it, however, had yet been produced, and therefore he was addressing their Lordships under considerable difficulties, because the Correspondence which he wished to refer them to was not yet in their hands. He might, no doubt, have made the absence of these papers a ground of objection against proceeding with the second reading of the Bill that evening, but at this period of the Session such a course of proceeding would be most injurious to the Bill, and all he wanted was to state to their Lordships that he conceived that his name had been made use of in respect to this Bill in the most improper and unjustifiable manner. As to the attacks in the newspapers, he did not care one farthing about them, whether they assumed the shape of anonymous articles or anonymous letters; but he did wish to put himself straight with their Lordships, and to say that he did not wish to make any obstructive opposition to the Bill before them. He was quite ready to admit that the embankment of the Thames was a work of very great importance, and

  651
  that it was of the utmost consequence to relieve the overcrowded streets, although he did not approve of the exact manner in which it was proposed to effect that object. He could not help thinking that the present access to the City and the Strand was a disgrace to the metropolis. It was a disgrace that of all the noble structures which spanned the Thames from London Bridge to Kew only, three—London Bridge, Blackfriars, and Westminster—were free. If Southwark Bridge and Waterloo were thrown open to the public, a great relief would be afforded not only to the other bridges, but to the Strand and other streets. Every one must see that the toll on Waterloo Bridge especially deterred the traffic from passing over that magnificent structure; and that if the toll were removed, instead of a solitary carriage now and then, they would find that bridge almost as much crowded as Westminster Bridge itself, while the long thoroughfare through the Strand would be very much relieved; nor could anybody doubt, that with respect to heavy traffic, where time was not of so much consequence, much of it was deterred from passing over Waterloo Bridge by the toll. He certainly thought it due to himself to take the opinion of the Select Committee of the other House; but inasmuch as the House of Commons had chosen to overrule the decision of its own Committee, and by a considerable majority expressed their opinion that this was a case in which private interests must give way before a great public necessity, he could only bow to their decision. He had been reported as having said that nothing should ever induce him to yield; but this arose entirely from a misapprehension of the tenor of his evidence. In conclusion, he repeated that he would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and he thought it due that he should make this explanation.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I think it very injurious to the progress of business to discuss the merits of the scheme on this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill has very ingeniously confined his remarks, in moving the second reading, to the one part of the measure on which there has never been any difference of opinion—the necessity for the embankment. To the only point on which there has been any controversy—how that embankment should be carried out—he carefully avoided any allusion. I am glad to find that the noble Duke
  652
  (the Duke of Buccleuch) has taken this opportunity of setting himself right with your Lordships and the public at large upon this matter; but I certainly think he has good reason to complain of the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot refrain from observing that that course has not been calculated to promote the public service. It has presented another repetition of that of which we have often had so much cause to complain, namely, differences of opinion and quarrels between two public Departments, and an absence of any overruling power to control their differences and decide upon their misunderstandings. Your Lordships will see from the papers which have been published that a somewhat angry controversy has taken place between two Departments of the Government, not with regard to the merits of individuals, but with regard to the merits of the scheme itself. At a very early stage you will find that the Commissioner of Woods considers that the alternative plan which he proposes, irrespective of the interests of the Crown or of the Crown lessees, was infinitely more advantageous for the public than that which received the countenance of the Commissioner of Works. I think it would not have been unnatural under those circumstances that the Government, as a Government, and more especially as they recognised the duty of taking the management of the affair in their own hands, and not leaving it to be dealt with by the Metropolitan Board of Works, I think it would not have been unnatural that the Government should have decided between these two conflicting Departments, and should have proposed in their own name a scheme for carrying out this great national undertaking. But they did neither one thing nor the other; for they professed to leave the whole matter to the impartial decision of Parliament, and then they introduced the plan which was recommended by the Commissioner of Works, and they absolutely excluded from the consideration of the Committee the plan which was sanctioned by the other Department. I think the Government ought from the commencement to have made up their minds upon the subject; and if they were not prepared to pursue that course, they ought to have left the matter to be decided by the Committee of the House of Commons. I believe it can hardly be said that in the mode in which they have dealt with the question they have held the

  653
  balance evenly, as they professed to do, between the two Departments. After a very considerable length of time, and after seeking to withhold the alternative plan proposed by Mr. Pennethorne, they were compelled to produce it; and on its production the Committee—I do not say rightly or wrongly—upon that I pronounce no decision—the Committee to which the subject was referred, and which was appointed by the Government themselves, with the addition of five members chosen by the Committee of Selection, for the purpose of obtaining a perfectly impartial tribunal, voted for that alternative plan, and against the scheme recommended by the Government. A series of insinuations and of most discreditable imputations were then cast on the gentlemen who had come forward, as they were asked to do, to give evidence with respect to the two proposals, and to state their views of their respective merits. Forthwith there proceeded from the press a number of most violent tirades, directed more especially against my noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch), who was only one Crown lessee among many—including also Mr. Horsman and Sir Robert Peel, all of whom had a great interest in the matter—and who had stated their case as they would have been entitled to do before a Committee on a Private Bill. The Committee decided in their favour. Again, a series of imputations and insinuations as to motives were made, a considerable amount of public excitement was got up, and the Government, I am sorry to say, in the course of the discussions which ensued, seem to have given way to that excitement, and to have rather encouraged than discouraged those hostile criticisms. It is a fair subject for consideration which of the two plans might be most advantageous to the public service and least injurious to private interests. I confess that, for my own part, if I had been in the position of the noble Duke, I should have thought Mr. Pennethorne's diagonal plan would be a greater nuisance and a greater source of inconvenience to me than the one recommended by the Commissioner of Works. But that is a matter of opinion. I must also say that I think it would be more convenient if the Government, in calling upon us to discuss a question of this kind, had laid before us a plan of the proposed works, so that we should not have to consider them in absolute ignorance of the line which the embankment is to fol-
  654
  low. I repeat that I do not profess to give any opinion with regard to the merits of the conflicting schemes. I certainly looked over the ground a day or two ago. I went to the corner of Westminster Bridge in order to see how the roadway might be carried on to the embankment, and it struck me that there would be at that point a very inconvenient incline, and an equally inconvenient meeting of two lines of traffic. Moreover, as a matter of beauty, I have always thought that the great merit of an embankment was that it should be perfectly level, and that it should present no sudden rise; but if I understand anything of the plan of this work, it will have to be raised rapidly before it reaches the bridge to a height of eleven feet, and that elevation must be supported, I suppose, by a retaining wall abutting on the river, than which I can conceive no more disagreeable effect. The House of Commons, however, and Her Majesty's Government, have decided on adopting that plan, and I apprehend that your Lordships will not offer to it any opposition. I am sure that at the same time you will one and all do justice to the temperate manner in which my noble Friend has come forward and stated the circumstances to which exception has been taken, and has said not only that he would offer no opposition to the scheme, but that he was perfectly ready to make any sacrifice of his private interest to the public convenience. And when people look back at the whole of these proceedings, I think they will see that my noble Friend has had but scanty justice dealt out to him, and that he deserved, not the obloquy which has been cast upon him, but the gratitude of the public for the frank and temperate manner in which he has stated his views and abandoned what he regarded as his own interest for the sake of promoting their advantage.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had exercised a very wise discretion in not entering upon details in proposing the second reading of the Bill, and in not introducing unnecessary topics which might have excited some feelings of irritation. With regard to the Government, they were free from blame. They proposed a plan, which was referred to a Committee, and the Committee having decided upon an alteration, the House of Commons restored the Bill to its original shape. He believed their Lordships were

  655
  all agreed that the course pursued by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) was perfectly straightforward and honourable, and he thought that nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than the way in which he had accepted the determination of the other House and abstained from endangering a useful and important public measure by offering opposition. The scheme was one of the greatest possible importance, and he hoped now that the Bill would become, law in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that with regard to the course taken by the noble Duke in the matter, he could only state his belief that that course was in unison with the character he had borne throughout his whole life. He should, at the same time, express his regret that when the House of Commons had to decide on the best mode of carrying out that embankment, circumstances had arisen which had prevented them from considering it in the calm manner that must have been desired. For his part, he could conceive nothing more unsightly or more unsafe than the way in which it was proposed that the new road should abut on Westminster Bridge. It would there form a very steep incline, and he believed that great inconvenience must arise from the meeting of lines of traffic at such a spot, where it would be peculiarly difficult to manage horses bearing heavy loads. He therefore thought it would be better that some such plan as that proposed by Mr. Pennethorne should be adopted. But the whole subject of the inconvenience created by the overcrowding of traffic in the streets of the metropolis was one which required the most careful consideration of the Government, and he believed that the best mode of meeting the difficulty would be to adopt some such regulation as that which was employed in Paris, where all materials of great length and weight were only allowed to be carried through the streets between the hours of ten or eleven o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning. By that means it would be impossible that we should have such a stoppage of our thoroughfares as that which he had witnessed the other day, when a long line of traffic was brought to a standstill for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes by on enormous mass of timber, which could not be turned without sweeping the street from one side to the other.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped,
  656
  in connection with the subject of the embankment, the necessity of improving Parliament Street would not be lost sight of. They could not erect the new public offices in such a street as King Street. When the proposal for building those offices was first made, he called attention to the necessity for purchasing the adjacent ground, and every year he saw some old house pulled down and a new one building up there, so that the purchase of the ground was every day becoming more expensive. The widening of Parliament Street would be a greater improvement and a greater relief to the traffic in that neighbourhood than even the embankment of the Thames. He thought it important that the question of the embankment should be considered without prejudice, for much prejudice on the subject had been excited in the public mind. He was himself convinced that the alternative plan, if carefully considered and properly carried out, would afford most accommodation to the public. He would suggest that there should be no haste with regard to the completion of the work at once. He thought it would be desirable that the first operations should be confined to the most valuable part of the plan—namely, that portion of it between Whitehall and Blackfriars Bridge. He trusted that Government would have the courage next Session to ask money for the widening of Parliament Street. It might possibly be seen by that time that that was the greater improvement of the two. Instead of rebuilding Blackfriars Bridge, he would suggest that by taking down one unsafe pier—for the rest of the Bridge appeared perfectly sound—and by rebuilding that pier and two arches connected with it, they might, probably, save £150,000 or £200,000, which might be made available for some other improvement, such as the embankment on the Southwark side, or the proposed new street, which, he believed, was now abandoned, from Blackfriars Bridge in the direction of St. Paul's and the Mansion House. One of the great objections to the embankment was the difficulty of getting to it from the West, without going down the Strand a long way. A sloping street from the end of Duncannon Street across Villiers Street and Buckingham Street to the embankment, would be a great convenience for vehicles coming from the West End; and unless that accommodation should be afforded, all that traffic which tended so much to crowd the Strand would have

  657
  no direct approach to the embankment, and must continue in its present course. It would be very desirable, in considering this question, that it should not be supposed that the whole matter was finally settled by any plan that might be adopted during the present Session, but that the public mind might be left perfectly free to adopt a better plan, if a better one should be proposed.
  LORD LLANOVERsaid, in 1856 he had the honour of presiding over a Committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of considering the subject to which his noble Friend had referred, and that Committee came to the resolution that it would be exceedingly desirable that the whole of the land between Downing Street and Great George Street should be purchased. Some eminent engineers were examined before the Committee, and they were of opinion, that if the property was purchased, good interest would be got for the money expended, and that ultimately there would be a great saving when the ground was required for the public offices. A Report was made accordingly; and in consequence of that Report he was desired to issue a notice for plans for the improvement of that part of the metropolis. Rewards were offered to different competitors, and one excellent plan was produced for laying out the ground. But what had happened since? The whole scheme for the purchase of the property had been given up. The natural consequence was, that when the Government came forward to purchase a small piece of ground, up went the value of all the adjacent property. The scheme recommended by this Committee involved the widening of the street from the Treasury Buildings to Bridge Street—an improvement which would ultimately have to be made—and he hoped the Government would consider the expediency of introducing a Bill next Session for acquiring that space, whether it was to be used immediately or not. He had no doubt that the embankment of the Thames was not only desirable, but that it would be a great improvement; but if it were carried out on the north side, it ought to be carried out on the south side simultaneously, otherwise the whole of that aide would be thrown under water in consequence of the contracted passage through which the stream would have to pass. Still, he was afraid the traffic of the metropolis would not be so much improved by this scheme as was expected by many
  658
  —the greater part of the traffic which passed through the Strand came from Belgravia. He believed, that if Mr. Pennethorne'a alternative plan had been placed before the Committee of the House of Commons at an earlier stage of the proceedings, it would have been received with more favour. Their Lordships certainly ought to have that plan before them, and they would then be in a much better condition to judge of the matter. If the embankment were made as now proposed, it ought to be accompanied with the opening of a broad road up Parliament Street. For this purpose the Government should at once take steps to acquire all the requisite space, for nothing could be more costly than buying small pieces of ground for momentary use, and then being compelled to make further purchases. Every such purchase enhanced the value of the land in the neighbourhood, and in the end the Government had to pay a great deal more for what they wanted.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, that it would be more expedient and more economical for Government to take the more extensive view which he put forward, if they could get the House of Commons to agree to it. He regretted that the plan of the noble Lord had not met with more favour than it did, but its fault was that it was too perfect and too matured. The noble Lord had proposed to lay out £2,000,000 on the purchase of the land, and to raise thereon an elaborate scheme of public offices. The largeness of the expenditure on the purchase of the land, involving, as it was supposed to do, a corresponding outlay on buildings, was the reason why it had not been adopted. He believed himself that if the land had been purchased and the present buildings left untouched till the ground was required for the laying-out of new streets, a large portion of the expenditure would be saved or recovered, owing to the increased value given to the land. He also concurred in the opinion of the noble Lord that it was more desirable, as well as more economical, to obtain large plots of ground at once instead of purchasing it bit by bit.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in reply, said, that many of the suggestions which had been thrown oat in the course of the debate were well worthy of consideration.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection afterwards.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the Consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

  The LORD STEWARD (Chairman),

  The Earl of POWIS,

  The Viscount DE VESCI,

  The Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE,

  The Lord SILCHESTER;

  —agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'Clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with Leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

JAMAICA LOAN (SETTLEMENT) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 199.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the circumstances which had led to the original grant of the loan of £200,000 to the colony had been so recently fully discussed in that House, that he need not trouble their Lordships with any repetition of them. He looked upon this Bill as the complement of the measure of 1854. It would carry into effect the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Taunton), and be attended with two important results. It would provide a certain fund, by which measures of importance of a local character might be carried into effect at the discretion of the Government; and, further, it would accomplish another most desirable object—namely, that of placing the Governor in independence of those who voted the supplies.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was not going to oppose this Bill, which he thought had become necessary in order to carry into effect the recommendations of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton); but there was one point on which he should be glad to have some explanations from his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department. As he understood the measure, its object was to sanction the application of certain money to be raised under an Act which the colonists were intending
  660
  and expecting to pass, and which he had no doubt they would pass. But this Bill would not come into operation till the colony should have passed that Act. The noble Duke had suggested that it might be expedient for the colonists to avail themselves of an Act which they passed in 1860, and in respect of which a doubt had been raised. Sums of money were raised under that Act for the expenses of the census and other important objects. Owing to the doubt raised in respect of the measure of 1860, no payments had been made under it. He did not see in the Bill before their Lordships any provision by which a retrospective operation could be given to it, so that payments which had already become due might be made by the colonial Legislature. Would not a retrospective operation be necessary in order that payment might be made of certain liabilities incurred under the Secretary of State's Warrant?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his noble Friend was quite right. This Bill would not have a retrospective operation, but the omission was intentional. It had been considered that in a measure introduced by the Imperial Government it would not be right to interfere with money already in the hands of the colonial Government. He was not sure that the time for sanctioning the colonial Bill referred to by his noble Friend had expired. Either in the Bill which the colony would pass consequent on this measure or in some other Bill the colonists would insert a provision having a retrospective effect, in order to appropriate the money raised under the operation of the colonial Bill, in the case of which the sanction of the Crown had been suspended.
  THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that in the course of the correspondence the objection was taken by the Treasury that in all these cases it was necessary that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament should precede that of the colonial Parliament; and what he wanted to know was whether this Bill gave its sanction to retrospective legislation; for if not, would not the same objection again occur when the colonial Legislature passed their Bill? He wanted to know whether the present Bill gave sanction to retrospective legislation.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had ascertained that there would not be upon the part of the Treasury any objection to give the sanction of the Crown to

  661
  the appropriation of the money which had accrued during the two years; and he should, therefore, himself feel authorized to give the sanction of the Crown without again referring to the Treasury.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas delighted to hear that the Departments had come to terms.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.