Sitting of 7 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee reported—Fortifications and Works—Bill ordered thereon.
Ordered—Recovery of Church Rates.
First Reading—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)*[Bill 213]; Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension * [Bill 215].
Committee—Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel] [Bill 137]; Alkali Works Regulation (Lords)* [Bill 135], on re-committal.
Considered as amended—Removal of Prisoners (Scotland) * [Bill 194].

FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS.

  REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  "That, towards providing a further sum for defraying the Expenses of the Construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum, not exceeding £650,000, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon, and be payable out of, the said Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Viscount PALMERSTON, and the Marquess of HARTINGTON.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL [SIR ROBERT PEEL]— [BILL 137.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee (Progress 3rd July).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 17 (Additional Licence Duty on fixed Engines).
  Clause struck out.
  MR. H. A. BRUCE MR. H. A. BRUCE moved a new clause in lieu thereof—
  "The Salmon Fisheries Act shall be construed as if in the Schedule annexed to the Act of the 11th & 12th Vict., c. 92, there had been inserted instead of the Duties therein mentioned the Duties following (that is to say):—

  £

  Bag nets

  10

  Fly nets

  10

  Stake nets or stake wiers (Scotch)

  30

  Head weirs

  6

  For every box, crib, cruive, or drum net in any weir for taking salmon or trout

  10

  SIR HERVEY BRUCE SIR HERVEY BRUCE moved to add, at the end of the new clause, "Fly rods £2."
  MAJOR GAVINconsidered the proposition most objectionable, as far as the public generally was concerned. It might do for the rich, but it would preclude the industrious classes generally from deriving any benefit whatever from it.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that this Bill was intended to restore to the public the rights of which they were deprived in 1842—namely, the right of fishing. His hon. Friend the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) now wished to introduce a provision the effect of which would be to prohibit the public from fishing.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEthought it was only fair that cotmen should pay a licence, as they would derive considerable benefit from the measure.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, it was proposed by the hon. Baronet to punish rod-men forthwith for a problematical advantage which they might gain by the Commissioners duly exercising the powers about to be conferred on them. He thought the licence for rod-men should be reduced to 5s.
  MR. HASSARDwas of opinion that the maximum sum should be imposed upon those men.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEwould be extremely sorry to propose any licence that would press upon the poor man. He should therefore be willing to withdraw his proposition.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause K (Additional Licence Duties on fixed Engines) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. W. R. O. GORE, after Clause 17, proposed to insert a clause—
  "Magistrates paying licence duty, and being owners of land abutting on rivers or lakes in any district, may act and vote as ex-officio Members of any Board of Conservators elected for any sub-district."
  Clause L (Magistrates paying Duty to be ex-officio Members of Board), agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. M'MAHONproposed to insert, after Clause 32, new clause (Fixed Engines interfering with Navigation to be deemed Common Nuisances).
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the clause was unnecessary, inasmuch as one of the objects of the Bill was to declare fixed nets to be a nuisance.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. M'MAHONthen proposed a new clause (Courts may award Costs, 13 & 14 Vict., c. 88.)
  Clause O agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  SIR EDWARD GROGAN SIR EDWARD GROGAN moved a new clause (Exception of Salmon or Trout, caught or kept for certain purposes)—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to any person who shall catch or attempt to catch, or shall have in his possession, any salmon or trout for the purposes of artificial propagation, or other scientific purposes; and nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice the legal right of any owner to take materials from any stream."
  Clause H agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. LEADER MR. LEADER moved a clause (Hydraulic Machines), directing the application of a grating to any machine of this description, under a penalty of £50 for each offence, and £5 for each day.
  Clause N agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  LORD NAASproposed a clause providing that—
  "No net shall be used For the capture of salmon or trout in any of the fresh water portions of rivers except by the owner of a several fishing, anything to the contrary notwithstanding contained in any of the acts now in force in Ireland."
  MR. MONSELLand Major GAVIN opposed the clause.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEconsidered that the clause would be most unjust towards the general public; and it would be carrying the protection of salmon to a most absurd extent if they were to prohibit all netting in rivers. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the clause.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that cod-fishing was more destructive to salmon than bag nets, and therefore he was in favour of some provision of the nature proposed by the noble Lord being introduced into the Bill. He would, however, omit
  350
  from the clause the exemption in favour of the owner of a several fishing.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, the clause would have the effect of depriving a large number of people of rights which they had enjoyed for a great number of years.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEthought that all those matters ought to be left to the Commissioners, who no doubt would make such regulations as would give satisfaction to all parties concerned.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEdeprecated any measure which would have the effect of abolishing nets altogether.
  LORD NAASsaid, he would withdraw the clause, but was of opinion that something ought to be done to restrict the rights to which his clause referred.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he was quite willing that full power should be given to the Commissioners to regulate those rights.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. LONGFIELD MR. LONGFIELD moved a new clause (Weekly Close Time for Stake Nets, &c.).
  Clause—
  (In addition to the weekly close time provided by Clause sixteen of this Act, the weekly close season for all stake nets, fly nets, and bag nets shall commence at six of the clock on Friday morning and continue until six of the clock on the following Monday morning,)—(Mr. Longfield,)—brought up, and read 1°.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that all other parties, except the owners of stake nets, were called on by this Bill to make concessions. He thought it only right, in order to make the Bill a fair compromise, that the owners of stake nets should make some sacrifice, and therefore he should support the clause; but he should at the same time suggest that the weekly close time should be sixty hours instead of seventy-two. That, he thought, would constitute a fair compromise.
  MR. BLAKEand Mr. MONSELL opposed the clause.
  MAJOR GAVINthought the Bill would not be a good measure unless every stake net was done away with.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he should oppose the clause. There was a tendency amongst Members to assimilate this Bill by a side-wind to that introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon).
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that if his hon.

  351
  Friend would consent to limit his clause to sixty hours as the weekly close time instead of seventy-two hours, the Committee would agree to it.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 27: Majority 5.
  Clause F added to the Bill.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEthought that the clause agreed to was so great an innovation of the principle of the Bill, that he should be justified in moving that the Chairman report Progress. In the mean while the Government could consider whether, after this division, they would go on with the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the effect of the Motion would be to throw the Bill over to the next Session.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE SIR HERVEY BRUCE moved the following clause:—"Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall be construed as applying to bag nets erected and used in the sea before 1848."
  Clause negatived.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE SIR HERVEY BRUCE moved a new clause—
  "Provided always that no person or persons having right of fishing in a river shall, under any circumstances, stretch a sweep net entirely across the said river, or have more than one net in the water at the same time; and for every such offence, or either of them, he or they shall, upon conviction, forfeit not more than £50, or less than £10."
  MR. H. A. BRUCEopposed the clause, believing that it would be an evasion of the principle already established by law.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he had given notice of a clause upon this subject, which he should prefer to that of the hon. Baronet. He wished to lay down the principle that no nets should be stretched across a river beyond two-thirds of the width of the said river.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, as the Committee appeared to prefer the clause of the hon. Member for Kerry to his, he should, with the leave of the House, withdraw it.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERTthen moved a clause—
  (Use of Nets in Rivers.)
  No person shall do the following things, or any of them, that is to say—

  1. Stretch, shoot, or draw any net across any
  352
  part of any river in such a manner as shall be detrimental to the free passage of fish.

  2. Shoot or draw any net more than two-thirds across the breadth of a river, such breadth to be measured or taken at the place where the net is used.

  3. Make stationary any draft or seine net by any means whatever

  And any person acting in contravention of this section shall incur a penalty not less than two pounds and not exceeding ten pounds, and shall forfeit any net used by him, in contravention of this section; and such net may be seized by any person duly authorized to enforce the provisions of the Salmon Fisheries Acts.
  MR. M'MAHONthought the clause involved a principle so important that it should be deferred until the Report was brought up. The clause, as framed, would prevent any second party from stretching a net within 300 yards of another person's net, which he considered would be a monstrous infringement upon the liberty of fishing.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the object of his right hon. Friend was to prevent the same person using two nets within a certain distance.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsuggested that it would be in the power of the Commissioners to regulate those matters, and that any attempt to legislate upon such minute points would be attended with great difficulty.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. HERBERTproposed a clause (Restriction of Bag Nets), empowering the Commissioners, under certain circumstances, to allow bag nets to be continued and used for a time not exceeding ten years from passing of the Act.
  Clause (Restriction of Bag Nets,)—(Mr. Herbert,)—brought up, and read 1°.
  MR. M'MAHONopposed the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 54: Majority 33.
  MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved a clause granting compensation to the owners of bag nets whose property was damaged by this Bill, in the same manner as compensation was provided under the former Act.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, it was not proposed to abolish bag nets on the sea coast. The prohibition was only confined to rivers and estuaries. The proposition of his hon. and learned Friend was far too wide, and he felt bound to oppose it.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. BUTTproposed a clause, (Grating to be provided for Watercourses).
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, if the clause was adopted as it was framed, it would totally destroy the mill-power of Ireland.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. H. A. BRUCE MR. H. A. BRUCE moved a Clause P (Construction of Act).
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEproposed a clause G (Alteration of Annual Close Time), by which the annual close time is extended from 124 to 168 days.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Question, that the Preamble be agreed to.
  MR. BEAMISHwished to express his personal thanks to the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. H. A. Bruce) for the great pains, patience, and ability he had displayed during the progress of the Bill.
  LORD NAASalso desired to express his satisfaction at the mode in which the hon. Gentleman conducted this Bill through the House.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

THE PATRIOTIC FUND.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. J. A. SMITH, who had given notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the past management and present condition of the Patriotic Fund, said, that as there was no likelihood, owing to the state of public business, of his being able to bring his Motion forward at a reasonably early hour, he would postpone it until a future day. A meeting of the Royal Commissioners was about to be held at which he understood the matters which he intended to bring under the consideration of the House would be investigated, and he hoped that his Motion would come on for discussion subsequently to that meeting.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH THROUGH PERSIA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is a new Convention for the construction of the Electric Tele-
354
graph through Persia, drawn out by Mr. Eastwick, Chargé d'Affairs at Teheran, on the 17th December 1862; and whether there would be any objection to lay a Copy of the same upon the table of the House?
MR. LAYARDsaid, there was a new Convention, but it had not yet been signed. When signed, there would be no objection to lay it on the table.

EPPING FOREST—FORESTAL RIGHTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the consent of Her Majesty, signified in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, in conformance with Section 5 of cap. 56 of the Act 16 & 17 Vict. has been obtained for the sale of the Forestal Rights of the Crown over the southern and northern portions of the Forest of Epping, which are authorized to be sold by the two Treasury Warrants particularized in page 122 of Appendix to the Report from the Select Committee on Royal Forests, dated 9th June 1863; and, if such written consent has been obtained, whether there will be any objection to laying a copy of it on the table of the House?
  MR. PEEL, in reply, said, where an undisputed forestal right was to be sold there was no occasion for the consent of Her Majesty under the Sign Manual. The warrant of the Treasury was sufficient. In the case referred to the thing sold was recognised as undisputed forestal right.

THE RIVER GODAVERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any communications respecting the progress of the opening out of the river Godavery since the date of the last published Correspondence laid before Parliament—namely, May 2, 1862; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: No Report has been received since the date mentioned.

MR. ROEBUCK AND THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper to ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Whether the conference in the Palace of Fontainebleau, which took place on Tuesday, the the 30th of June, was recorded by any

355
memorandum made on the same or the following day; and if so, to ask the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Sunderland whether (having regard to the assertion in reference to that conference which the French Government has thought fit to insert in The Moniteur), they would have any objection to lay it upon the table of the House. He had just received a private communication from the hon. Member for Sheffield, in which he stated that he should not be in the House in time to answer the Question; but that all the evidence in his hands would be adduced on the occasion of a future discussion.

OFFICE OF WORKS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to move the following Resolution:—
"That the large sums annually voted for Public Buildings and Improvements in the Metropolis are not expended in a satisfactory manner; and that, with a view to the efficiency of the Office of Works, it should be constituted on a different basis."
He thought the circumstance that there had been so many discussions on the subject of Public Works during the Session, instead of being a reason why such a Resolution should not be moved, was, on the contrary, a reason why the House should pass a Resolution indicating strongly their opinion with respect to the manner in which those works were conducted. It was very hard that the House of Commons should be charged with the faults that had been found with the architecture of the metropolis. That that charge was unfounded, was, he thought, shown by the vote which had been given the other night as to the purchase of the structure at South Kensington. The country were, he thought, much indebted to the House for their vote that the South Kensington building should not be kept to be a disgrace to the country; for if, unfortunately, it had become the property of the country, instead of being "a joy for ever," it would have proved an incubus for ever. When first he put his Notice on the paper, he intended to end it at the first clause, "That the large sums annually voted for Public Buildings and improvements in the metropolis are not expended in a satisfactory manner;" but everybody asked him what was the use of stopping at a truism of that kind, for everybody knew that the money was not spent in a satisfactory manner. He therefore felt it necessary to make an addition, in order to induce Her Majesty's
356
Government, after the Resolution was carried—as he hoped and trusted that it would be—to see during the recess in what way the Office of Works could be modified so as more adequately to represent and carry out the requirements and interests of the metropolis. A short time ago he had the honour of addressing the House on the subject of public works, and some of his friends told him that he had exhausted the case. But he had done nothing of the kind, for he should be able to prove the truth of his proposition without trenching on what he had stated on the former occasions. He would begin with Burlington House. It was purchased by the Government in 1852 for a sum of £160,000. In 1855, 1856, and 1857—in nearly every year since 1852—Her Majesty's Government had been asked by Members of that House what they intended to do with Burlington House. The same question was put to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works the other day, and he made a very mild joke about it. He rather turned it off; and the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the same question was put to him, replied, "Wait till you come to a decision about the building at South Kensington, and then I will tell you what we will do with Burlington House." The grounds of Burlington House were now turned into a kind of practice ground for Volunteers, who threw up earthworks and carried on a kind of mimic warfare on a small scale. The house itself had been taken possession of by the Geological Society and some other societies, and the property was entirely lost to the country. Leaving Burlington House, he would next turn to the the National Gallery and the Royal Academy. In 1848 there was a discussion in that House on the subject of the National Gallery and the Royal Academy, and the result of an investigation by a Select Committee was that the two institutions should be separated. This was repeated in 1856 by a Select Committee, and again in 1857 by a Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1859 congratulated the country, in the course of his able speech, on the circumstance that the two institutions were to be separated. [See 3 Hansard, clii. 182.] What occurred in 1860? His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) came down to the House and moved a Vote of £15,000 or £16,000

357
to improve the National Gallery. He also talked about getting up a magnificent facade, and of buying up the workhouse in the rear for the purpose of enlarging the building. The money was voted and spent in improving the Royal Academy and the National Gallery. Now, he understood, the Royal Academy was to be removed. If that were so, this sum of £18,000 would be entirely lost; while the National Gallery, if it was to remain where it now stood, was positively injured by the alterations that had been made. All these difficulties and inconsistencies arose from the constant change of the First Commissioner of Works, the average tenure of office of each person holding the appointment not being two years. The consequence was that new Commissioners were constantly coming into office and overthrowing what had been done by their predecessors. He now came to a very strange case, that fully illustrated his proposition. A very large sum of money was voted for the Duke of Wellington's funeral. After payment of all expenses a balance of £25,000 or £30,000 remained in the hands of the Government, and it was determined to erect a monument to the Duke in St. Paul's. But from that day to this they had heard nothing of the monument, and what had become of the money he knew not. It was not his intention to cast blame on any particular Commissioner of Works, and he believed that his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cowper) was anxious to discharge his duty as efficiently as possible;—what he blamed was the system. With regard to the Foreign Office, there was in 1838 the decision of a Committee that that buiding was not adequate for its purpose, and not even safe. Twenty-five years had since elapsed, and not a stone of any new Foreign Office had yet been laid; and yet what money had been squandered on plans and Commissions. For the Houses of Parliament the first estimate was £700,000, and very nearly £3,000,000 had been expended. What an unfavourable opinion many hon. Members entertained of the building they all knew. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had said that it was a disgrace to the country; and the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) declared that there were so many draughts in the House that he could not come down to it without putting on a pair of worsted stockings. The Record Office was incomplete, and was not to be completed, he understood;
358
and the records of the country were heaped up in old cellars and musty rooms not safe against fire. With respect to the War Office, a Select Committee had expressed the opinion that it should be placed in the neighbourhood of that House; the passages were so dark and intricate that no one could find his way through them—the reason the War Office was kept in Pall Mall was that the Secretary and Under Secretaries had agreeable apartments overlooking the Park. Under the present system there was a great waste of the public money, without any satisfactory result. He now came to one case which he believed would astonish the House. It was mentioned on a previous occasion by an hon. Member, and a more curious specimen of the mismanagement of public money he had never heard of. It appeared that it was proposed to place a floating light on the Little Basses Rocks, Ceylon, and the hon. Member to whom he alluded stated—
"These rocks were in the direct line of the steamers between Point de Galle and Madras, and as early as 1826 it was represented to the Government that they ought to be lighted. In 1848 the Government made up their minds to do something, and wrote to Ceylon for advice how lighthouses could be erected. Six years afterwards, in 1854, they got Reports showing that floating lights were impracticable, and strongly recommending the building of light-houses on both the Basses Rocks for the estimated sum of £4,500. In 1355 Parliament voted £3,000; in 1856 £17,000, and £6,000 for a steamer to carry the materials; in 1857, £8,000; in 1858, £10,000; and in 1859, £10,000; making a total of 54,000, for which there was never any other estimate than the one of £4,500. Even now the lighthouses were not put up, and he saw them on the wharf at Point de Galle. In 1860 they were told that they could not put up a light-house, and that they must have a floating light, which was in the first instance condemned. Accordingly, in 1861 the House voted 8,000, and in 1862, £2,000 more for a floating light. The money was not expended, and now they were asked to vote £8,000." [3 Hansard, clxxi. 551.] The whole of the sums made up a total of £80,000 voted for these lights, of which £54,000 was entirely wasted. Surely this was trifling with the public. On another point he must do his right hon. Friend justice. His right hon. Friend had not been quite satisfied with what he (Mr. Cochrane) had stated on a former occasion as to the Serpentine; and they had since driven together to see the fountains. Certainly the fountains were playing that day, and the water was pretty clear. But he was forced to say that the only things he really admired were the water lilies. The water in the Serpentine was perfectly

359
green; and if the right hon. Gentleman's friend bathed in the Serpentine, all he could say was, that if he took the colour of the water, he must come out very green. With respect to the monolith, they put a jet costing £300 eight feet above the level of the water. Next, as to the land sold at Carlton Gardens. He understood that land at Carlton Gardens had been sold for one-third of its value. Why had that property been so sold? He thought he was justified in making this Motion on the authority of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he could not for the life of him understand how the noble Lord could vote against the Resolution. The noble Lord had recently stated that the great commerce and population of the metropolis had tended to impair its architectural and ornamental character. "Our streets," he said, "are narrow, our open spaces few and small, our public buildings not showy. What is the reason of the inferiority of this city as compared with other first-rate towns in regard to the conditions of the space occupied and the character of the buildings?" His (Mr. Cochrane's) answer was, that the inferiority was owing to the organization of the Office of Works. Then again the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night, "For a long time it has been observed, and with rare unanimity, that every possible evil of vacillation, uncertainty, delay, expense, and many others that I need not now repeat, attend our method of management of those great questions of public works." ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in order in quoting extracts from speeches in a past debate.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he was sorry he was out of order. There would at least be no objection to his citing the opinion of a great and influential journal, whose articles on matters of taste were generally very just and accurate. The Times lately said—
"It is impossible to point to any public building which answers its purpose and satisfies the public. We possess many buildings which have their merits, and which, for our part, we cherish as monuments of taste and skill; but, for one reason or another, they are more or less costly failures, and so confessed to be. If they are not, the British people are a very complaining, unthankful race."
Were they to go on for ever in this way, year after year, doing nothing but discussing the subject, and thereby self-humiliating themselves before the world? Were
360
no steps to be taken to remedy the existing evils? Did the House know that nearly a million of money passed every year through the Office of Works? Since 1848 no less a sum than three millions sterling had been expended on arts and sciences, and the only return they had for it were "The Brompton Boilers," the National Gallery, and the additions to the British Museum—nothing else. It was not for him to say what should be done. The horn Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) had proposed that the First Commissioner should, as in France, be surrounded by a body of practical advisers. Had such a system been in operation, he did not believe that the scene of Thursday last would have been possible. Either the Council would have appreciated the objections to the building, or they would have recommended the purchase with such authority that it would have been at once agreed to. He thought he had proved his case, and had shown that something ought to be done, and he believed that the only remedy now was a strong Resolution of that House, such as that which he now begged to submit.
MR. FERRANDseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the large sums annually voted for Public Buildings and Improvements in the Metropolis are not expended in a satisfactory manner; and that, with a view to the efficiency of the Office of Works, it should be constituted on a different basis."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
MR. COWPERsaid, his hon. Friend was well known as a man of cultivated taste, and no doubt it was painful to him to see in the metropolis so many buildings which offended his fastidiousness. He wished, however, that his hon. Friend had taken a little more trouble to inquire into the cause of what distressed him. No doubt there were short-comings attributable to the existing Office of Works, but it was not responsible for many things that had been laid to its charge; and it was rather curious that all the instances which the hon. Member had cited to show the mismanagement of the Department, were cases for which it was not answerable. With regard to Burlington House, the original purchase money was £140,000: the purchase was completed in 1854; and, instead of being of no use, it had been very serviceable in accommodating various learned bodies, such as the Royal Society, the Senate of the University of London, the Chymical and Linnæan So-

361
cieties, and others, and in relieving Somerset House, which had previously been inconveniently occupied by those societies. If it had depended only on the Office of Works, the National Gallery would already have been erected on the site of Burlington Gardens; but the action of the Department depended on other and wider considerations. As to the National Gallery, it was certainly not a building to be proud of, but the Office of Works had had little little discretion in its construction. He might, perhaps, be permitted to say that with regard to that building the original fault was in spending too little money for such a building in such a position. The Government of the day were so economical that they first proposed to build the Gallery for £50,000. The Commission had recommended the use of stucco; but the then Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Monteagle, persuaded the House to add to the Vote the cost of stone. There could be no doubt, that a building of such a character in such a situation should have been more liberally treated. The hon. Gentleman had used Buckingham Palace to attack the Office of Works, but the Surveyor of Works had declared, in 1839, that Mr. Nash received his orders, not from the Office of Works, but from the Sovereign himself, or from the Treasury. His hon. Friend was at such a loss for materials for his Bill of indictment against the Department that he actually went to the Basses Rocks for a grievance, forgetting that it was the Board of Trade and the Admiralty which had jurisdiction over light-houses, and not the office of Works. The sale of land at Carlton Gardens was equally beyond the scope of his Department. The only accusations which at all came near them was as to the water in the Serpentine; and even there, if weeds would grow, he did not see how he could keep the water clean. He did not feel bound to stand up for the architectural features of the metropolis, but still it contained many satisfactory buildings. Where, for instance, was there a more handsome building than Somerset House? The Mint, Custom-house, Post Office, and Museum of Geology, were simple and substantial structures, very suitable for the purposes for which they were intended. His hon. Friend had included in his Motion the improvements in the metropolis; and had asked what improvements had been made? He (Mr. Cowper) might point to Cranbourne Street, New Oxford
362
Street, and the thoroughfares recently provided in connection with the Embankment of the Thames. But the hon. Gentleman had completely failed in showing the slightest connection between the complaints he had made and the constitution of the Office of Works. The hon. Member had not sufficiently considered what the Office of Works was. In early times it was a subordinate Board, consisting of architects. At one period it was composed of Sir Christopher Wren, Sir John Vanbrugh, a master mason, and a master carpenter. For a long time its powers were very limited. The Board, for example, could not expend £500 without the authority of the Lord Chamberlain; nor £1,000 without the sanction of the Treasury. In 1813 a public inquiry led to the appointment of General Stephenson as head of the Board and the responsible accountant. In 1832, for the first time, the office of Works was put under the control of a Minister of the Crown, and then matters were somewhat improved. Still, the system of a Board was not found to work well, and in 1851 the present constitution was adopted. The business of the Office was to maintain and repair about 120 buildings in England and 24 in Scotland. There were 17 parks and gardens to be looked after, and there were 80 post offices and 41 probate registries also to be kept up. Those were duties in the ordinary routine of the Office. The Office was likewise required, when any new and important improvements were contemplated, to prepare estimates and information for the guidance of Government and Parliament; and when the works were actually agreed upon, to select the architects, make the contracts, and see that no unnecessary expense was incurred. He ventured to say that there was no Office under the Crown conducted on a better method, with more accuracy, or with more efficiency. The system of accounts was generally acknowledged to be admirable, and the permanent officers were efficient. The Secretary was a permanent officer; Mr. Austin had managed the finances in a satisfactory manner; the consulting surveyor, Mr. Hunt, was thoroughly up to his business; and, besides the architect, the permanent staff comprised seven assistant surveyors, fifteen clerks of the works, and four superintendents of parks. But the assistance at the disposal of the office was not confined to the regular staff, for whenever there was occasion, the highest professional ta-

363
lent was sought for. At this moment, Mr. Scott was building a new Foreign Office, while the completion of the Houses of Parliament had been intrusted to the hands of Mr. Edwin Barry. Mr. Fowler was frequently consulted as an engineer, and on questions of landscape gardening the office had recourse to Mr. Nesfield, who, with rare disinterestedness, had given his services gratuitously. When the decay of the stone of the Houses of Parliament was under consideration, the office consulted Professor Faraday, Sir Roderick Murchison, and a commission of eminent geologists and chemists. In like manner, Professor Airey, had given his opinion on the clock and bells. The hon. Member wanted to make the head of the Office a permanent officer, and for that proposal be had the sanction of the Committee of 1860; but, it would be a retrograde movement, reducing the Office to the subordinate position it occupied before 1832. As long as the heads of the Treasury changed, no advantage could be derived from making the First Commissioner a permanent officer. The recommendation of the Committee was that the head of the Office should be permanent; and that the Department should be represented in Parliament by a sort of talking Minister. That experiment had recently been tried and had broken down in France, and he believed it would not be tolerated a single day in this country. How would hon. Members like to have their questions answered by a Minister who had no control over the Department which he represented, and for the doings of which he could not be held responsible? The alternative of a Board was also objectionable. Such a Board as the hon. Gentleman shadowed out—consisting of men of taste, science, and art—would not be a really effective administrative body—it would probably degenerate into a debating club. One reason why so many questions connected with the public offices remained in abeyance, was because they had had so many Committees and Commissions, entertaining such conflicting views that the Government of the day could not act upon their recommendations. The delays in regard to the Foreign Office were partly attributable to the Committees, five in number, which had sat upon that subject. Four Committees and two Commissions had sat upon the National Gallery; and with respect to the British Museum, he forgot how
364
many Committees and Commissions there had been. The House would make a great mistake if it agreed either to alter the constitution of the Office of Works, or to relegate it to a subordinate position, when it would be without any one directly to represent it in Parliament. In fact, the latter course would be quite unconstitutional. Every Department intrusted with the expenditure of public money must be represented either by its head or by its Secretary in that House. [An hon. MEMBER: The Office of Woods is not.] The Office of Woods did not come within the category to which he referred, because it did not expend, but only received, public money, and, like the other Revenue Departments, it was responsible to the Treasury. It would be inexpedient to weaken the authority of the Office of Works. The great misfortune of all these questions in relation to architecture and the promotion of the arts was, that there had been a want of authority in the Government to deal with them. They had been made the battle-field of rival pretenders to taste, and of antagonistic schools of art; and, instead of being grappled with seriously, they had been impeded and postponed by individual differences of opinion. In place, therefore, of going back in the direction suggested by the hon. Member, it would be better to strengthen and give more authority to the Office of Works. It might, indeed, be an advantage to the occupant of that office if permanence of tenure were added to its other attractions, and he was not liable to be displaced through the vicissitudes of political parties. But the House ought not to part with that influence and control over a Department intrusted with a large public expenditure to which it was legitimately entitled. Although, then, the hon. Gentleman had criticised some portion of the architectural performances of the Government in past days, he had not proved that there was any flaw in the constitution of the Office of Works, as it had existed since 1851, and therefore the House would do well not to sanction this Motion.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 116: Majority 92.

RECOVERY OF CHURCH RATES.

  LEAVE.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the recovery of church

  365
  rates. The noble Lord said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that before the second reading of the Bill brought in by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) for the abolition of church rates, he had given notice of Amendments to be moved in Committee, which he had not an opportunity of bringing forward, the Bill having been thrown out on the second reading. He had been advised to place his Amendments before the House in a more substantive form, and he had done so in the Bill which he now asked the House to allow him to introduce. The principle he wished to establish was this—that no penalty should henceforth attach to the non-payment of church rates, leaving the machinery for making and levying the rates as it at present existed. This Bill would, therefore, repeal all forms of levying a distress on any individual who might object to the payment of church rates, from any motive whatever. It might be said, this would amount to the abolition of church rates; but he did not think so. The parishioners would still meet in vestry and agree or not, just as at present, to a church rate. The whole principle of the connection between Church and State and the parochial system of self-government would still be preserved; but the Dissenter who objected to the payment of church rates would not have a penalty enforced against him. He believed as much money would thus be collected as at present, while the invidious system of "ticketing" Dissenters would not raise a barrier against their return to the Church. The system he recommended was already in operation and fast extending itself in all well regulated parishes. He did not, of course, anticipate that any progress would be made in the discussion of the measure this Session; but it might be quietly and dispassionately considered during the recess, and, if re-introduced next year, might form the basis of a settlement which would meet the views of moderate men, who did not wish that a question so deeply affecting the interests of the Church of England should be made the pack-fox, to be perpetually hunted from side to side. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. J. C. EWARTseconded the Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not wish to interfere with the attempt of the noble Lord to settle the question of church rates, but he was afraid he could not give him much hope of success in ab-
  366
  rogating all penalties in cases where parties refused to pay. He could not consent to the establishment of a principle which would deprive the parishioners of the means of recovering church rates, because it would be depriving them of the right of recovering that which was a charge upon property. He had always advocated the right of the parishioners to deal with that portion of the charge upon property, and could not consent to any measure which would deprive them of that right.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his noble Friend did not ask the House now to assent to the principle of the Bill. In assenting to its introduction no Member would be held committed to the principle of the measure. His noble Friend only wished that the Bill should be laid on the table for consideration during the recess, and on the understanding that the Bill was not to proceed further this Session he should not object to its introduction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Recovery of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Lord ALFRED CHURCHILL and Mr. JOSEPH EWART.

AZEEM JAH. NAWAB OF THE CARNATIC.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR FITZROY KELLY: * I feel that I shall not in vain solicit the attention and the indulgence of the House, when I state that the Motion which I have to make, for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of His Highness Azeem Jah to the title and dignity of Nawab of the Carnatic, involves at once the honour of the Crown and the good faith of the country. In 1801 a treaty, which I shall satisfy the House is now binding upon Her Majesty the Queen, was entered into between the East India Company, then the rulers of India, and Azeem-ul-Dowlah, under which that Prince was recognised as Nawab of the Carnatic; and His Highness granted and made over to the Company the entire administration of the civil and military affairs of the Carnatic, with the collection of its revenues, saving and reserving to the Nawab one-fifth of the amount, or about £116,000 a year, for the maintenance of his dignity, and the support of his family and dependents. The alliance between the Company and the Princes of this house had been cemented

  367
  and established by many previous treaties, and the Nawabs had from the earliest period of the modern history of Hindostan been ever found among the most faithful and effective of the allies of England. In 1749 Anwar-ood-Deen fell gallantly fighting side by side, with British soldiers, against the French, at the age of 104. His son and successor, Mahomet Ali, better known as Wallah Jah, throughout his reign, which lasted till 1795, stood by and supported the Company in all their long and sanguinary conflicts with the French, with Hyder Ali, and with Tippoo Sahib. Omdul-ul-Omrah, his son, was also the faithful ally of the Company until his death, in 1801. At that period the Company, who had for a quarter of a century struggled to obtain the command of the civil and military resources of the Carnatic—and who had now, with the powerful aid of this line of princes, overcome their enemies, and established peace throughout the Peninsula of India—thought this a fitting opportunity to obtain their long desired object. The Nawab had left a son, Ali Houssain, upon whose legitimacy some doubt existed, or was suggested by the Company themselves, and to him they proprosed the cession, virtually, of the Government of the Carnatic, by transferring to them the administration of its affairs and the collection of its revenues. The offer was unhesitatingly and peremptorily refused by Ali Houssain; but the nephew of Omdul, Azeem-ul-Dowlah, was prevailed upon to grant all that was demanded by the Company, upon the condition that he should be recognised as the Nawab of the Carnatic, with the reservation of the one-fifth of its revenues; and the treaty of the 31st of July 1801 was made. He died in 1819, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Azeem Jah, upon whose right of succession under the treaty no question was raised by the Government of India. In 1825 his son, then in his minority, Mahomed Ghouse Khan at once succeeded him without opposition, and without question. Throughout his minority, his uncle Azeem Jah, the Prince who now appeals to this House, assumed the office of guardian to his nephew, and was treated as such, and as presumptive heir to the Nawabship, by the Company and their officers throughout the Carnatic, until the death of Mahomed in 1855. Then, for the first time, the East India Company refused to fulfil the treaty, and to recognise the title of Azeem Jah to the succession, and declared that the treaty
  368
  existed for the life only of Azeem-ul-Dowlah. I have now to call the attention of the House to the language of this treaty. It is insisted by the Government that it endured only for the life of Azeem-ul-Dowlah; that his successors, for two or three generations, were recognised only as matter of grace and favour; and that it is now competent to them to consider the treaty at an end, and to degrade the hereditary Prince Azeem Jah to the condition of a subject and a dependent upon their bounty; but to retain to themselves the exclusive dominion of the Carnatic, its civil and military resources, and its revenues. I, on the other hand, have to submit to the House that the treaty is binding, as well on the British Government as on the Nawabs of the Carnatic, for all time to come; but that if it be otherwise, and if the treaty expired upon the death of Azeem-ul-Dowlah in 1819, although the Queen, who has assumed the rights and the position of the East India Company, may, as matter of policy, refuse to recognise Prince Azeem Jah, or any other particular individual as Nawab of the Carnatic, Her Majesty has ceased to possess the rights conveyed to the Company under the treaty over the subjects, or the affairs, or the resources, or the revenues of that country. And now for the treaty itself. It is entitled "A Treaty with Azeem-ul-Dowlah, 1801"—
  "Treaty for settling the Succession to the Soubahdarry of the Territories of Arcot, and for vesting the Administration of the Civil and Military Government of the Carnatic Pagen Ghaut, in the United Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies."
  "Whereas the several treaties which have been concluded between the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Highnesses heretofore Nabobs of the Carnatic, have been intended to cement and identify the interests of the contracting parties; and whereas, in conformity to the spirit of the alliance, the said Company did, by the treaty concluded on the 12th July 1792, with the late Nabob, Wallah Jah, relinquish extensive pecuniary advantages, acquired by the previous Treaty of 1787, with the view and on the consideration of establishing a more adequate security for the interests of the British Government in the Carnatic; and whereas subsequent experience has proved that the intention of the contracting parties has not been fulfilled by the provisions of any of the treaties heretofore concluded between them; and whereas the Musnud of the Soubahdarry of Arcot having become vacant, the Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah Bahadoor has been established by the English East India Company in the rank, property, and possessions of his ancestors, heretofore Nawabs of the Carnatic; and whereas the said Company and his Highness the said Prince

  369
  Azeem-ul-Dowlah Bahadoor have judged it expedient that additional provisions should at this time be made for the purpose of supplying the defects of all former engagements, and of establishing the connection between the said contracting parties on a permanent basis of security, in all times to come; wherefore the following treaty is now established and concluded by Edward Lord Clive, by and with the sanction and authority of the Marquess Wellesley, K. P., Governor General, on behalf of the said United Company on the one part, and his Highness the Nawab Azeem-ul-Dowlah, on his own behalf, on the other part, for settling the succession to the Soubahdarry of the territories of Arcot, and for vesting the administration of the Civil and Military Government of the Carnatic in the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies.
  Article I. The Nawab Azeem-ul-Dowlah Bahadoor is hereby formally established in the state and rank, with the dignities dependent thereon, of his ancestors, heretofore Nawabs of the Carnatic, and the possession thereof is hereby guaranteed by the Honourable East India Company to his said Highness Azeem-ul-Dowlah Bahadoor, who has accordingly succeeded to the Soubahdarry of the territories of Arcot.
  "Article II. Such parts of the treaties heretofore concluded between the said East India Company and their Highnesses heretofore Nawabs of the Carnatic, as are calculated to strengthen the alliance, to cement the friendship, and to identify the interests of the contracting parties, are hereby renewed and confirmed, and accordingly, the friends and enemies of either are the friends and enemies of both parties."
  It will be observed, in the first place, that this is a treaty for settling the succession to the Soubahdarry of Arcot, and for vesting the administration of the civil and military government of the Carnatic in the Company. I would ask if this be consistent with a treaty to expire with the life of a man who might have died the next day or the next hour? The settling of the succession in the Nawab, and the Testing of the administration of the Carnatic in the Company, are equally, and in the same language, and to the same effect, provided for by the treaty. Was the succession to cease, and the Government of the Carnatic to continue against the will of the Nawabs, and at the pleasure of the Company? Again, the Prince is established "in the rank, property, and possessions of his ancestors, heretofore Nawabs of the Carnatic." Does that indicate a temporary, or an hereditary succession? The treaty is made "to establish the connection between the contracting parties on a permanent basis of security in all times to come." Is, then, the treaty to last in all times to come, in favour and for the benefit of the Company, but to cease to the prejudice of the Prince, with his life? In the first article the Nawab
  370
  is established "in the state, rank, and dignities of his ancestors;" and in Article 2, to which I entreat special attention, it is expressly provided that "such parts of former treaties as are calculated to strengthen the alliance, to cement the friendship, and to identify the interests of the contracting parties, are renewed and confirmed." Now, it is essential to observe what former treaties, and with what effect, are hereby confirmed. And first, by the Treaty of 1768, reciting that the Emperor Shah Allum had granted to Wallah Jah, his eldest son, and their heirs for ever, the government of the Carnatic, the East India Company, in conjunction with the Nawab, agrees with the Soubah of the Deccan that the Nawab Wallah Jah, his son, and their heirs, in succession, shall enjoy for ever the government of the Carnatic. This treaty being confirmed and incorporated with the Treaty of 1801, how can it be said that the Company had not recognised the hereditary right of the heirs and successors of Wallah Jah to the Government of this country? Then again, by the Treaty of 1787, the company and Wallah Jah, for himself, his heirs and successors, to place the defence and protection of the Carnatic on a solid and lasting foundation, agree that certain forts shall be placed in the hands of the Company, large subsidies paid to them, certain of the revenues consigned to them, and that for the satisfaction of the Nawab, his heirs and successors, an account shall be annually furnished. In 1792 another treaty by the Nawab in his own name, and for himself and his successors, to which Omdul-ul-Omrah was a party, binding also his own heirs, from the beginning to the end imports endurance and perpetuity. These treaties, then, being all made part of the Treaty of 1801, it becomes impossible for this country or the Crown to contend that the contract with the Nawab was otherwise than hereditary and perpetual. Then by the Treaty of 1801 itself, in Article 4, the administration of the civil and military governments of all the territories and dependencies of the Carnatic are for ever vested in the Company; and by Article 5, one-fifth part of the revenues of the Carnatic are to be annually allotted for the maintenance and support of the Nawab and his family. And now it is contended that the grant of the Carnatic and its resources and revenues to the Company is perpetual, but the reservation of the one-fifth of the revenues to the Nawab ex-

  371
  pires with his life. No Parliament, no court of law, no man of honour and intelligence, no tribunal on the face of the earth can maintain so dishonest, so senseless, so impossible a construction. But let us see how this treaty was considered, what interpretation was put on it by the highest authorities of Great Britain on the one side, and of India and its Princes on the other, at the time and after the time when the treaty was made. Upon the accession of the Nawab in 1801 a proclamation was issued by the Company in which His Highness the Nawab Azeem-ul-Dowlah is said to have
  "succeeded to the hereditary rights of his father, and by the full acknowledgment of the Honourable Company, to the possession of the said Musnud, that their mutual engagements are unconditional, and liable to no change whatever; and that they shall last as long as the sun and moon shall endure."
  The barons, noblemen, grandees, and great officers of state are required to yield due obedience to the Company "by virtue of the rights and powers acquired to the said Company by compact with the present lawful Nawab of the Carnatic." So by a declaration, Fort St. George, 1801, to the native courts of Hyderabad and Poonah, and to the Governors of Bombay and Ceylon—
  "His Highness Prince Azeem-ul-Dowlah having entered into engagements for the express purpose of reviving the alliance between the Company and his illustrious ancestors, the British Government has now resolved on supporting and establishing the hereditary pretensions of the Prince."
  Lord Clive himself, then Governor of Madras, on the 18th December 1801, addressing the members of the family of the Nawab, said, "that the new arrangement was made to preserve to that respectable family its ancient rank among the princes of Hindostan;" and also, "that His Highness succeeded to the rights of his illustrious ancestors, heretofore the Nawabs of the Carnatic;" adding, "and it is my especial duty to resist every attempt to violate the principles of the alliance now firmly and perpetually established." And Lord Clive again, in 1803, recorded in a minute of his office, that—
  "An arrangement was therein proposed for their consideration, intended to secure to his Highness and his family the honours and immunities enjoyed by his predecessors, heretofore Nawabs of the Carnatic, under provisions of public treaties."
  But one of the most remarkable proofs of the hereditary character and effect of this treaty is afforded by the fact, that the
  372
  Prince having addressed an autograph letter to George III., in which he expressly states, "In virtue of my right of inheritance derived from my grandfather and father, the Company were pleased to install me in the Musnud of the Carnatic." His Majesty King George III. replied—
  "We congratulate your Highness on your accession to the Musnud of your ancestors. Your Highness may be assured that we shall seize every occasion of affording you proofs of regard, and of continuing to your Highness, and to your family, our special friendship and protection."
  It is little to add that that Prince addressed most of the Native Powers of India with whom he had ever been in communication, informing them that he had succeeded by hereditary right and title, to the rank and the dominions of his ancestors; and the East India Company, by every public act and declaration, affirmed this view and interpretation of the treaty, and of the relation subsisting between them and the Nawab, until in our own times, to the dishonour and discredit of the Government of England, the treaty was repudiated or perverted from its real effect, and the claim was made to retain all that was granted to great Britain, and to withhold and to confiscate all that belonged and was reserved to the Princes of the Carnatic. But it was not only at the time of the treaty, but when the Musnud descended upon the issue of Azeem-ul-Dowlah, that the Company continued to recognise the perpetual operation of the treaty. In 1819, Azeem-Jah, the eldest son of Azeem-ul-Dowlah, was proclaimed as his successor in the rank and title of Nawab and Soubahdar of the Carnatic, and he was informed by the Government of India that "a new treaty was unnecessary, as the Governor General considered his Highness to be ipso facto a party to the treaty concluded with his father in 1801." If this be so with the eldest son, upon what conceivable pretence can it be alleged that the second son, upon the death of the eldest and his issue, is not likewise ipso facto a party to that treaty? The Governor of Madras addressed the son of Azeem-ul-Dowlah in these words—
  "It is with infinite satisfaction I have the honour to congratulate your Highness upon ascending the Musnud in the direct line of succession to your late father, of blessed memory."
  Sir Thomas Munro, the Governor of Madras, some time afterwards, in a Government minute declares—
  "By the 10th article the rank of the Nawab, as a Prince, and as an ally of the British Govern-

  373
  ment is declared. No change in the political situation of the Nawab has taken place since 1801. He is still Prince of the Carnatic, and he is a party to the treaty, by which one-fifth part of the revenue is secured to him. Without a breach of the treaty we cannot, except with his consent, alter any one of the articles. The Nawab is still Prince of the Carnatic, and reserves in that capacity one-fifth of the net revenue."
  The acts of the State upon the death of Azeem Jah, which took place in 1825, are quite conclusive to this effect. They announced—
  "His Highness Gholam Mahomed Ghouse, only son of His Highness Azeem Jah Bahadoor, was on the 22nd September 1825 proclaimed successor to his deceased father in the rank and title of Nawab Soubadhar. During the minority of the Nawab the affairs of the Durbar will be conducted y His Highness Azeem Jah Bahadoor, brother of the late Nawab, with the title of Naib-i-Mooktar (Regent)."
  Again, in a letter from the Court of Directors of the 14th January 1829: "The Nawab being an infant, and in declining health, and the Naib-i-Mooktar being next heir, in case of his demise," and so forth. And in July 1829 the Directors expressed their approval of certain proceedings "on the ground of the Naib-i-Mooktar being the next heir, in the case of the decease of his nephew Mahomed Ghouse Khan." And, indeed, as late as 1843 the Marquess of Tweeddale writes upon some question of precedence that had arisen—
  "His Lordship in Council observes that His Highness Azeem Jah Bahadoor does not hold the place in list No. 1, to which he is entitled in consideration of the position he legally occupied in communication with the British Government, and of that he still holds in relation to His Highness the Nawab, and to his succession to the Musnud."
  It is impossible, after the publication to the world of these acts of state and solemn declarations, for the Government of this country to contend that the treaty expired with the life of Azeem-ul-Dowlah. If we can imagine for a moment a treaty in such terms between England and Russia, or England and France, or England and the United States, what Member of this House, what gentleman in all England, will step forward and say that the Government would dare to contend that the treaty was perpetual as to all that it conferred upon this country, but that it expired with the life of the reigning Sovereign of France, or of Russia, or with the Presidency of the President of the United States? If therefore, the treaty ceased with the life of Azeem-ul-Dowlah, when and how did Great Britain become possessed of the civil and military resources, and of the
  374
  revenues of the Carnatic? But the late East India Company took a different and a strange view of the effect of this treaty. In 1855, without cause assigned, without explanation, they rejected the claim of the Prince to be recognised as Nawab of the Carnatic; for two years they left him without an answer to his application, and at length insulted him with an offer of £10,000 a year, upon condition that he would submit to a degradation from his princely rank and become one of the millions of the subjects of the British Crown in India. This offer was afterwards increased to £15,000 a year; but it also was rejected, with that respect, indeed, with which the princes of this race have ever addressed the representatives of the British Crown, but with the indignation becoming an independent Sovereign upon such an occasion. This unfortunate Prince is thus reduced to indigence and to dependence, and unable to obtain justice at the hands of the Company, and I lament to add, of the Crown; he appeals to the last tribunal existing under the Constitution—the British House of Commons. The question under the treaty of 1801 was whether it was binding on the East India Company during the life only of the party to the treaty, Azeem-ul-Dowlah, or during the lives of his successors; and if a Committee were granted, I should satisfy them that if it expired with Azeem-ul-Dowlah in 1819 as far as the provisions for his benefit were concerned, it also expired at the same time as far as regarded the benefits derived under it by the East India Company. If the right of the family to the Nawabship had ceased on his death in 1819, so likewise did the right of the Company to the revenues of the Carnatic; and the Government had no more claim to them and to the administration of the country than the Emperor of China, or any other foreign Sovereign. I have carefully considered the numerous minutes and papers, which, though never communicated to the Prince, have at last been laid upon the table of this House; but I have been unable to find a single statement or argument in support of the refusal to recognise the rights of this family. The grounds, whatever they may have been, on which the Government of India have based their unworthy and dishonest policy in reference to the Nawab, have never been made known to that Prince. He has been treated with cold indifference, and with contemptuous silence. He is utterly igno-

  375
  rant to this hour of the reasons alleged for the degradation to which he has been subjected. It may, indeed, be said that the existence of these nominal and unreal sovereignties in India is contrary to the policy which has been adopted by our Government there, and perhaps occasionally to some extent approved by the Parliament of this country; and I do not deny that much inconvenience may result from the existence of a Prince with a court, and family, and retinue, above and beyond the law, in the midst of a great native population, subject to the dominion of the British Crown. I cannot, however, admit that the first principles of justice and of international good faith are to be sacrificed to any considerations of policy or of expediency; but I do not hesitate to say, although I have no direct authority from the Nawab of the Carnatic, that I am persuaded His Highness would be ready to agree to any arrangement with the British Crown, consistent with his honour and his dignity, under which his family and dependants might be brought at once within the protection and under the control of the law. Then it has been said that proofs have been found to exist of some correspondence, miscalled treasonable, between the father, or the grandfather, or the great-grandfather of the Nawab, and Tippoo Sahib; but I utterly deny the truth of these allegations, and am ready to submit the charge to the most searching investigation; and the more so, that no impartial writer upon the events of that period has been found to support these unworthy accusations on the part of the East India Company. Mr. Mill, in his history of India, expressly says—
  "Not only does this evidence afford no proof of a criminal correspondence with Tippoo on the part of the Nawab, but the total inability of the English to procure further evidence, with all the records of the Mysore Government in their hands, and all the living agents of it within their absolute power, is a proof to the contrary; since it is not credible that the criminal correspondence should have existed and not have left more traces of itself.'"
  But that I would not detain the House, I could confirm this remarkable historical statement by the testimony of all the highest officers of the Crown, or the Company in India, from the beginning to the end of the eventful reigns of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sahib. And even if it were true, that at this remote period the ancestors of the Prince had been unfaithful to the British cause, is their offence to be visited, at the distance
  376
  of more than half a century, upon their unoffending descendants? So it has been insinuated, rather than asserted, that the Prince has led an immoral or a discreditable domestic life. He denies the charge; and he is ready to meet it, here or elsewhere, by whomsoever preferred, and by whatever evidence it may be sought to be supported. I have little more to say. The Prince appeals from the injustice or the malice of his enemies, to the testimony of his fellow-countrymen and his neighbours, who have been witnesses to the fidelity with which, in the most trying times, and especially during the late mutiny, he has adhered with spotless honour and unswerving good faith to his engagements with the British Government, and to the British Crown. His case is supported by Petitions in his favour from tens of thousands of his countrymen, at Madras and elsewhere in the Carnatic. He appeals with confidence to this House, to the Crown, and to the country, and I trust that his appeal will not be made in vain. I beg to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the claims of His Highness Azeem Jah to the title and dignity of Nawab of the Carnatic; and otherwise in respect of the Treaty entered into between His Highness's father Azeem-ul-Dowlah and the East India Company, on the 31st day of July, 1801, and the circumstances attending the same."
  MR. SMOLLETTrose to second the Motion, and said that in this case the East India Company had been guilty of an act of gross political turpitude.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—on Prison Discipline * (No. 37).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Vaccination (Scotland)* (No 193); Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Provisional Order)*(No. 194); Prisons (Ireland)* (No. 195); Stipendiary Magistrates* (No. 196).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision [H.L.] (No. 133); Port Erin Harbour (Isle of Man)* (No. 169); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (No. 164); Militia Ballots Suspension * (No. 190); Walmer Vesting* (No. 167).
Report of Select Committee—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Bill* (Nos. 197 & 198).
Committee—Sheep and Cattle (Scotland)* (No. 144); Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) (Nos. 179 & 199); Thames Embankment (South Side) * (No. 162); Passengers Act Amendment * (No. 163).
Report—Passengers Act Amendment.
Third Reading—Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) (No. 72); Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal (No. 153); and severally passed.

GREECE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYwished to repeat a Question to the noble Earl the

339
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which he put several weeks ago. He then asked, Whether, with reference to the military insurrection at Athens, and the general anarchy prevailing there, the noble Earl would present to Parliament the Report of our Minister at Athens, Mr. Scarlett, of the 4th of May last, as to the state of that country? It had been alleged that Mr. Scarlett had stated that "anarchy, in its most hideous form, reigns at Athens," and he believed the British Minister had stated, that if the same condition of things continued, the French Minister and himself would be compelled to leave Athens. He should like to know if there was any reason why Parliament should not be put in possession of the opinions of our Minister on this subject?
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that he would look over the despatches which had been received from Mr. Scarlett, and see whether there were any of them, not included in the papers alrealy before Parliament, which could be produced.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that of course the noble Earl could have no objection to produce in an official form that which was a public act of our Minister, and had been received and replied to by the Government of Greece.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL— [H.L.]

  (NO. 133.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in requesting their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, he felt it incumbent on him to state that, from its very nature, it must of necessity be accepted by their Lordships on trust, relying on the fidelity, industry, and skill of the persons who had been employed in preparing it. The Bill had been the work of some years. The mere examination of the questionable points had occupied himself and his auxiliaries a considerable time. His only object now was, to give their Lordships a brief account of the system on which they had proceeded, in the hope of engaging their Lordships' confidence and trust in the fidelity and accuracy of the performance. It was his desire, in the first place, that against every enactment proposed to be repealed the reasons for its repeal should be given with some minuteness, in a column furnished for the purpose of affording that information. Such a column had been
  340
  inserted. It had been proposed, indeed, before the Committee, to strike out that column; but after the great care and pains which had been taken to examine every part of each statute, which it was proposed to sweep out of the statute book, he trusted that proposal would not be carried into effect. The House would see, by looking over the number of pages in the schedule, and seeing the manner in which the column was worded, how great had been the pains taken to examine every particular of the enactments it was proposed to sweep away from the statute book. The statutes to be repealed consisted of such statutes as were obsolete, such as had expired, and such as had been generated by a state of things and a condition of society which had long passed away. They had accordingly divided in the schedule the enactments which were to be swept away into the general heads of those that had expired, those that were spent, those that had been repealed by the operation of general terms, those that were virtually repealed, those that had been superseded, and those that had become obsolete. The gentlemen who had been engaged in this arduous work, had by his direction, from time to time prepared cases containing statements of any questions or suggestions of doubt which arose in their examination of the statutes; and he held in his hand a fasciculus of these papers, which he exhibited, not for the purpose of magnifying the work and labour which had been gone through, but for the purpose of assuring their Lordships that every point, every minute doubt and difficulty had been examined with the greatest care, by himself and the Law Officers. He came to their Lordships with more confidence in the hope that they would accept this large instalment of the revision of the statute law, because in the year 1861 his predecessor in the Great Seal had presented a similar statute, prepared on the footing of an anterior measure, which their Lordships accepted as a small instalment of the work that had yet to be done. In the prosecution of the present work, he and his fellow labourers had founded their proceedings, in a great degree, upon a very remarkable document, which he (the Lord Chancellor) could not help thinking had been prepared under the immediate auspices of Lord Bacon, now in the British Museum—a volume which was referred to in the introduction to the edition of the statutes published by the

  341
  Record Commissioners, and which particularized the statutes that had been repealed and had expired from the 3rd Edward I. to the 7th James I. So far as it went, this volume was of great assistance. The manuscripts which had been prepared, in consequence of the original proposal of Lord Chancellor Cranworth in August 1853, had also been followed; and there were some other documents which existed in their Lordships' library, and which had been prepared at their direction for the purpose of expurgating the statute law. He wished to assure their Lordships that no means had been neglected, or labour spared, in order that this extensive sweeping away of what remained on the statute book should be correct and perfect in its details. It was quite impossible that a work of this kind could be done in any other way than this. A further ground of confidence might be derived from the fact that since the passing of the former Act in 1861 no inaccuracy or error had been detected in it.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, their Lordships, he thought, could have no difficulty in assenting to the proposition of his noble and learned Friend. He fully concurred in the statement that this was a measure precisely of that nature which called upon their Lordships generally to show confidence in those to whom the execution of the Work had been confided. Their Lordships, however, were aware that this was a very small instalment of a work which had now been going on for some years for the purpose of preparing an edition of the statutes that were in effective operation. He believed that a codification of our laws was an impracticable object. The decisions of the Judges were what gave the interpretation to the statutes, and so eager were the profession to obtain the last decisions that they were willing to make use of reports by unauthorized reporters because they were published sooner than the regular reports. Any attempt to codify the decision given in the judgments of the Judges was utterly impracticable. The Judges took great pains to give at length the grounds and reasons for the judgments which they pronounced, so as to satisfy all men that their judgment was mature, that it was founded upon authorities, and that it was justified by principles. Any set of men who were competent to revise those judgments, to correct that which was mistaken, and to reconcile that which was
  342
  conflicting, would be worthy of seats in their Lordships' House; but he was inclined to think that to embody their mere opinions in an Act of Parliament would not be a satisfactory way to deal with the carefully-prepared judgments of the Judges, and that it would be better to leave the task of revision to the Exchequer Chamber and the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. As he was one who objected to a code, it was satisfactory to know that there were so many difficulties in the way that they were not likely to have it; but, at the same time, he approved the preparation of a revised and expurgated edition of the statutes.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that any Bill of this nature, embracing a vast number of technical points, and extending over 200 pages, could neither be dealt with in detail by a Select Committee nor by the House itself, but must be taken to a great extent upon trust. All that could be done by their Lordships was to give it a general supervision, and then send it to the other House of Parliament, where he trusted it would be received with equal confidence. To insist on going into every separate provision would only be a roundabout way of refusing to have any revision of the statute book at all. The question was, did they wish for a consolidation of the statute law and a digest or not? He entirely concurred in what had been said with reference to the care taken in the preparation and the ability displayed in the judgment of the Common Law Judges. They had often heard, from no less a man than Jeremy Bentham, that the judgments of our Common Law Courts formed an invaluable repository of the laws of the land, and he could not help thinking that a digest of those judgments showing their application to the different points of law decided, and to the varying circumstances of the cases which had come before the Judges, would be of the greatest possible advantage, not only to the profession, but to the public at large. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the noble and learned Lord had proposed to review the judgments of the Courts; for, of course, that could only be done by the appellate jurisdiction, or by the Legislature. The Commission proposed by his noble and learned Friend would confine its labours to a digest of the matter and substance contained in various bodies of Reports. He hoped that ere long we should have a Department of Justice—a measure

  343
  which had been supported by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and in favour of which a unanimous Vote of the House of Commons had been recorded.
  LORD CRANWORTHwished to express not only his concurrence with the Bill, but also a somewhat more confident hope than had been indulged in by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonard's), as to the completion of this work. There had already, under a Bill introduced by the late Lord Campbell, been a revision of the statutes repealed since 1770. Now it was proposed to deal with all the statutes from Magna Charta down to the reign of James II. There would then remain an interval of only some eighty years to complete the revision of the statutes. It was true that the statutes of those years would not be dealt with quite so easily as those which formed the subject of the present Bill; but he recommended that with regard to these statutes a digest should be commenced such as that which had been set on foot when he was Lord Chancellor. In his opinion, such a digest was an absolutely necessary preliminary to a consolidation of the statute law.
  LORD CHELMSFORDagreed in thinking it impossible that a laborious work of this kind could be performed in any other way than that adopted. A former Bill on this subject was referred by the House of Commons to a Select Committee. Of course, at this period of the Session, that would be impossible with regard to this Bill. He suggested that the portions of the Bill in which reasons were given for the proposed repeal of the several statutes should be printed in red ink with a view to facilitate the labours of the House of Commons in dealing with the measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed that these Reasons, which it was intended should be ultimately struck out of the Bill, should go down to the House of Commons as part of the measure. With regard to the other part of his plan, he only desired to do that which almost every State in America had already done—namely, to make a digest of the whole of their law, imcluding the law contained in the reports of cases. That work had been the standard law of the land from that time until now, with the approbation of all classes of the community. He was sorry that his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonard's) who had spoken on this part of his scheme had left the House, because he was going to appeal to an authority whom his noble
  344
  and learned Friend could hardly dispute—he would appeal from Lord St. Leonard's to Sir Edward Sugden. Sir Edward Sugden had been the great codifier, condenser, and digester of reports on given subjects. In his admirable treatises he had canvassed the decisions and marked the cases that were objectionable and unfit to be cited as law, and the result was that the Judges both in law and equity were in the habit of saying upon the class of cases treated by his noble and learned Friend, "You will find the whole law in Sir Edward Sugden's Treatise." If that had been done with regard to certain subjects, undoubtedly it could be accomplished in an equally satisfactory manner with regard to other subjects by a learned body of men appointed for the purpose.
  LORD BROUGHAM, on the part of his noble and learned Friend who had left the House (Lord St. Leonard's), wished to say he was convinced that if his noble and learned Friend were present, he would admit that what he had done was all very well for a text writer. But what his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack proposed to have produced was an authoritative work, binding on the courts with the force of an Act of Parliament.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS) BILL—(No. 179.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF DEBBY: My Lords, I am not disposed in any way to object to this Bill, which I think is founded on a right principle, and is calculated to afford considerable relief in the manufacturing districts. But perhaps I may be allowed to call the attention of the House to the state of affairs which exists in those districts at the present moment, with the view of showing what it is we have to do, and what are the prospects for the coming autumn and winter. From a Report presented to the Central Committee yesterday by Mr. Maclure, the hon. Secretary, it is gratifying to find that there has been a very great increase of employment in the mills during the last month. So great has that increase been that it has enabled no less than forty-seven local committees to suspend operations for the present. From reliable information which

  345
  he has received, Mr. Maclure is led to believe, that out of the 55,362 operatives resident in the districts in which committees acted, about 25,690 are working full time and 16,801 short time. In the districts in which local committees are still continuing their labours there are 2,874 more operatives working full time than were so working last month. Mr. Maclure concludes by stating—
  "It must not be forgotten that this is in addition to the 13,451 operatives who were reported to have obtained full work during the month of May; and it is now certain, that out of those persons usually employed in the mills in the cotton districts," about 234,642 are in full work, 125,097 short time, and 180,729 out of work, against 192,527 full time, 129,741 short time, and 215,512 out of work in the last week of April."
  Gratifying as this report is, it nevertheless shows that there is a large number of the population still out of employment. It appears that there are no fewer than 180,729 persons at present out of work—a fact which must cause us no little anxiety and apprehension in regard to the coming winter. The House and the country are hardly aware, I think, of the efforts made to relieve the distress during the last twelve months; but, as a circumstance which is highly creditable to the good feeling of the nation, I cannot help calling attention to it. Excluding what has been done by private charity, of which there is no public record, and of which the public never can be fully informed—excluding what has been done by means of those efforts, but including £150,000 spent in the purchase of articles of clothing and food—of relief given in kind—the subscription for the last year amount to £1,900,000. I call your Lordships' attention to these facts in order that you may not be led away with the idea that the large sums now in hand will be more than sufficient, or will be sufficient, for the relief of the distress which is likely to prevail during the next winter. I have reason to believe, that excluding a sum of about £80,000 at the disposal of the Mansion House Committee, there still remains in hand, including subscriptions promised but not yet paid in, available for the purposes of the Central Committee and of those committees depending on it, a sum of about £600,000. It is a great step gained that the amount expended by the relief committees has been reduced from something like £90,000 to £53,000 a month. That is the amount now expended by the various relief committees, exclusive of the
  346
  assistance from the poor-houses. If that monthly expenditure were not increased, it would enable us to supply the demand for another twelve months; but at the end of twelve months the funds will in that case be altogether exhausted. I believe we cannot expect the public to make such another effort as that which they made last year, and the resources of the operatives themselves are at present reduced to the lowest point. And, my Lords, I am apprehensive that we cannot take £53,000 per month as the amount which will be required, because there is now very considerable outdoor work, which we cannot expect to see continue during the autumn and winter; besides which there are many mills at work which are not likely to continue working. Therefore, I think the prospect which is before us calls for a very careful husbanding of our resources. Large as the amount on hand may appear, it is hardly adequate to meet the demands which are likely to be made on it; and therefore a Bill like this, which will remove many of the difficulties which we have had in finding employment, in finding occupation for the distressed operatives, and thus guarding against the demoralization that arises from idleness, must be acceptable to those who have taken a part in the administration of relief to our suffering fellow-countrymen. As a general rule, the intervention of the Government, in matters of this kind, may not be considered desirable; but this Bill is an exception which, under the circumstances, demands our approval. There are one or two points on which I may say a word in Committee; but, approving as I do the principle of the Bill, I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any further observations on the general character of its provisions, or on the circumstances which render it advisable that we should pass such a measure before the coming autumn and winter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was glad that his noble Friend had taken that opportunity of making the statement they had just heard with regard to the condition of the distressed districts. The noble Earl deserved the highest admiration for the services he had rendered to the distressed districts in this crisis, and it was most satisfactory to the Government that their Bill should have the support of men like him. There had undoubtedly been considerable improvement in the condition of the people, but still he believed that it

  347
  would require great energy on the part of the local authorities to meet the exigencies of the ensuing winter.
  House in Committee.
  The several clauses of the Bill were agreed to, with little discussion, with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 199.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.