Sitting of 14 May 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — Edward O'Neill, esquire, for Antrim.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading—Election Petitions* [Bill 124]; Costs Security* [Bill 126]; Port Erin Harbour (Isle of Man)* [Bill 123]; Execution of Decrees* [Bill 125].
Second Reading—Volunteers [Bill 108]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance * [Bill 117].
Committee—Thames Embankment (North Side) [Bill 94] (on Re-Committal); London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [Bill 27]; Vaccina-

1689
tion (Ireland) [Bill 70]; Sale of Mill Sites, &c. (Ireland)* [Bill 105]; English Church Services in Wales (Lords) [Bill 81] (on Re-Committal) —R.P.
Report— Thames Embankment (North Side) [Bill 94]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [Bill 27]; Vaccination (Ireland) [Bill 70]; Sale of Mill Sites, &c. (Ireland)* [Bill 105].
Considered as amended—Prison Ministers [Bill 24].
Third Reading — Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Winding-up Act (1861) Amendment* [Bill 93], and passed.

CAPTAIN SIR WILLIAM WISEMAN,

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the report that Captain Sir William Wiseman, R.N., who lately was Vice President of the Ordnance Select Committee, is about to be sent to a distant command? In putting this question he had no wish to cast any imputations upon this distinguished Officer, but merely regretted that his services would be no longer available in the position which he lately filled.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that Sir William Wiseman had been offered, and had accepted, the Commodore-ship of the Australian station. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the great merits of this distinguished Officer, and it was not with any wish to shelve him that this appointment had been conferred upon him. But Captain Wiseman had not served his time afloat, and it was proper that so distinguished an Officer should receive such a command.

WRECK OF THE "ANGLO-SAXON."

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any detailed Report has been made to his Department of the loss of the Anglo-Saxon steamship, from Londonderry to Quebec, on the 27th April, and whether the circumstances of that lamentable event are correctly stated in the Public Press; also, whether the Government has ever refused permission for the use of Daboll's Fog Trumpet upon Cape Race in Newfoundland; and, if so, what were the grounds of such refusal?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that no detailed statement had been made to the Board of Trade in reference to the loss of the Anglo-Saxon, and the full par-
  1690
  ticulars of that melancholy event would not be known until the arrival of the next mail. With regard to the other question put by the hon. Gentleman, he had to say that last year the Associated Press of New York made a proposal to erect one of Daboll's Fog Trumpets on Cape Race, but it was not thought desirable by the Colonial Government or by the Government at home that a foreign company should occupy a site there for that purpose. The Board of Trade, however, had urged upon the steam shipowners the necessity of erecting some adequate fog signal upon that important headland. They had the power of erecting such a signal by imposing a toll upon the shipping which passed the Cape, but the shipowners stated, that although they would like a fog signal there, they would not like to be put to any expense for the maintenance of it. It had always been the practice when a toll was proposed to be placed for the first time upon the shipping interest, to consult that interest before taking such a step. With regard to the particular signal mentioned, it was not certain that it was a good description of fog signal, audit was most important in putting up a warning on any Cape or headland that it should be of a kind that could be relied upon, because if a signal were put up, it became an inducement to ships to venture nearer to the land than they otherwise would, and then, failing in hearing the signal, they would get ashore. Quite recently a steamer struck near Holyhead, though during a fog a gun was fired at intervals from the top of the mountain. A gun, however, had been thought the best signal, and it was a gun that was proposed to be placed on Cape Race when the attention of the shipowners was called to the subject. Daboll's invention was under the consideration of the Trinity Board in this country; and the Foreign Office also, feeling the importance of the question, applied at the close of last year to the United States Government for a Report from their Lighthouse Board as to the merits of this invention. The Report was, that it promised well, that they thought it worthy of a trial, but they did not go the length of saying that its value had been sufficiently proved to warrant its erection on so important a headland as Cape Race.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to know whether the usual investigation would take place by the Board of Trade into the cause of this wreck?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there was very little doubt on that point, but he could

  1691
  not answer the question until the circumstances of the case were officially before the Department.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL— [BILL 24.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 3 (Additional Ministers in Prisons and Regulation as to Admission of Minister).
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he objected to impose on the ratepayers of the country what he believed would prove a most onerous and oppressive tax, and one which would be most distasteful to the great majority of them. He would therefore propose in Clause 3, the omission of the following words:—
  "And they may, if they think fit, award to him a reasonable sum as a recompense for his services, such sum to be deemed a part of the expenses of the prison to which he is appointed, and to be paid out of the funds legally applicable to the payment of such expenses."
  MR. PACKEsaid, he would second the Motion. When he proposed a similar Resolution in Committee on the Bill, he was asked what alternative he would propose. His answer now was, that he would leave the chaplains so appointed to be paid for the duties they fulfilled in the prisons in the same way as they were paid for the duties they fulfilled out of the prisons. No Dissenters or Roman Catholics were paid out of public funds for their work out of gaols, and he saw no reason why they should be paid for their work in the gaols. If the Amendment were carried, he should be prepared to move words to the effect that recompense for the services of the chaplains who might be appointed should be paid out of voluntary contributions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word "persuasion" to the end of the Clause.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Amendment very closely resembled that introduced by the hon. Member for Leicestershire the other evening, and rejected by a considerable majority of the House, and he must therefore oppose it on that occasion.
  MR. MAGUIREwished to correct a mistaken inference which might be drawn from a statement made on a previous evening by the hon. and learned Member for Bute (Mr. Mure). That hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there were 173
  1692
  Catholic prisoners in the Glasgow gaol, and that not more than three of those had been visited by a Roman Catholic clergyman. On reading that statement he (Mr. Maguire) had written to the Catholic bishop of Glasgow in reference to it. The right rev. Dr. Murdoch replied that until he read in the newspapers the statement made by the hon. Member for Bute, neither he nor any of his clergy were aware that a Roman Catholic clergyman had the power of visiting a Catholic prisoner in the gaol who had not sent for him. He further stated that some time since he petitioned the Prison Board to allow the Sisters of Charity to attend on the female prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion, and that petition was met with a refusal. Immediately afterwards the governor of the gaol told one of the clergy that he could not see any other prisoner than the one who sent expressly for him. He (Mr. Maguire) thought that would be a satisfactory explanation of the statement made by the hon. Member for Bute.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not approve the Bill. He was afraid the Government were placing themselves in an ambiguous position by the measure. He regretted that circumstance, and he regretted still more the support which the Bill had received on the Opposition side of the House. However, as the House had already decided that no alteration should take place in respect of the remuneration to those clergymen, he thought it was useless for his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) to go to a division.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that he would not trouble the House by dividing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 (Keepers of Prison to Register Religion of Prisoners).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment having for its object to provide that the keeper or other officer of a prison should from time to time give clergymen admitted under the Bill a list of the prisoners of the Church or persuasion to which such clergyman belonged. The clause as it stood provided that those clergymen should have access to a book for the purpose of acquiring that information. His plan was in substitution of that in the clause.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaw no objection to the Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the clause was a portion of the Bill which he thought contained a direct invasion of the great

  1693
  principle of religious freedom. By the provision they were about to authorize the appointment of persons who belonged to a church which had no regard to the principles of toleration, and which was very different from the Church of England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3°, on Monday next.

VOLUNTEERS BILL— [BILL 108.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREY SIR GEORGE GREY moved the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD LOVAINE: I expressed on a former occasion my regret that the present Bill had not been laid upon the table previous to the Vote for the grant for the Volunteers, as many of my objections to that Vote would have been much modified by the perusal of the provisions of this Bill. One, for instance, which I think was greatly misunderstood by hon. Members on the opposite benches, was, that in cases of popular tumult, the defence of their arms could not, under the then state of the law, be intrusted to the Volunteers. Under the provisions of this Bill I find that this objection is met in a satisfactory manner. I think the Bill requires, and no doubt will receive ample discussion, as it deals with many important points. The provisions for compulsory taking of land for rifle ranges and training grounds, for instance, will require careful examination. There can be, however, but one wish on the part of every Member of the House, that the organization of the force to which it relates, now that it has taken its place permanently as a part of the military force of the country, should he raised to the highest point of efficiency. I cannot leave the subject without expressing, as I have upon all other occasions upon which it has been mooted, my sense of the debt of gratitude which the country owes to the Volunteers, whose spirit, energy, and patriotism have completely altered the opinion formerly entertained by continental nations of the want of military spirit on the part of the English people. They have shown that they are the true descendants of those who, in the beginning of this century, rose as one man to repel the threatened invasion of the first Napoleon, and demonstrated to every military intellect that henceforward the idea that England can he successfully invaded is an idle dream.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (who had just entered the House)said, he owed
  1694
  an apology to the House for not having been in his place to move the second reading of the Bill. The cause of his absence was, that he did not expect that the measure would be reached at so early an hour of the evening. He did not intend to enter into the political causes which had led to the first rise of the Volunteer movement. It was sufficient, for his purpose, to say, that in the spring of 1859, owing to those political causes, several corps offered their services to the Government, and were accepted, under the provisions of the 44 Geo. III. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who was then in office, at once accepted the services of the corps thus offered, and expressed his willingness to give them every assistance in his power. When the present Government came into office, they found thirteen of those corps established, eleven of them having been formed under the new regulations, and two of them having existed for some years previously. At the same time the spirit of volunteering had become very extensive throughout the country, and offers of the services of corps were arriving almost every day for acceptance of the Government. The conditions under which their services wore at that time accepted were these:—They offered their services, neither receiving pay nor any form of assistance from the Government. Their services were perfectly gratuitous, neither receiving arms nor ammunition. The first step the late Lord Herbert took towards granting them assistance was to offer to supply to the corps from 15 to 25 per cent of the rifles and the ammunition they required. The noble Lord, however, very shortly found that so much inconvenience would arise, particularly in active service, from the want of uniformity in the pattern of the rifles supplied by the Government and those which were furnished by the Volunteers themselves, that it was determined by the Government to issue from their own stores the whole of the rifles required by the Volunteers. The noble Lord had also extended the organization, which had hitherto only contemplated the formation of companies, by forming, wherever it was practicable, battalions containing several companies. The next step was to provide those battalions with the assistance of adjutants, as it was found quite impossible for the corps themselves, even if they had the means, to obtain, without the assistance of the Government, the services of gentlemen competent to instruct them as soldiers.

  1695
  The noble Lord also instituted what was called the administrative organization, which united under one administration disjointed and scattered corps, whoso headquarters were at a distance from each other. By that means they were enabled to reap the benefit of practising their drill together at certain times, and the then Secretary of State was able to secure for them the services of an adjutant to attend and instruct each of those scattered corps. The only addition made since the appointment of adjutants to the assistance rendered by the Government was at the end of last year, when the Secretary of State provided, at the public expense, sergeant instructors for the instruction of Volunteers in drill. That arrangement was found necessary for the same reason as induced the Government to supply them with adjutants—namely, that the corps themselves could not provide such instructors.
  This, then, was the position of the Government, with regard to the Volunteers, at the commencement of the year; they afforded them no pecuniary assistance, but simply provided them with that which was necessary to secure their efficiency. They gave them rifles, because it was necessary that they should all have arms of the same pattern, and they gave them the assistance of a sergeant instructor, because they could not be supplied in any other way. Last year, in consequence of representations made to the Government, a Commission was appointed, to inquire into the state of the Volunteer force, and the Report of that Commission was before the House, and had probably been read by many hon. Members. That Report stated, that not owing to any diminution of the Volunteer spirit—not owing to any want of spirit amongst the men, but entirely owing to the fact that a larger sum than had been expected was necessary to meet the incidental expenses of the corps, and the heavy expenses which were about to fall upon the men for renewing their clothing, it was to be feared, that unless some further assistance were rendered by the Government, a very serious diminution in the strength of the Volunteer force would occur. The recommendations of the Committee were before the House; and the principle having been already affirmed by the House that the Government should give some further assistance to the force, the late Secretary for War, in moving the Army Estimates, proposed an additional Vote of £198,000 for the Volunteer corps beyond the sum voted the year before.
  1696
  The Committee passed that Vote with little observation. He believed it was the almost universal opinion of hon. Members that it was right and proper that the Government should do something for men who had offered their valuable time and services gratuitously to the country. The Government having proposed to give additional pecuniary assistance to the Volunteers, it became necessary for the War Department to institute some further measures to secure the proper application of the grant. Some new regulations therefore became necessary, which involved in some respects an alteration of the law. At the same time, it was thought that that would be a good opportunity to consolidate the Acts of Parliament under which the Volunteer movement had been conducted, and hence the necessity for the Bill before the House.
  He would shortly explain the principal points on which the Bill proposed to alter the existing law in regard to Volunteers. The first essential alteration of the law was with regard to the position of the permanent staff. In the old Act there was no express provision for the permanent staff. The sergeant instructors were therefore enrolled as Volunteers, an arrangement which enabled them, if they pleased, to quit the service upon giving fourteen days' notice. It was proposed to attest the sergeants of the permanent staff in the same manner as those of the militia, for a period not exceeding five years. Under the old act, the sergeants of the permanent staff, being in receipt of pay from Her Majesty's Government, were nominally placed under the Mutiny Act. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was, however, taken on the point in reference to a case that arose, and it was found that the provisions of the old Act, under which (hose sergeants were enrolled, were so complicated, by reason of various regulations for the army, the militia, and Volunteers, that in the event of a prosecution it would be impossible to procure a conviction. It was therefore provided by a clause in the Bill that a court should be established by which, in case of necessity, sergeants of the permanent staff could be tried. That court would consist of five members of the permanent staff of the county, with the adjutant, and it would be presided over by a field officer of the Volunteer force.
  The next essential alteration proposed was that relating to the subject of efficiency. The old Act provided that a Volunteer should be considered effective by performing a certain number of drills in the course

  1697
  of the year. By the Bill it was proposed to diminish the number of drills, but that each man should show a certain amount of proficiency in military exercises, in order to enable him to receive a share of the grant voted by Parliament. The old Act contained a definition of the standard of effectiveness, but it was not considered necessary to embody in the Bill the various rules upon the subject, but merely to enable Her Majesty in Council to decide upon the conditions; and in order that Parliament might have proper control, the Order in Council should be laid upon the table of the House for a month before it would have any effect. Another essential alteration in the law was that which gave a legislative sanction to the administrative organization which hitherto only existed under War Office regulations. It was proposed to give to that organization legislative sanction, to place the adjutant and all the members of the staff in each administrative organization directly under the control of the commanding officer of the battalion, and not, as at present, subject to the control of each commanding officer in the battalion.
  He was not able to enter so fully as he could wish into details; for unfortunately, not expecting the subject to come on at so early an hour, he was not provided with the papers to which he wanted to refer. He would state, however, for the information of hon. Members connected with the Volunteer force, the conditions upon which the Government proposed to distribute the sum of money which had been voted by Parliament for the Volunteer force. Those conditions embodied in substance the recommendations of the Commission. It was proposed to give to every man of the Light Horse, Engineer, and Rifle Volunteers, who should come up to the prescribed standard of efficiency, 20 s. a year; and it was further proposed, if he could go through the prescribed course of ball practice, to give him 10 s. in addition. It was proposed to give to the Artillery Volunteer 20 s. a year, who should attain a certain standard of efficiency, and for certain other acquirements 10 s. a year more. For that year, however, as heavy expenses would fall upon the force, and as the regulations with respect to efficiency would not come into operation until the end of the year, it was proposed as a temporary arrangement, to advance every corps, except the Artillery, a sum of money equal to 15 s. for every effective upon the returns of last year, and for every
  1698
  Artillery Volunteer 20 s. That arrangement would leave the Government a surplus in hand of the money voted by Parliament. The accounts of every regiment would be balanced in a return made every year. In regard to the standard of efficiency, some trifling alterations would be made which were based upon the recommendations of the Commission. He should have referred to one important feature, which had been alluded to by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovaine), a feature which had been embodied in the Bill. The Act which was passed at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) gave the Volunteers facilities for acquiring lands for the purposes of drill and ball practice. That Act was embodied in the Bill, and they had also added some further privileges, and fur this reason—that it was now proposed to require that all Volunteers who received a share of the Government grant should show that they had attained a certain efficiency in ball practice. He was happy to inform the House that the Inspector General of the Volunteers had reported that body to be in a most satisfactory state of efficiency. The number of the force had not sensibly diminished, but it was feared, that unless the Government came forward to assist them, it would shortly fall away. The total number of Volunteers in the United Kingdom was about 159,000; and he was sure, when they heard of such feats as those which had been performed the other day at Brighton—feats that had elicited the highest encomiums from a most experienced and distinguished officer, who was not supposed to be particularly liberal in that respect—they need be under no apprehension of the force suffering from any laxity of discipline. In that force he believed there was a body of men well fitted for the object for which they came into existence, the only object for which a Volunteer force should ever be required. Military men say that we have not acquired much additional information upon any scientific point in the art of war from the contest now raging in the United States; but he thought there was one exception to that remark—from that war we might learn very many useful things in connection with the services of Volunteers. The army of the North, which seemed to be imperfect in discipline, and which was wanting in esprit de corps, had not been found efficient in aggressive war-

  1699
  fare; but the army of the Southern States was composed of men animated by very much the same feeling, and drawn from the same class as our Volunteer force. To that Southern army our Volunteers were, he felt persuaded, superior in physical appearance and strength; in discipline and epuipment, too, they were superior; while he could not bring himself to believe that they were inferior in courage; and hon. Members had seen how the Southern army, which corresponded in so many essential particulars with our force, had fought in resisting the attacks of the invader. If, then, the soil of England should be invaded—and it was only in that event that it was contemplated the services of the Volunteers should be called into action against an enemy—we had at our command over 150,000 men as efficient for the purposes of defence as any army which could be called into the field. In conclusion, he might observe that Government claimed no merit for having originated the Volunteer movement. The movement was entirely the spontaneous effort of the English people, fostered, encouraged, and brought to perfection by the exertions of such men as his noble Friend the Commander of the London Scottish (Lord Elcho). What the Government did claim credit for was, that they had done nothing to cool or impede the spirit of the Volunteers; but, on the contrary, had afforded them every facility in their power to promote their efficiency and their usefulness.
  COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, he had not yet had an opportunity of reading the Bill; but, from all that had fallen from the lips of the noble Marquess the Under Secretary of State for War, he felt convinced that the Bill introduced by the Government would be favourably received by the rifle corps generally, and by the country at large. Now that that institution was acknowledged to be one of the great institutions of the country, now the rifle corps was to become a contingent of the regular army, he should cheerfully vote for the second reading of the Bill. But at the same time he must say there might be many provisions in it which might be discussed in Committee and advantageously modified. On a recent occasion—on the occasion of the wedding of their illustrious Prince—the Yeomanry and the Rifle Volunteers were in many parts of the country called out together, and a question of precedence as to the rank of the officers arose, which it was feared might have caused
  1700
  some jealousy between the parties. But the Bill, as explained by the noble Marquess, he was glad to learn, would set that question at rest. The position of the Yeomanry was next to the militia in order of rank amongst the domestic forces of the Empire; and when on duty, they received regular pay and were equally amenable to the Articles of War under the Mutiny Act with the regular army, and at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief on any emergency in support of the civil power or for other duties. Up to the present moment the services of the Volunteer corps were only available in the event of invasion; but he was happy to learn that it was contemplated in the Bill before the House to place them on the same footing as the Yeomanry Cavalry. As far as he could understand, they would in future be equally liable with the Yeomanry to be assembled for duty by the Commander-in-Chief, at the request of the Lord Lieutenant, to support the civil power in the suppression of riots; and, under the circumstances, there could be little ground for jealousy with regard to precedence of officers of equal rank, as that would be settled by the date of their gazette. Having felt the deepest interest in the Volunteer rifles ever since the organization of that force, he thought the country was under great obligation to certain noble Lords and Gentlemen in that House and elsewhere who had taken so active a part in promoting the object which had produced such an effect, not only in our own country but in foreign countries, that in all probability they had been saved from a danger which not long ago was supposed to have threatened. With 150,000 Volunteer riflemen—which might be trebled in number on any emergency — together with the regular and irregular forces of the country.—well armed, well drilled, and well disciplined—they might bid defiance to the world. He would not trouble the House further, as he merely rose to express his entire concurrence in the Bill as explained by the noble Marquess, and a hope that if it contained weak points, they would he removed or strengthened in Committee.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he could not but complain of the conduct of the Government in refusing to extend the Volunteer system to Ireland. During the war with Napoleon, Volunteer corps were formed in that country, and to refuse to her the permission to raise similar corps now for the purposes of defence was to offer an offence to the Irish people. He should in

  1701
  Committee on the Bill take the sense of the House on the question.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to one clause of the Bill. They all agreed, he thought, that the Volunteer force should be a real Volunteer force—that nothing should be done that should in any way militate against the feelings of those who believed they were devoting themselves and their time, which was money, to the service of the country. Up to that time every Volunteer corps had framed its own regulations, and then submitted them for the approval of the Secretary of State; but by the operation of the Bill under discussion those rules would, so far as he understood, emanate in future from the Secretary of State in the first instance, which was a very different thing. The alteration was one which he did not think it would be well to introduce, as he believed that a stereotyped set of regulations would be very unpopular among the Volunteers.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not agree that individual corps should have the formation of their rules and regulations. On the contrary, he was of opinion that the Government acted wisely in proposing to have a code drawn up for the guidance of the Volunteers. He, for one, had always looked upon those corps as constituting a most valuable force. He did not, however, look upon efficiency in drill as the great object. The great object was numbers. They had sown the dragon's teeth, which would shoot up in arms if the country were invaded. Instead of 150,000 men, he should like to see a million men enrolled as Volunteers. It was important that the House should know what was to be the cost of the force, and what time of drill was to be required. He had heard officers of cavalry corps complain that the thirty days required of them was too much and comparing it with the attendance required from Militia or Yeomanry corps, it did seem too much. He was also anxious to know whether Volunteer corps were to be subject to military law at all times, or only when they were called out in case of Invasion; and what was to be the rule as to the command when Volunteers and regular troops were serving together. He entirely agreed with the remarks which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon, and contended that if the Government thought that the people of Ireland were unfit to be trusted with arms, they ought to give them some equivalent by increasing
  1702
  the efficiency of the militia, or in some other way.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

  THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH SIDE) BILL.— [BILL 94.]— COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to move as an Amendment—
  "That the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee, with Instruction to take into consideration certain Proposals made by the Corporation of the City of London to Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works since the date of the Report of the Select Committee."
  He had no official connection with the Corporation, and it was only in his capacity of one of the Members for the City that he had been requested to make the proposal. Before he stated its nature, however, it might be desirable he should explain the nature of the improvement fund. By an Act of last Session that fund was constituted by the continuation and appropriation of certain dues for ten years — until the month of July 1872. Those dues were levied on wine and coals; but inasmuch as the produce of the former was very small in amount, he would confine his explanation to the coal dues. The first charge was a duty of 4d, representing the old metage duty enjoyed by the Corporation from time immemorial, and confirmed by a charter of James I.—a duty always considered and held by the Corporation as their property for public purposes. The second was a duty of 8d., levied under various Acts of Parliament for the purpose of effecting public improvements in the metropolis; and the last was a duty of 1d., levied for the purpose of building the Coal Exchange and for other objects. The two last duties, amounting to 9d. a ton, formed the fund out of which the whole cost of the Thames Embankment was to be paid. The ratepayers of the metropolis and their representatives had uniformly opposed every attempt to provide funds for public improvements by direct taxation. That being the case, it was clear, that if the whole of the funds constituting the improvement fund of the metropolis were appropriated for the period contemplated by the Bills before the House — being until July 1872 — there

  1703
  could be no hope of any great public improvement being executed during that time, except those defined in the Bills in question. Concurrent with the Bill before the House was another Bill to continue for a further period of ten years from 1872 to 1882, the wine and coal duties. Under those Bills—the fourpenny duty being reserved for the improvement of Holborn Hill—in addition to the million authorized to be laid out on the Embankment, £650,000 was to be appropriated for the purposes of a new street to be made from Blackfriars Bridge to the Mansion House, and a further sum of £580,000 was to be set aside for the embankment of the south side of the Thames, if the Bill with that object passed into a law. It thus appeared that a sum of £2,230,000 was already appropriated for public purposes out of the whole amount raised by the coal duty for the next twenty years. Therefore, unless the House was prepared to levy fresh taxes on the inhabitants of the metropolis, there was no chance of any other public improvements being carried out. The Corporation of the City of London, in that state of things, entertaining a very natural jealousy and dislike to the introduction of the Metropolitan Board of Works within the boundaries of the City, made to the Select Committee which sat upstairs a proposal which had been submitted previously to the Chief Commissioner of Works. Their proposal was, that they should be permitted to use the fourpenny duty for the purposes of the street, and that they should defray the residue of the expense of the street out of their own corporate funds. The Committee did not adopt the proposition, but reported the Bill in the form in which it left the House,—that is, providing that the street should be made by the Metropolitan Board of Works at a net cost of £650,000. The Corporation then submitted a proposal to the Commissioners of Works, to the effect that they would undertake to construct out of their own corporate resources the street at a cost of £650,000, provided they received a contribution from the 9d. coal tax to the extent of £300,000. In other words, they said they would make a present of £350,000 to the metropolis at large, if they were allowed to make the street. The Chief Commissioner answered that proposition by stating, that if such a sum were available for improvements in the City, there were plenty of
  1704
  other works to which it might be applied; but the Corporation replied that the money was the property of the City. It might, in fact, be spent in building a new Mansion House or an obelisk, or in any other way they pleased. It was not specifically appropriated by Act of Parliament to public improvements within the City, and therefore, in making the proposal, they really offered to give £350,000 for the privilege of constructing the street themselves. If that offer were refused, and the street made altogether at the cost of the 9d. coal duty, the result would be that there would be no fund for twenty years by means of which any great public improvement could be carried out. No doubt many great improvements were wanted in the metropolis outside the City; and as there were seven metropolitan constituencies, the £350,000 would give £50,000 to each of them to dispose of. Under these circumstances, he expected that metropolitan Members would support his proposal. There were bridges to be bought, bridges to be built, and innumerable new streets to be made. With regard to the City and the Metropolitan Board of Works, he did not wish to set the one against the other, but he would appeal to past experience. It was a fact that, with very few exceptions, almost all the improvements in the metropolis for years past had been effected by the City of London out of revenues placed at their disposal by Parliament; and in no single instance that he was aware of had the estimates for those works been exceeded. The reason was, that the works were carried on under the superintendence of a Committee consisting of a great number of Members who lived in the City, and knew the value of property there, and who brought to bear an amount of experience and knowledge which prevented any jobs or misappropriation of money. On the other hand, what had the Metropolitan Board of Works done? He had no intention of disparaging them, but he would say that they had not the experience of the Corporation —at all events, within the limits of the City. Besides, they were already engaged in the execution of very large works—the Thames embankment and other important undertakings. For some years they had been making a new street through the Borough, but it was in a very incomplete state; and though the new communication between St. Martin's Lane and Covent Garden was opened, it was unfinished, and the accounts respecting it bad not been

  1705
  closed. He therefore begged respectfully to suggest, that as far as the public interests were concerned, they would be more effectually promoted by intrusting the construction of the new street to the corporation. The proposition of the corporation was, in brief, this:—The Bill empowered the Metropolitan Board of Works to make the street at a cost of £650,000, which was to come out of the 9d. coal duty, and the Corporation said they would do it for £300,000, taking the other sum of £350,000 out of their own resources. He asked the House to refer back the Bill to the Select Committee, in order that they might examine into that proposal; and if the Committee were satisfied that the Corporation were able to construct the street, he believed he had shown that on public grounds they ought to be intrusted with the execution of that great work which was entirely within the precincts of the City.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee, with Instruction to take into consideration certain Proposals made by the Corporation of the City of London to Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works since the date of the Report of the Select Committee,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR COWPERsaid, the question was one of considerable importance as regarded the practice of the House. It was very undesirable to encourage Motions to re-commit Bills without serious and substantial grounds, and he did not think it had been the practice of the House to re-commit Bills without its being shown either that the Committee had not adequately or satisfactorily discharged their duty, or that some new facts of real importance had come to light since the close of their labours. He was glad to hear that no objection was made to the Committee, for they had listened with the greatest attention for six days to the evidence brought before them, the Corporation and the Commissioners of Sewers for the City being the only opposing parties. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Corporation were willing to make a present of £350,000 out of their corporate resources for the honour of making the street. When he was informed
  1706
  that they had such resources, he said he was delighted to hear it, that they ought by all means to be encouraged in spending them in improving and beautifying the streets in the City, and that he was the last person to interfere in the slightest degree with proposals of that kind; but he added, "Do tell me what these corporate resources are?" Yet up to that time the information he had received on the point was very obscure. From their language it might be supposed that they meant the 4d. coal duty by the corporate resources; but so far from that duty belonging to the Corporation, it had only been granted to them by Act of Parliament until 1872. Probably, at the expiration of the Act, they would assert an ancient right to levy 4d. on every chaldron of coals; but with that they had nothing to do. They were dealing with the actual continuance tax of 4d. per ton, which, he could not admit, formed, in any proper sense, a part of the corporate resources. It was quite clear that the City could not give any money whatever out of the extension of the 4d. tax from 1872 to 1882, because, with the assent of the Committee, he had inserted in a Bill which stood on the orders for a second reading, a provision by which that money was to devoted to raising the valley of Holborn Hill. He had been assured, by a deputation from the City of London, that that work would cost £300,000; and if the City borrowed money on the above security for the purpose of raising Holborn Hill, none would be left for making the proposed street. He trusted that the hon. Members opposite, who were about to address the House on behalf of the City, would explain what the Corporation meant by offering lo make this street out of the corporate funds He admitted, that if the City made a serious proposal to expend funds on public improvements, which had hitherto been devoted to pageantry and other less important purposes, it would be entitled to serious consideration; but, at the same time, he contended this was not a case to go back to a Select Committee. It involved a principle which could be much better discussed in a Committee of the Whole House. Being a hybrid Bill, the measure had been carefully inquired into and sifted. It went before the Private Bill Committee in order that all persons whose interests were affected by it might be fully heard, and he considered that any question of principle which was raised could be much

  1707
  hetter decided in a Committee of the House than in a Select Committee upstairs. If the required sum of £350,000 was to come out of the coal tax, the offer of the City was not an offer to raise and pay the money, but only to expend it. No doubt the Corporation or other body would like to have the power of spending £350,000, and be ready to take it out of their neighbours' pockets for that purpose; but if the House listened to that proposal, and taking that sum from the Metropolitan Board of Works, gave it to the City, it would lend itself to a retrograde movement. When the Government had to consider the measures for continuing the taxes on coal, they made a distinction between the 4d. and the other taxes. The question of these coal duties was of the greatest importance, because they formed the fund out of which all the improvements in the metropolis had been, or were likely to be made, and the House said that they ought to be economized and distributed in the wisest and most efficient way. The 4d. tax was, by the Continuance Act of 1861, committed for a limited time to the care of the City, and the 9d. tax formed into a separate fund for the Thames Embankment and other metropolitan improvements. That last fund, it was decided, should be expended by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The reasons were obvious. The 9d. duty was intended to be spent on improvements for the benefit of the whole metropolis, such as this great thoroughfare between the east and west of London, and therefore it was proposed that the Metropolitan Board, which had been created since the last Continuance Act, should be intrusted with the expenditure of the money, instead of the corporation, and the City became subordinate to that hoard. He knew that was not a palatable phrase to the Corporation, but it expressed the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The Metropolis Local Management Act made them subordinate to the Metropolitan Board of Works It declared that the metropolis should include the City, and the members of the Metropolitan Board comprised three representatives from the City. How, then, could the corporation say they were independent and superior to the Board, when they were themselves represented upon it? They could not have it both ways. If they asserted their supremacy over the Metropolitan Board, ought they not to withdraw their throe Members? At present, those three Mem-
  1708
  bers had a share in the expenditure of the money. Therefore the Metropolitan Board of Works as much represented the City as it did the rest of the metropolis, and it would be quite contrary to the principles of self-government and the principle that representation should go with taxation, if they took away from the representatives of the whole metropolis the expenditure of the 9d. duty, and gave it only to the City of London, which was only one district of the metropolis. The 4d. duty would still be administered by the City for the purposes specified in the Continuance Act, for Parliament had wisely reserved to itself the discretion to say in each instance when these duties were renewed to what particular purpose they should be devoted. He did not believe that the researches of a second Committee would be more successful than those of the first in discovering where this £350,000 was to come from. He had himself asked Mr. Scott, the City Chamberlain, whether the City had any money at its disposal for this object besides the 4d. duty. Mr. Scott explained that there was in hand a borrowed sum of £350,000; and he suggested, that until that money became due, it might be applied to this purpose. It was, however, never represented that this floating balance would be permanently available for the work. A letter was sent from the Office of Works in March last, asking the corporate authorities, if they had any fund available, to give it in evidence. No such information was, however, granted, and it was clear there was some delusion somewhere. Before the Motion was entertained, some new fact ought to be put clearly before the Committee; but he thought that up to that time the hon. Member for the City had made out no case whatever, for the hon. Gentleman merely used the vague phrase that corporate resources were to supply the £350,000. By referring to the printed correspondence, it would he seen that the only thing to be expected, if the Corporation should be intrusted with the execution of these works, would be a postponement of a great improvement to an indefinite period; and he should be sorry if anything happened to create delay in the opening of the new thoroughfare between the West End and the City. He therefore should oppose the Amendment.
  THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman ROSE)SAID, that the Corporation of the City of London felt, that if the Bill passed in its then shape, it would be one of the

  1709
  most fatal Acts to be found in the history of that body. The funds out of which the improvement was to be paid for were to be collected in the City, and then it was proposed that those funds should be handed over to a foreign body for expenditure on those works. Such a proposition would, if carried, be destructive to the independence of the Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the shadowy character of the funds referred to by the Corporation in their offer. But how stood the credit of the City of London? Had not, he would ask, every undertaking of the Corporation, in a pecuniary point of view, been most honourably carried out? In the formation of new streets the Corporation had exhibited a marked contrast with the body to which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to intrust his new work; for the former had always completed them within the estimate, while the latter had executed them largely in excess of the estimate. According to the Bill, £650,000, furnished by the ninepenny coal duty, was to be appropriated to the construction of a street from Blackfriars Bridge to the Mansion House, whereas the Corporation of the City of London were ready to execute the work if they received £300,000. The funds promised by the City of London had been spoken of as being uncertain; but surely the character of the Corporation ought to stand them in some stead in such a matter. The right hon. Gentleman desired to see the source of the funds, but he had no right to ask fur that information. The City was a great corporation, and had hitherto done its work honestly and successfully; and if the Corporation could show that largo sums were ready to be appropriated for the formation of the new street, and if, in addition, they were willing to give their bond that the work should be completed within a given time, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to attempt to exert an inquisitorial power and try to obtain information respecting the private property of the Corporation, The Corporation were ready to agree, that if they did not complete the work within the stipulated time, the matter should be taken out of their hands, and placed in the hands of others.
  MR. NORRISsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fund of which the hon. Member (Mr. Crawford) had spoken was no ghost, but an existing reality; and that if the Bill were referred
  1710
  to a Select Committee, there would be abundant evidence to prove that all that was proposed on the part of the Corporation could he effectually carried out. Some time ago a body in some measure akin to the Metropolitan Board of Works—namely, the Commissioners of Clerkenwell—were appointed to make a new street in connection with Farringdon Street, but they altogether failed to do so. The works stood still for a time, and were then taken up by the Corporation of London. In the progress of that work the Corporation of London invested somewhere about £300,000 in the purchase of a vast district of dilapidated property. Before they had an opportunity of turning that property to any account, some enterprising men devised the Metropolitan Railway. That undertaking was struggling with commercial difficulties, and the Corporation, seeing an opportunity of improving their property, advanced £200,000 in the purchase of shares, which they had since sold at a profit; while their property round about the Metropolitan Railway had become greatly augmented in value. From these two sources the Corporation could readily derive funds sufficient to meet their share of the expense for constructing the new street. The Corporation also possessed freehold and other property to the extent of perhaps £250,000 a year, which, after deducting certain charges upon it, left an income of £80,000 or £100,000 a year, which was now appropriated to promoting public works in the City, encouraging charities and building schools. Sooner than allow of the intervention of a body of men who were created, as it were, but yesterday, and whose authority to come within their territory they had a right to question, the Corporation were willing to divert from its legitimate channel a large portion of that £80,000 or £100.000, to go in aid of the making of the new street. Within the last century the Corporation of London had expended out of its independent resources two millions of money, and had been the means of laying out for public purposes a sum amounting to nearly £3,000,000 making nearly five millions of money which had passed through the hands of that great public body. If the right hon. Gentleman dare not trust the Corporation of London, how was it possible he could have any confidence in that body which he seemed so much to favour by the course which he took with respect to this measure? he hoped the House would see

  1711
  the propriety of allowing the Bill to be recommitted to the Select Committee.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he could not but express his surprise that the hon. Member for the City, who had brought forward the Motion under discussion, should have done so, when he was in point of fact one of the Members of the Committee who voted for the preamble of the Bill. With respect to the fourpenny coal tax, Parliament had from time to time dealt with that tax, and he could no longer look upon it as the property of the Corporation. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the Lord Mayor, argued the question as if the House were about to adopt a new principle; but not many years ago the Metropolis Local Management Act was passed, the preamble of which declared that for the purposes of the Bill the City of London was to be deemed part of the metropolis. The Thames Embankment Bill confirmed the principle, because a considerable portion of the work was to be done within the precincts of the City. The Corporation of London also conceded the principle when it suited their own purposes, for they came week after week and month after month to the Metropolitan Board of Works for small sums of £50 and £100 to assist in carrying out the metropolitan improvements, and three members of the Corporation sat at the Board. The Lord Mayor could scarcely entertain such a splendid conception of the administrative abilities of the Common Council as to believe that those members were there because the Metropolitan Board could not carry out their works without their assistance. Something had been said about the Corporation accounts. Now, there was the utmost difficulty in getting at these accounts, and a still greater difficulty in understanding them. The Corporation refused access to documents on which they founded any claim, and objected to disclose to any person who resisted their claims the grounds on which those claims were made, except under compulsion of a court of law. With regard to the estimates for City works, they had frequently been more than doubled. The estimates for the New Cattle Market were exceeded by £60,000, and Farringdon Market, instead of costing £150,000, cost£250,000. With reference to certain documents which had recently been placed in the hands of hon. Members, those documents were intended to deceive, not simply by misrepresentations, but by gross misstatements of facts; and the moat charitable construction
  1712
  he could put upon them was, that the new City Solicitor had been imposed upon by those who were acquainted with the real facts of the case. The documents to which he was referring mentioned certain improvements which had been carried out by this Corporation; but the fact was, that towards these improvements they had not contributed one stiver. He could, if time allowed, prove that these statements were deliberately untrue. Now, what was the Corporation? What did it represent? The merchants and bankers did not look upon it as representing the commercial interests of the City at all. The functions which once belonged to the Corporation had, one by one, been lost or abandoned. They derived a large revenue for the purpose of attending to the conservancy of the Thames; but although they still took the money, they did not perform the duties. The drainage, sewage, and lightage of the City was transferred to an independent body, the Commission of Sewers. They had nothing to do with the poor, or with educational establishments. The only establishment with which they had to deal was Gresham College, and that, under their management, had become a dead letter. The only important matters they attended to were the eating and show departments, and many hon. Members were able to testify as to the manner in which these departments were managed. He should certainly vote against the Motion, regarding it as a most unusual thing to vote for the re-committal of a Bill which had received the unanimous approval of the Committee by which it had been fully considered.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not but deprecate the tone which had been adopted by some hon. Gentlemen. He regretted that the advocates of the City had rested their case on the alleged incompetence and incapacity of the Metropolitan Board to execute the improvements intrusted to their management. On the other hand, he deplored that the hon. Member for Lambeth and some others should have been so unsparing in their invectives against the Corporation. He believed, for his own part, that the proposed work would have been efficiently carried out by the Corporation, if the Government had thought fit to intrust it to them in the first instance, and he was satisfied that it would be equally well done by the Metropolitan Board. There could be no doubt, however, that the Corporation had failed to establish such a case before the Select Com-

  1713
  mittee as would have justified them either in rejecting the preamble of the Bill or in materially altering its provisions. On the contrary, they contented themselves with a temperate statement of their views, and the City Members on the Committee actually voted in favour of the preamble. Therefore, unless the City could show that some startling new facts had come to their knowledge, they ought not to ask for a re-committal of the Bill. He certainly had not been able to ascertain the existence of any facts of such magnitude as to justify the House in requiring the Committee to reconsider their decision; but, at the same time, he was quite willing, as a Member of the Committee, to go again into the inquiry; and therefore he should not vote either for or against the Motion.
  MR. TITEsaid, he would admit that the Corporation had carried out its improvements in an efficient manner, but submitted that the Metropolitan Board was equally well qualified to perform its duties. He doubted whether the Corporation had £350,000 to expend upon the proposed work. But, after all, the important thing was to have the new street made and opened as soon as possible, and he only asked the House to give somebody the power to set about it at once.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the City of London would withdraw his Amendment. He thought the City, by its representatives, had acted very unwisely in the case, and that they were altogether wrong in the views which they had taken. He did not participate in the feeling which had been expressed by the Lord Mayor that the Metropolitan Board were a foreign body in the metropolis, for they were a body established by Parliament and elected by the ratepayers. Parliament had intrusted that Board not only with the management of the sewers in the metropolitan district, but of the City; and he did not see what objection there could be to their making a new street, which was more for metropolitan than for City purposes. Besides, considering the immense number of improvements which required to be made in the City, he did not think the Corporation were justified in offering to expend £350,000 when Parliament did not ask them for a single farthing. Among the much-needed and loudly-demanded City improvements might be mentioned a new meat market on the site of Smithfield, the widening of Newgate Street, Tower Street, Thames Street, and the
  1714
  Poultry, the re-arrangement of Billingsgate Market, and the filling-up of the Holborn valley. There appeared to be work enough for the Corporation. On the other hand", he could not go along with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton) in his sweeping denunciations of the Corporation, whose accounts were laid before Parliament annually, and who had always been faithful and honourable in their dealings. He had recently stood up in his place to defend the privileges of the City, and would do so again if necessary; but the making of a new street from the Mansion House to Blackfriars did not appear to him to be a question of principle. He regarded it rather as one of expediency. When he knew that the new street would be, not only for the convenience of the metropolis, but for the convenience of the City; when he knew that the corporate funds were demanded for other improvements, he thought that instead of rejecting the wise and considerate measure before the House, and giving up a large sum for the privilege of not being interfered with, the Corporation ought to concur in the decision of the Committee.
  MR. WILLIAMSsaid, that the government of the Corporation of the City of London was the most costly of any in the world. It cost more than the management of the army, the navy, and the public debt. The Corporation asked to be allowed to make the street to a great degree at their own expense, and they would, if the House agreed to the Amendment, do nothing of the kind. They would make it out of the coal tax, which was no more the property of the City than it was his own. He should oppose the Amendment.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Board to make new Street).
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had to propose a verbal Amendment with a view of providing that the street should he of an equal width.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked what the width was intended to be.
  MR. COWPERsaid, it was important that a street which would be lined with lofty houses should be of sufficient breadth. The new Victoria Street, Westminster, was only seventy feet wide, and he was informed

  1715
  that it was too narrow. It would be a great misfortune if they allowed the proposed great thoroughfare to be made without securing that it should be of an adequate width. He therefore proposed that the street should be eighty feet wide. The width of the embankment would be one hundred feet.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to know what additional cost would be entailed by the alteration. An increase of ten feet in the width would invalidate the calculations originally made, and would reduce the amount to be obtained from the sale of frontages and sites.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had no doubt the change would cause a considerable increase to the estimate, but the money would be well spent. If they were to lay out £680,000 in the formation of what was to be one of the handsomest streets in London, it would be poor economy to make it seventy instead of eighty feet wide.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it might be well to have the now thoroughfare wider than Victoria Street; but when they remembered the value of land per foot in the City of London, he thought such an extraordinary proposal to increase the expense ought not to come before the House, as it did, by a kind of surprise. Had the right hon. Gentleman the concurrence of the Select Committee in the matter? Moreover, they ought to have a definite estimate of the extra cost of the additional width before they were asked to assent to it.
  MR. TITEsaid, that if the street had to be begun entirely de novo, it might be desirable that it should be eighty feet wide; but they must recollect that a large portion of it was already made, and that that portion was only sixty feet wide.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought New Cannon Street was none too wide, and that it would be of advantage to make the uncompleted part of the proposed thoroughfare as wide as possible consistently with the funds available for the purpose. The present enormous traffic through the City would no doubt go on increasing, and it would be a false economy not to provide fully for its accommodation.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not yet answered the distinct question which had been put to him— namely, whether he had taken any means to inform himself of what would be the additional cost of carrying out the alteration which he had proposed? Whether that additional cost amounted to £100,000 or
  1716
  not, it must be very large. The fund available for these works was limited, and ought not to be wasted. It was preposterous to suppose that anybody wanted a street of that enlarged width, and, if made, it would be necessary to employ a gardener to keep down the growth of weeds in it. Finsbury Park, which would afford convenience and relaxation to a million of people, was in abeyance for want of funds, and now they proposed to squander their resources on a street to be made for the wealthiest part of the community, and of a magnitude that could not be wanted for the purpose of traffic.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he should vote against the proposition, because he was satisfied they would have to pay a great deal too much for the extra width, and they could not afford it.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he must deny that the street was to be made merely for the accommodation of the West End. Cannon Street, with all its width, was frequently blocked up. As a ratepayer of the City of London, he hoped the proposal for making the street eighty instead of seventy feet wide would be agreed to.
  MR. COXsaid, that if any one would take his station at the corner of Queen Street, where it intersected Cannon Street, and look right and left, he would hardly ever see fifty vehicles of any kind within sight. He thought, that unless the new street stopped at Cannon Street, it would not only be useless, but it would create a positive nuisance, by completely blocking up the end of the Poultry.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was sorry he had omitted to bring the matter, as he intended to have done, before the Committee on the Bill. He would not, however, press the Amendment at that time.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the amended scheme would occupy at least 2,000 additional square yards, which would cost not less than £100,000. After the manner in which such a proposition had been I introduced, it would be necessary for the Committee to watch very narrowly every change that was proposed in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to: as were also Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.
  Clause 8 (Power to make Subway.— Its maintenance).
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he had an Amendment to propose of some importance.

  1717
  The clause provided that the subway—an arched passage underneath the new street, in which gas and water pipes, telegraph wires, &c., were to be placed — a most useful and desirable improvement—should, with the various accesses to it, be vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works. He proposed that the subway, as well as the surface of the street, should be vested in the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London—a body having charge generally of the streets. In his evidence, Mr. Heywood, engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers, had shown the inconvenience of the arrangement under the Bill. The only argument that could be offered against his proposal was, that as the Metropolitan Board of Works had the charge of the main sewer which would run under a part of the street from Blackfriars to Cannon Street, therefore the subway also should be under their control. He could not see the force of that argument, as when once the sewer was made there would be seldom any occasion to do anything to it. He thought it would be most convenient that the charge of the subway should be vested in the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, who wore to be intrusted with the management of the surface of the street. He would therefore move a verbal Amendment to carry out that proposition.
  MR. W. CUBITTsaid, he was of opinion, that as the subway would contain the gas and water pipes and telegraph wires, the control over it should be left to the Commissioners of Sewers. It was for the interest of the public—which was the point to be considered — that the main sewer should be left in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the subway should be controlled by the City, with ample powers reserved to the Metropolitan Board to enable them to perform any necessary operations connected with it.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, as the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) rested his proposition on the authority of Mr. Heywood, he would meet it with the same authority. Mr. Heywood, before the Committee, admitted that if the sewer were to be constructed under the subway, and that sewer was under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works, then the control of the subway should be in the same body. It would be a very inconvenient arrangement, and one likely to lead to great complications, if the Subway and the
  1718
  sewer were to be placed under the authority of different Boards. The City of London would be, in regard to the subway, in the same position as the parishes in Southwark, and what would be said if they were to come to Parliament to ask for the control of the subways under the streets, simply because the surface of the streets was under their management? [Mr. CRAWFORD: Hear, hear!] In the case under consideration the subway would extend the whole length of the embankment, and therefore it would be manifestly inconvenient to have one portion under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and another under that of the Commissioners of Sewers.
  MR. W. CUBITTsaid, it was most important that the subway should be free for the use of any persons whom the Corporation might deem it right to authorize— gas, water, and telegraph companies. The Metropolitan Board of Works could have nothing to do with allowing such arrangements in the City of London; and therefore, if they had the charge of the subway, some difficulties would arise in that respect.
  MR. COWPERremarked, that what was desired was unity of management and consolidation of power. After the discussion which took place in the Committee, he had arrived at the conclusion that the Bill as it stood was right, and that the subway should be left in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who were to make the main sewer that would run under it for two-thirds of its length.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Ground laid open into new Street to form Part thereof; Street to be under Commissioners of Sewers.)
  MR. CRAWFORDobserved, that the clause as it stood provided that the Chairman of the Board which was to perform the work was to sign the certificate that the work had been satisfactorily executed—thus in fact certifying as to its own acts. That appeared to be an irregular mode of proceeding; and he would propose, as an Amendment, that the certificate should be signed by the Chief Commissioner of works.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed with the hon-Member, that there was an awkwawardness about the clause as it stood. It would be better to call in an impartial

  1719
  authority to decide any difference of opinion between the body which had executed the work and the body to which it was to be transferred. He did not wish to impose on the Chief Commissioner of Works such a duty, but he had been unable to find any other authority more suitable; but if one could be suggested, he would willingly accede to its insertion in the clause. At the same time, the person who would fill the office of Chief Commissioner of Works at the time when the street was completed would probably be a person unconnected with the arrangements, and quite impartial in the matter. If no better authority could be named, he should not object to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for London.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Chairman was only to give his certificate when the street was completed, the object being that there should be an official document for the purpose of subsequent reference, in order that the City might know the exact date on which its title began. He thought that to set up a new tribunal would lead to a great deal of difficulty, and that the Bill was much better as it stood.
  MR. COXsaid, the clause provided that the certificate should be conclusive evidence for all purposes, though it was to be given by the Chairman of the Board which executed the work. He thought that the first Commissioner of Works, being an impartial person, might very properly give this certificate.
  MR. TITEsaid, he also should support the Amendment, which he had found very necessary in similar cases.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsuggested that the certificate should be signed by both functionaries.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should oppose the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought it highly desirable not to leave it to the tender mercies of the Board of Works to give the new street any name they pleased. In some cases, he believed, they had applied their own distinguished names to streets. He did not suppose that they would attempt to do so in that case, but it would be desirable that there should be a Parliamentary sanction to the name; and he would therefore move, as an addition to the clause, "that the said street shall be called and known hereafter as Mansion HouseStreet."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the gentlemen of the City seemed to have a
  1720
  great horror of the Metropolitan Board. The Lord Mayor talked of them as though they were Red Indians, and called them a foreign body. Now, it should be remembered that that dangerous Board represented a large mass of people in the metropolis, of which the City constituted but a small proportion. If the new street was to be the great link between Westminster and the City, surely they could find some better name for it than that proposed. He would rather call it "Crawford Street," for the City had no more energetic and able member than the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there was one fatal objection to the name of "Mansion House Street"—namely, that the citizens would never be able to pronounce it. Supposing that, after a long course of education, they conquered this difficulty, the name would still be suggestive of the worst feature of the Corporation. He recollected that the oldest writer who visited the City of London said he had seen many curious things within the City, but the most curious was the extraordinary amount of provision which was to be found there, and the wonderful power of the citizens in eating it. "Mansion House Street" would only suggest that one faculty of the Corporation. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Alderman Sidney) was learned in the history of the City, for he had told them the other night many historic circumstances, and, among others, how they behaved in their cups; and could he not give some historic name for the street. For instance, there was Whittington—and also his cat. Why not call it Cat Street? Or there was the noble Lord the patron of the improvement, who was so anxious that it should be effected; let him be put into the new street. Why should not his name be identified with it? It would be a compliment worthy of his administration. But if there was any delicacy on the part of the noble Lord, let them have intellect represented; as there were many men of great fame who might be commemorated. Mansion House Street! He had hoped that before that time the Mansion House would have been converted into a railway station, and that the people at large would have been able to buy penny buns there instead of the Corporation feasting away all its resources. The supporters of the Corporation made very strong speeches in that House; but the conclusion of all corporate proceedings put him very much in mind of the theory of the Brahmin, that the

  1721
  world rested on an elephant's back, and that this animal had for his supports a turtle under each leg. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. If he did, he (Mr. Ayrton) would move the substitution of the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move an Amendment?
  MR. AYRTON: Certainly not.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thanked the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets for the compliment, but, with every desire for posthumous fame, he thought the baptism of the new street ought to be left to the proper sponsors.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clausaa agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 27.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Fourpenny Coal Duty to be applied by Corporation of London to Holborn Hill Improvements).
  MR. COXsaid, the clause provided that the fourpenny tax should in the first place be applied to the raising of Holborn valley and afterwards to other improvements. He wished to move as an Amendment to insert the words "Removal of Middle Row, Holborn." That would make it the first duty of the Corporation to remove Middle Row and raise Holborn valley. Ever since he had been a member of the Corporation, nearly twenty years, there had been annual discussions for raising Holborn valley, but up to that time they had come to nothing. He thought it probable that, a considerable time would elapse before that improvement was effected, and therefore he was anxious to suggest a very useful work, which could be accomplished within a short period, and at a comparatively small expense. Middle Row, Holborn, could he removed in a few months, at an expense of between £45,000 and £50,000. It and Temple Bar were, in his opinion—and for the last
  1722
  twenty years he had been a strict observer of the obstructions in the metropolitan thoroughfares—the greatest nuisances in the metropolis. He had not been bold enough to put Temple Bar in his Amendment, because he thought it the best policy to proceed by gentle degrees, and only proposed the removal of Middle Row. Holborn was contracted at Middle Row to a space which permitted only two vehicles to pass. Several years ago the requirements of the traffic of Holborn demanded the removal of Middle Row, and recently the traffic had been increased very considerably. Middle Row was a greater nuisance than Holborn valley. He might be met with the objection that Middle Row was beyond the jurisdiction of the Corporation, but it would be a graceful act on their part to express their readiness out of the proceeds of the duty to expend the small sum required for the removal of that acknowledged nuisance. He was anxious to prove to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr Ayrton) that the Corporation did not rest upon turtle, but that it rested at all events on the removal of Middle Row.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he was not commissioned on the part of the City to do graceful acts; but as the money—the produce of the tax—was to be employed in the improvement of the City and the parts adjacent, he had no doubt that they would pay proper attention to the subject brought under consideration by the hon. Member. But as between the improvement of Middle Row, Holborn, and of Holborn Hill, he thought the latter had the prior claim. On the score of humanity alone to the animals that passed along Holborn Hill, the efforts of the Corporation ought first to be directed to the removal of that nuisance. If after that nuisance had been abated, enough remained to remove Middle Row, the surplus funds might, of course, be well applied to that task.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he was at first surprised that the hon. Member for Finsbury had ignored Holborn valley; but having learned that Middle Row was in Finsbury, he ceased to wonder. No doubt the hon. Gentleman wished to tell his constituents at the next election, that although he was a Member of the Corporation, he had proposed that their funds should be expended in effecting a great improvement for Finsbury. Of all metropolitan nuisances that of Holborn Hill first required removal.
  MR. COXwas afraid that the hon.

  1723
  Gentleman was reckoning him up by his own measure. He admitted the nuisance of Hoi born Hill, over which, by the way, there had been a recent consultation of half-a-dozen metropolitan Members to decide whether it was in Finsbury or not; but he contended that the removal of Middle Row was essential to the improvement of Holborn Hill. The hon. Gentleman was an Alderman, while he was only a common councilman of London, which showed how much more liberal one section was than the other.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought it was a great omission not to have included Middle Row in the Bill, for it would be useless to raise Holborn Hill unless the obstruction of Middle Row were removed. They ought to be treated as one work.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he would remind the Committee that there were improvements which required to be done in the City proper, in the eastern part, of the greatest importance to commerce. The cost would he something like one million sterling. The Corporation must be just before it was generous. If after these improvements there was any surplus, it might be applied to the making of improvements "adjacent to the City."
  MR. W. CUBITTsaid, it was not correct, as had been represented, that the removal of Middle Row was essential to make the raising of Holborn Valley efficient, though, of course, the taking away of that obstruction would be a great improvement.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that Parliament had expressed an opinion that the fund under consideration should be appropriated to the carrying out of important improvements in the metropolis, and it struck one more and more every day what a disgrace those hills were to the City. To remove Holborn Hill was the thing most wanted in that part of London, and therefore it was treated as a primary charge. Whatever funds remained alter that was done might be applied to the removal of Middle Row. He thought it highly desirable that power should be at once given to the Corporation to agree with the railway companies, which were buying up all the laud in the vicinity of Holborn Valley; and it was quite necessary for them to know that an improvement of Holborn Hill was contemplated, and would be carried out. If the Bill were passed during the Session, the property required to carry out the improvement would probably be obtained much
  1724
  cheaper than after it had been devoted to some other purpose.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendment; to be read 3°, To-morrow.

VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 70.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, were agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Penalty for non-compliance with the Provisions of the Act, 20 s.).
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that the penalty should not exceed 5s.
  After some discussion the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn, and the penalty fixed at 10 s
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedules were also agreed to.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he hoped that some steps would be taken to procure proper vaccine lymph, as that lay at the root of the whole matter.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had already called the attention of the Government in Dublin to the subject; and care should be taken to secure a good and abundant supply.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To morrow.

LISBURN ELECTION.

  WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he rose to present a Petition from Mr. M'Cann, by whom the notice of withdrawal of the Petition against the return of the sitting Member had been forwarded, which notice, together with the disclaimer of that withdrawal, was afterwards referred to the General Committee of Elections. In his Petition Mr. M'Cann asserted that the Committee to whom the inquiry was referred failed to ascertain the truth, because their powers were too limited, and because they were unable to administer an oath, and because they were not assisted by counsel. It further alleged that he was instructed by the persons who had

  1725
  petitioned against the return of the sitting Member to withdraw that Petition, and that he did so as their agent and with their knowledge, and in discharge of what he felt to be his right. The Petition concluded with a prayer that Mr. M'Cann might have the opportunity of substantiating his allegations upon oath, and that no steps might be taken upon the Report of the General Committee till further inquiry had been instituted, and that time might be given to him to take legal advice with a view to the institution of such proceedings as might be necessary for eliciting and establishing the truth of the allegations here set forth.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the Report of the General Committee of Elections be considered, said, he would remind the House that on the 16th ult. it had been referred to that Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the document withdrawing the Petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Lisburn was signed by the petitioners, W. J. Knox and Moses Bullick, and whether such document constituted a withdrawal of such Petition under the Election Petitions Act (1848), and to report thereon to the House. The Committee had inquired, and found the document which was referred to them was not a withdrawal of the Petition under the terms of that Act, On ordinary occasions the General Committee of Elections would proceed to nominate the Select Committee to inquire into the validity of the Lisburn Election; but in that case, there having been a special reference to the General Committee, it would probably he convenient for the House to express its opinion upon their Report. He therefore begged to move that the Petition of W. J. Knox and M. Bullick do stand referred to the General Committee of Elections, the document referring thereto not having constituted a withdrawal under the Election Petitions Act (1848).
  Report of the General Committee of Elections considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Petition of William John Knox and Moses Bullick, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Lisburn, do stand referred to the General Committee of Elections, the Document withdrawing such Petition not having constituted a withdrawal thereof, under the Election Petitions Act, 1848."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to ask whether in point of fact there
  1726
  had been any withdrawal of the Petition, and whether the recognizances had been discharged. Because, if nut, he apprehended the petitioners were in a position to proceed without any special motion on the subject. He also wished to know whether it was proposed to take any steps in reference to the Gentleman, Mr. M'Cann, on whose behalf a Petition had just been presented, and who had acted in the very extraordinary manner disclosed in the evidence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not aware that any intention existed in any quarter to take proceedings against Mr. M'Cann, who perhaps was not very well advised in presenting a Petition complaining of the position in which he had been left by the General Committee of Elections. It was perfectly true that the Petition against the return for Lisburn had never been withdrawn; but bearing in mind that the House had thought proper to refer both the notice of withdrawal and the disclaimer of that notice to the General Committee of Elections, and that, pending that inquiry, the Committee could not have proceeded in the ordinary way to nominate a Select Committee to try the Petition itself, he thought the course proposed was the most advisable. His hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) was perhaps technically right, but he (the Attorney General) was not acting without consultation or authority; and the adoption of the Resolution would, at all events, relieve the Committee from the embarrassment they might feel on account of their functions having been suspended. The terms of the Motion he had submitted were exceedingly well adapted to attain that end, without violating any of the forms of the House.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would suggest the insertion of the word "remain," instead of the word "stand," referred to the General Committee of Elections.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he preferred the original words of the Resolution, which had been adopted on consideration.
  MR. M MAHONsaid, there was a tendency in some quarters in the North of Ireland to get up Petitions against the return of Members, and then to make money by withdrawing them. A Petition, not long since, was presented against a Gentleman sitting on the Opposition side of the House, and that hon. Member, as he understood, was obliged to pay £2,000 to have that Petition withdrawn. ["Name,

  1727
  name! "] No; it would not be right to name him. There was no harm in paying £2,000 to get rid of a Petition. It was, however, desirable to discourage a traffic of the kind. The election for Lisburn took place on the 21st of February. Mr. Moore, a solicitor of Dublin, attended a meeting of the electors of Lisburn on the 9th of March, with the view to a Petition against Mr. Barbour, the sitting Member. It was a suspicious circumstance that Mr. Moore obtained a form of withdrawal in duplicate of the Petition, "to be used if the Petition should become no longer necessary by the retirement of Mr. Barbour, or if they should fail in, getting evidence to establish their case." On the 11th of March the election Petition against the return was presented to the House. On the 24th of March Alexander M'Cann induced the two Petitioners against the return to sign a withdrawal of the Petition. The withdrawal was short and clear. It consisted of only two paragraphs—one stating the presentation of the Petition against the election, the other withdrawing the said Petition. It was clear from the statement of these two men, although they were not examined on oath, that they knew very well what they were about when they signed that document. It was probable, that their terms not being complied with, they subsequently wished to withdraw their withdrawal. But these parties, when they signed the Petition and its withdrawal, were dealing, not with the sitting Member, but with the House. He apprehended that with the view to purity of election, and to stop all traffic in Petitions against the return of Members, the House ought to take the matter up, and not allow its Members to be terrified by Petitions backed by duplicate notices of withdrawal. It was not to be conceived that these two knowing Lisburn men would sign, a Petition against Mr. Barbour's return and then a withdrawal of that Petition, without knowing perfectly well, in both cases, what they were about. He trusted the House would not allow the Resolution to be passed at once, but would give time to Mr. M'Cann to prove the groundlessness of the imputations made against him.
  SIR. WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the question before them was not as to Mr. M'Cann's character, but whether the House would pass a slight upon the Report of an important Committee, which, by its constitution and the names of its members, was entitled to confidence. The Committee
  1728
  had investigated the case, and found what they believed were the facts. There was no doubt, that whether the persons knew what they signed or not, before the withdrawal was presented to the House they wished to recall it. At present there were two documents in the Speaker's hands. There were the Petition and the alleged withdrawal, and, to prevent confusion, the Motion of the learned Attorney General was intended to be an authoritative declaration that there was no withdrawal, and that the Petition should take its ordinary course. He must say, he thought the course suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General was the right course to pursue.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he believed that what the hon. and learned Attorney General wished to affirm was that the House ought to abide by the decision of the Committee, and the Petition stated as if no withdrawal had been presented. At the same time, he thought the word "remain" should be substituted for the word "stand," and he would therefore move an Amendment to that effect.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the word "stand," and insert the word "remain."
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HERBERTsaid, that having had the honour of being the Chairman of the Committee, he must be allowed to say one word with regard to the allegations in the Petition. It was true that great difficulty took place during the inquiry, in consequence of the Committee having no power to administer an oath. The evidence given was so contradictory that it could not possibly be all true; but the conclusion of the Committee was based upon what had been stated by the accused himself; and if he were to be allowed to produce further evidence, it must be to contradict his own statement.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought the Committee had acted with great discretion. His only object, however, was to prevent its appearing on the Journals that there could be any necessity to refer a Petition which existed, and with regard to which the withdrawal was null and void.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he could not see any real distinction between the words "stand" and "remain."
  MR. M'MAHONdisavowed any intention to cast the slightest reflection on the Committee.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would venture to suggest that, his hon. Friend need not trouble the House to divide.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. E. P. BOUERIEsaid, he did not understand the hon. Member for Wexford county (Mr. M'Mahon) to cast any imputation on the conduct of the General Committee of Elections; and, indeed, it was impossible to look at the evidence given before that body without being convinced that the General Committee of Elections had faithfully performed their duty. There was, however, one circumstance disclosed which was not unworthy' the consideration of that House. There were actually in existence two withdrawals of that election Petition signed by the electors who signed the Petition against the election, and they were documents which might at any time be sent, to the Speaker. On reading the evidence the suspicion arose that the Petition was not a bonâ fide Petition, founded on evidence of illegal practices on the part of the sitting Member or his agents, but got up for a certain purpose, and the fact that two withdrawals of the Petition were signed at about the same time was a most suspicious circumstance. If such a practice were to become general, some change in the law would be necessary to protect Members of that House against possible attempts at extortion. Nothing was more disagreeable to an hon. Member, however pure his election might have been, than to have a Petition presented against his return and kept suspended over his head, to be withdrawn, in many cases, for a certain consideration; and he thought that such a proceeding as was disclosed in the evidence given before the General Committee of Elections should not pass without condemnation on the part of the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that on Mr. M'Cann refusing to give tip the form of withdrawal of the Petition obtained by him the petitioners wrote to the Speaker disclaiming the withdrawal, and that disclaimer, he conceived, applied to the two original withdrawals, which were likewise intrusted to Mr. M'Cann.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENcontended that such a transaction as that disclosed before the General Committee of Elections ought not to pass unnoticed by the House.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he was of opi-
  1730
  nion, that unless the House expressed a decided condemnation of such a proceeding as that which had been disclosed, the public would believe that it was not serious in its attempts to stop bribery and corruption.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved, that the only question before the House was, whether the Petition presented against the return of the hon. Member for Lisburn ought to be proceeded with. He did not think that the General Committee of Elections should have inquired whether there was any impropriety in what occurred in reference to the election Petition in Ireland. The Committee purposely avoided going into that point; and had they allowed the parties to go into all the transactions connected with the Petition, he believed that the Committee would have been obliged to sit upstairs fur a month or six weeks longer. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) considered that to be a transaction which the House ought to take notice of; but it was rather one which the Committee to which the election Petition would be referred would do well do take notice of. If it, were found that the Petition was presented, and that at the same time two withdrawals were signed by the same parties whose names were attached to the Petition, they might trust any Committee of the House to deal with those facts ns they deserved. More than that he did not think it right to say. The only question before them was, whether what was called a withdrawal of the Petition really was such. The parties who presented it endeavoured to recall it on the very day on which they signed it; and when they found they could not do that, because it was in the pocket of another person, who, however, knew their desire to suppress it, they sent off a disclaimer, which was lodged fourteen days defore the withdrawal. No one, therefore, could consider that there had been a proper withdrawal. The document which was so called ought never to have been lodged at all. In his opinion these facts, instead of being detrimental to the sitting Member, would tell very much in his favour.
  MR. COLLINSobserved, that what the Committee would have to decide was simply the value of the evidence laid before them. The manner in which the Petition was got up or withdrawn had nothing to do with the real question which they had to try.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, there was a constant recurrence of the most flagrant iniquities in regard to election Petitions.

  1731
  Members were kept for months in suspense as to their position, and Petitions against them were got up on the slightest possible grounds. Such practices affected the honour and dignity of the House, and ought to be considered at the earliest possible period with a view to their prevention.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Petition of William John Knox and Moses Bullick, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Lisburn, do stand referred to the General Committee of Elections, the Document withdrawing such Petition not having constituted a withdrawal thereof, under the Elections Petitions Act, 1848.

  ENGLISH CHURCH SERVICES IN WALES BILL— [BILL 81.]—COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Bishop of Welsh Dioceses may licence Chapel for Performance of Divine Service in English, and nominate minister thereto).
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would move an Amendment to the effect that of ten or more English residents, on whose application the bishop might licence services in the English language, three should be householders.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he feared that the Amendment would diminish the efficiency of the measure.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he objected to the introduction of the term "householders" in conjunction with "English residents," as likely to prove too restrictive.
  MR. PULLERsuggested that the word "inhabitants" should be inserted instead of "English residents."
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, he could not agree to that alteration, because casual visitors might not be included under the term "inhabitants." He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University would keep the Bill as it stood, so that the bishop might control the whole matter.
  MR. GATHONRE HARDYsaid, he thought the word "inhabitants" was the best which could be put into the Bill. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last in thinking that the whole matter should be left to the bishop. A little was due to the incumbent, who, so long as he was ready to satisfy the wants of his
  1732
  parish, should not he interfered with. He hoped the Committee would adopt the words "ten or more inhabitants," of whom a certain number were householders.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the Act of Uniformity required that in Wales the Church services should be celebrated in the Welsh language. Now, many residents in Wales could not speak the language of the country, and surely nothing could be more reasonable than to allow them to bear the services in their own tongue. The condition contained in a subsequent clause of the Bill, that the persons anxious to have the English services celebrated should be liable to build a place of worship, and to provide a minister, appeared amply sufficient for all practical purposes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would then move the insertion, after "inhabitants," of the words "of whom three shall be householders."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, after the word "inhabitants," to insert the words "of whom three shall be householders."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the Amendment. A man who was a lodger surely had as much right to religious ministrations as a householder. The practice of associating the Church and its offices with property and position was most injurious.
  Question put, "That those words he there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 45: Majority 14.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the incumbent was to appoint a spiritual person to officiate, and after the persons requiring his services had guaranteed the payment of the expenses the incumbent might appoint a person that was distasteful to them. He therefore, to prevent such an occurrence, proposed the omission of certain words. Should the incumbent appoint an unfit person there would be no guarantee, if the Amendment were adopted, to pay the expenses.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would propose the omission, after the word "inhabitants," of the words "or those who commonly use the English language." As many Welshmen spoke both languages, it might be difficult to determine which they "commonly used."
  MR. LYGOXsaid, he hoped that these words would he retained, as the whole Bill rested upon them.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it better to leave out the words. They would fetter the discretion of the bishop too much.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he would propone, in line 17. after "Wales," to insert "in which the ordinary parochial services are in the Welsh tongue."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that the word "ordinary" in the Amendment should be left out, and the word "only" added. The Bill, he understood, was intended to remedy a very extreme case, without running the risk of disturbing the parochial system generally, and the position of those incumbents who were in the most exemplary manner labouring to do everything they could for the spiritual provision of their parishes.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the word "ordinary" should be retained in the Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not see what claim a set of casual visitors to a Welsh watering-place had to more than one English service a day.
  COLONEL PENNANTsaid, there was a large and increasing number of English residents in Wales, and it was thought that they ought not to be at the mercy of the incumbent, but that there should be an appeal to the bishop in case of need.
  MR. C. W. WYNNsaid, the only thing that was asked was that buildings should be licensed in which ministers paid by those who required their services should officiate. It was not intended that the incumbent of a parish in which such building should he licensed should be at all responsible, either legally or morally, for the provision of such services, and neither was it intended in any way to interfere with his parochial authority. The clauses of the Bill were all framed so as to recognise and maintain unimpaired that authority, and all the incumbents with whom he had been in communication approved the Bill.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the Amendment as it was originally proposed. The Act of Uniformity required that in districts such as those referred to, the service should be in the Welsh tongue.
  THE SOLICITOR OENERALob-
  1734
  served, that the service was in Welsh only where the Welsh language was commonly used. He found nothing; in the Act of Uniformity to make the use of the English language illegal.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the words as proposed to be inserted by the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) were not the same as appeared on the paper, and, if adopted, would defeat the whole object of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid be wished to point out that the Amendment might more properly be dealt with in another part of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL PENNANTsaid, he would move to insert in Clause 1, line 12, after the word "licence," the following words: —
  "On the nomination by the incumbent of the said parish, district, or place, of a fit and proper person as minister to such chapel."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 12, after the word "licence," to insert the words "on the nomination by the incumbent of the said parish, district, or place of a fit and proper person as minister to such chapel.
  Question put "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 31: Majority 1.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, the effect of the Amendment which had been just carried, would be to make the Bill inoperative. He should therefore move to report progress.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday 10th June.

  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Election Petitions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT and Mr. SERJEANT PIGOTT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 124.]

  COSTS SECURITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to amend the Law relating to the giving of Security for Costs by Plaintiffs residing out of the jurisdiction of the Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT and Mr. MURRAT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 126.]

  PORT ERIN HARBOUR (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  Port Erin Harbour (Isle of Man)—considered in Committee:
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That Leave be given to bring in

  1735
  a Bill to authorize the taking of Harbour Dues at Port Erin, in the Isle of Man, in order to provide a fund for the Improvement of the Harbour; and for other purposes.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. HUTT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 123.]

  EXECUTION OF DECREES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to make better provision for the enforcement throughout England and Ireland of the Decrees and Orders of the Courts of Chancery, Probate, and Divorce, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. LONGFIELD, and Mr. MURRAY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 125.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock