Sitting of 16 February 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Controverted Elections nominated; Registration of County Voters (Feb. 10) nominated. (See p. 681.)
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—Railways (Facilities for Construction); Railway Companies' Powers.*

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
The Right Hon. Sir FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING, baronet, Member for the Borough of Portsmouth; Sir WILLIAM MILES, baronet, Member for the Eastern Division of the County of Somerset; the Right Hon. HENRY ARTHUR HERBERT, Member for the County of Kerry; and JOHN BONHAM- CARTER, esquire, Member for the City of "Winchester, being four of the Members appointed by Mr. Speaker to serve on the General Committee of Elections, and not objected to by the House, were sworn at the Table by the Clerk.
Ordered, That the Corrected Alphabetical List of Members to serve on Election Committees be referred to the Committee.

BECKENHAM, LEWES, AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that his object in now moving the second reading of this Bill was that it might be sent upstairs to be considered in connection with the schemes proposed by the London and Brighton Company for attaining a similar object. The only opponents to the Bill, both last year and this, were the London and Brighton Company; the landowners, merchants, traders, and inhabitants of the
  636
  districts, being in favour of it. Hon. Members had been exposed to considerable annoyance by being privately canvassed by the London and Brighton Company against the Bill; he trusted, however, that they would not allow themselves to be ear-wigged and prejudiced against the scheme of which he was the Chairman. The proposed line was intended to provide railway accommodation for the eastern division of Sussex, which the London and Brighton Company had hitherto neglected. Last year, the Brighton Company appeared to be taken by surprise; but this year, they had presented three Bills of their own to the House, and instead of allowing this Bill to be sent upstairs, as was the usual course, to be considered by a Committee, the Brighton Company had sought to get their own three Bills read yesterday, and if they had been successful—which they probably would have been, had he not been in his place to move that the second reading of those Bills should be postponed— they would have endeavoured to secure that the Bill immediately before the House should not be examined upstairs in conjunction with their own, and thus have prevented that which was, he maintained, the only fair course to adopt. Now it was, he might observe, proved before the Committee to which the scheme which he was advocating was referred last year— when its only opponents were, as at present, the Brighton Company—that the charges made by that Company were higher than the maximum allowed by law, to which limit, however, they were afterwards reduced. Was that then a body which had any claim to come and canvass the Members of that House to pursue, in reference to any scheme, an unusual line of conduct? But it was contended by the Company, who did not hesitate to catch lion. Members by the buttonhole, and to canvass them for their votes, that the present Bill was exactly identical with that which had last year been rejected. Such was not, however, the fact. The present Bill avoided all the objections they had had to encounter last year. They had reduced the number of tunnels one fourth; instead of forty-nine miles of railroad, for which the promoters went last year, they now went for seventy-four; and out of those seventy-four there were only sixteen which were identical with any portion of last year's scheme. The case was one, he might add, in which the landowners, merchants, traders, and inhabitants

  637
  generally of the district, concurred, and were anxious for the additional accommodation which was proposed. The new line proposed, moreover, to go into the very centre of the town of Brighton, while it would confer the further advantage of giving a direct line to Eastbourne. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would consent to take the usual course, and would agree to the second reading of the Bill, which he begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYopposed the Motion on public grounds, having no private interests in the locality in question. He nevertheless thought it right to inform the House that the Bill was identical with that of last year, which was rejected by the House. The Bill now before the House differed in no material respect from that of last year. The Committee last year sat for thirty-five days. The costs to the parties in that contest were about £75,000. He thought, therefore, that the House should be satisfied that there was a material difference between the Bill of this Session and that of last Session before proceeding with it. He did not see any material difference, and therefore to proceed with the Bill would be merely to encourage a wasteful expenditure. As to the landowners being in favour of the Bill, it certainly passed through some very poor land, and might be expected to improve its value. Holding these views, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. PAULLseconded the Amendment. The Bill was fairly heard and rejected last year; and the Bill which was now before the House was substantially the same as that which was now before it. He was a Member of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into the Private Bill legislation of the House, and there was hardly any point more seriously urged before that Committee than the inconvenience of repeated applications in consecutive Sessions on behalf of the same scheme. The remedy for the evil was to stop the progress of Bills like the present on the second reading. Last year the Committee to which the Bill was referred sat thirty-five days, ninety-three witnesses were examined, and the expenses amounted to £75,000, and he therefore thought this was a Bill as to which the House might properly interfere at the present stage. In pursuing such a
  638
  course, they would not be acting without precedent, for in the Session of 1863 the South Eastern Railway promoted a Bill which was rejected, on the Motion for the second reading, on the ground of its having been rejected in the previous Session by a Committee of the House of Lords; and in 1862 the Great Northern Railway Bill (No. 2) was rejected on the second reading although an interval of ten years had elapsed since the last previous application.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hankey.)
  SIR EDWAED COLEBROOKE,as a Member of the Committee of last year, the Chairman of which was unfortunately out of town, said, that the question, as presented to that Committee, was one of competition pure and simple. The local case entirely broke down. Now, in his experience, he did not remember that the House had ever sanctioned a scheme for the sole purpose of establishing competition with an existing line without its being shown that the new railway would provide accommodation which was required by the district through which it was to pass; and he did not see why they should do so in the present instance. Some of the grievances alleged against the London and Brighton Railway Company were substantiated before the Committee; but the attempt to show that that Company had made illegal charges entirely failed. It was said that this Bill had been improved since it was last submitted to Parliament. Now he had compared the two Bills, and was prepared to say that they were substantially the same. The present Bill, it was true, proposed to carry the line into the centre of Brighton; but last year, although it did not appear in the Bill, it was understood to be part of the scheme, and was before the Committee. The branch lines were certainly new. Probably a postponement for another year would be attended with still more beneficial results, and if it could be postponed for five years longer, then it might be so improved as to pass without opposition; but it was trifling with the House to bring before it miniature schemes, because, on some future occasion, the promoters might bring them before the House in a more matured form. He asked the House to support the decisions of its own Committees.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he lived in the western division of Sussex, it was true, but he did not think the wise men always came from the east. The Brighton Railway accommodated the western division of the county very well, and if it were allowed time would do the same for the remainder of Sussex. Two direct lines to Brighton might serve the interests of that town very well; but for the county at large one long line with lateral branches was infinitely better. The new line which the Brighton Company were about to open would be nearly a direct line, and would take off all the western and Portsmouth traffic. He saw no reason which required interference with the Brighton Company, and should vote against the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. DUTTONsaid, the Brighton Company had voluntarily lowered its fares and was within its Parliamentary powers. He knew of no company in the South of England that was better managed; and could not see the necessity of competition.
  MR. BLENCOWEwas understood to support the Bill
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he thought the weight of evidence was against the further progress of the Bill. The promoters had been recently heard, and the decision against them was unanimous. They had been told that the Bill was substantially different from the preceding one, but after the statement of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), the House could scarcely come to that conclusion. There might be some features of distinction, but he thought he must be a very inexpert draughtsman who could not prepare some superficial differences from a previous Bill. He looked on the Bill as substantially the same project promoted by the same parties as that presented last Session, and if it went to a Committee they could not anticipate a different result to that of last Session. The district was in the hands of a large public company, and he did think it was an abuse of the indulgence the House extended to parties bringing projects before it to reproduce this Bill, the further progress of which could only lead to unnecessary expense.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it was capable of demonstration that the objections urged against the Bill of last year had all been met in the Bill before the House. It was true that the proposed line ran through the same towns as the line of last year; but, with the exception
  640
  of sixteen miles, there was no portion of the two schemes identical. The present line ran through new ground. However, after the opinion expressed by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Massey), and seeing that the general feeling of the House was against the scheme, he would bow to what he considered to be an unfair decision, and would not waste time by going to a division. But if the Brighton Company did not do more to serve the district eastward of their main line, he would take care, if he had a seat in the House, that no long time should elapse before they had the same subject before them again.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

CALEDONIAN, EDINBURGH, AND GLASGOW, AND SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, that the House had on various occasions established the principle of free competition, while this Bill attempted to establish a monopoly of the railway traffic between the east and west of Scotland. This Bill was now before the House for the seventh time, six Bills with the same object having been already rejected or withdrawn by the promoters. It was said that the opposition to the Bill was now much less strong, but that was because the lines favouring it had made bargains with some of its opponents. The companies now again asked Parliament to sanction their scheme, but public feeling was still against them. In the case of so powerful a Company the public would have little opportunity of obtaining redress for any grievances they might suffer. The projectors had immense Parliamentary influence, and having a capital of £15,000,000 or £16,000,000, to back them, who was to contend with them? Parliament had already declared that the scheme was tainted with monopoly, and ought not to receive the sanction of the House. He begged to move that the Bill

  641
  be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. BLACKseconded the Amendment, for which there was a fortunate precedent in the Bill that had just been rejected, the House having declared that since they had rejected the Bill once before they would not now sanction it when proposed a second time. But the projectors of this Bill had come before the House with a similar scheme no less than seven times, and every time it had been either rejected or withdrawn. The Bill had been before all the municipal bodies and Chambers of Commerce connected with the railways in question, and there was one unanimous opinion that it ought to be opposed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  SIR, JAMES FERGUSSONsupported the Bill, which he maintained was substantially different from the propositions previously made in regard to this matter. All the existing facilities enjoyed by the public were preserved by the Bill, which also reduced the rates, thus conferring an important benefit on the community. Sunning powers were given to other companies over the amalgamated lines, so that the public obtained thereby the advantages of competition.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that in various forms the sanction of the House had been asked for the measure on six different occasions. In 1860 a Bill substantially similar to the present was rejected by the Committee, and in the following year was brought forward again and again rejected. Considering, then, that this plan had been twice dealt with by Select Committees, both of which concurred in rejecting the scheme, he did not think that there had been such a change of circumstances in the interval as would warrant its reconsideration at present. He did not adhere to the principle that all amalgamation was necessarily objectionable. It was quite possible that at some future time the opposition to such a measure might be conciliated, and that it might be presented to Parliament under more favourable circumstances. Taking all things, however, into account, and considering that Parliament was this year overburdened by an enormous pressure of private business, he thought it was not desirable to task the energies of Members by asking them to
  642
  investigate a Bill which they would be almost certain to reject, as they had done on former occasions.
  MR. BLACKBURNapprehended that the last argument of the hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of Committees, would have so much weight with the House that it would not be necessary to press the question to a division. At the same time, he protested against the injustice done to the promoters. How long a time was to elapse before they would become entitled to a new trial? There were really considerable alterations in the scheme, which fully justified its being again submitted to Parliament.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, there was nothing to hinder the promoters from at once giving the reduced rates which they promised in their Bill, and then when they next came forward they might find the public not ungrateful.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 3) (DONCASTER TO GAINSBOROUGH) BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. It had already, from the year 1851 to 1863 inclusive, been before the House several times, and was rejected on each occasion. It seemed to him that the Great Northern Company did not want to make the line, but merely to obtain an Act for the purpose of cutting off the country from any other company. Looking at all the circumstances, and at the indignity which this Company was endeavouring to put upon the House, he hoped the Bill would not be read a second time.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  MR. PACKEsaid, the reason why the Great Northern Company could not obtain

  643
  the sanction of the House on former occasions was because of the opposition of the landowners; but that opposition no longer existed. He could assure the noble Lord and the House that the Great Northern Company did intend to make the line, and if the Bill were passed it would be set about as soon as possible.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he was one of the Committee of last year, and the reason why they rejected this Bill was because it was imperfect, and had been brought forward too hastily. He believed all the defects in the measure had been remedied, and that no objection to the Bill existed. He thought, therefore, that the House might read the Bill a second time.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, there were two parties who opposed this Bill—the landowners, represented by Lord Houghton, the hon. Member for East Retford (Mr. Foljambe), and Mr. Brown, and the Great Eastern Company, represented by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu), who wished to occupy the same country. The Select Committee was a better tribunal to try these questions than the House, as nine out of every ten hon. Members knew nothing of the facts.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, it was quite true that this Bill was rejected in former years through the opposition of the landowners; but since that time their opposition had been materially qualified, and he should now vote for the Bill.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

HARWICH CORPORATION BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Captain Jervis.)
  MR. CRAWFORDopposed the second reading, on the ground that the Bill contained proposals which were highly objectionable to the inhabitants of Harwich. This Bill proposed to confer upon the Corporation of Harwich powers to raise £40,000 for the purpose of reclaiming a certain tract of land in the neighbourhood of the town, and covered by the sea at high water, at the expense of the rate-
  644
  payers of the town. The Bill was opposed by the inhabitants for many reasons—that it was not within the province of municipal corporations to embark in speculations of any kind; that the whole risk of the undertaking would be thrown upon the ratepayers; that the scheme was, in fact, brought forward by the Great Eastern Railway Company; that the Bill was in direct opposition to a Standing Order of the House; and that if passed one of its clauses would compel the inhabitants to adopt the Local Government Act of 1858, which they had determined not to do. The Bill was promoted by a few parties in the town council in direct opposition to the wishes of three-fourths of the inhabitants, expressed at a public meeting on the 5th of this month, held under the presidency of the mayor, at which a petition was adopted which was signed by 314 burgesses out of 406, by seven magistrates out of thirteen, and by three churchwardens out of four. He trusted the House would not force on the inhabitants a scheme of the town council. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  CAPTAIN JERVISwished to know why the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) had interested himself so much on behalf of his (Captain Jervis') constituents? The object of the Bill was to promote the health and comfort of the townspeople of Harwich, and was no new measure; for a similar plan was recommended twenty-five years ago by the Admiralty Commissioners who inspected the harbour of the east coast. He denied that there was any pretence for saying that the Bill was a job got up by the Great Eastern Railway. The railway company in question had had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The fact was, there was in the neighbourhood of Harwich a very rising place called Dovercourt, the sewage of which ran on the foreshore. The result was a great nuisance, and he believed that the opposition to this Bill had been entirely got up by the owners of that sewage. The Bill was really a sanitary measure—one, too, for which there was the greatest need—and he therefore hoped that the House would allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that however desirous he might feel to relieve Committees of any portion of their labour, this Bill had upon the face of it a laudable object; and being promoted by a corporation which, was elected by popular suffrage, and who were therefore the best expositors of the feelings and wishes of the inhabitants, it was a matter peculiarly fitted for examination upstairs. In fact, he had never known a Bill more suitable for such an inquiry.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 68: Majority 73.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (KEMP TOWN STATION AND LINES) BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that he had intended to oppose this and two other Bills promoted by the same company, which he thought were mere fighting Bills; but he would withdraw his opposition, in order to give the Company an opportunity of showing whether they meant bonâ fide to give the district the accommodation they professed a wish to afford.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS.—RESOLUTIONS.

  FIRST RSOLUTION.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON,in moving the first of a series of Resolutions of which he had given notice, said it would be in the recollection of the House, that during the last Session a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of Private Bill Legislation. That Committee sat, and after a lengthened inquiry agreed to a Report and several Resolutions; and the object he now had in view was, not to propose any great scheme of change in the present system of dealing with Private Bills, but merely to ask the House to consent to some of the recommendations of that Select Committee, which were intended to remedy particular grievances that had been much pressed upon the attention of Parliament. He believed that the Consolidation Acts as recommended, by the Committee, and which passed last Session, had produced a salutary effect in shortening
  646
  Private Bills, thus relieving the promoters from much unnecessary expense: they had also relieved the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means in that House, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords of some labour, and lessened the risk of clauses finding their way into Private Bills, which might be prejudicial to the public interest. The subject which he was about to introduce divided itself into several parts, not having much connection one with the other, and therefore he thought it would be convenient if he took each of the Resolutions and dealt with it separately without travelling into the other points. The Resolutions which he was about to propose had reference—first, to the mode in which it was proposed to deal with Bills, so as to lighten the labours of Committees; the second, to the House fees, in which it was proposed to make a reduction; and the third, to the professional charges of Parliamentary agents, solicitors, and others; and besides these, there was a final Resolution as to the hour at which Committees of the House should meet. The first Resolution proposed that, when the promoters and opponents of any Private Bill consented, the House should be at liberty to refer such Bill, either wholly or in part, to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Members associated with him, in the same manner as unopposed private business was now dealt with. Much additional labour might certainly be imposed on the Chairman of Ways and Means by this arrangement; but his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Massey) was himself the proposer of the plan, and had said very handsomely that as he was a salaried officer, the House, especially in times of a pressure of business, was entitled to get out of him all the work that it could, and he had taken him at his word. It appeared that during the Session of 1862 there was one Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), who sat no less than sixty-nine days, most of those sittings being long and laborious; whereas during the same time, the Chairman of Ways and Means only sat thirty-three days on unopposed Private Bills, and on an average the business before him did not occupy more than two hours a day. The hon. and learned Gentleman being willing to take upon himself these additional duties, the House might well try the experiment involved in the proposed change. He had little doubt that

  647
  with the experience possessed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and from the fact that in most cases it would not be necessary to hear counsel, the business would be disposed of in a very short period of time, at much, less expense, and probably to the satisfaction of all parties, who would bind themselves in the first instance to abide by the award. The promoters and opponents of private Bills and the public at large were interested in giving the contemplated change a fair trial, and he hoped it would be sanctioned by the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee of Selection and the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, at any time after the committal of any Bills, be empowered, with the consent of all parties promoting and opposing, to refer the same, wholly or with reference to particular Clauses, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and that such Chairman, together with Members to be appointed in like manner as Members of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, be empowered to hear the parties promoting and opposing such Bills or their agents, and to report upon the same to the House."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no desire to offer any objection to the Resolution before the House, which was harmless in itself and might fairly be described as a small step in the right direction. As far as it went—and that he believed would be a very little way indeed—it would tend to relieve Members of the House from the enormous burden cast upon them, and suitors out of doors from the enormous costliness of the proceedings to which they became parties. He had given notice of an Amendment, not with the object of defeating the Resolution, but as the only way open to him of expressing dissatisfaction with the Report of last year's Select Committee, and of making it the text for the observations he desired to offer. That Committee was empowered to sit upon a very grave and weighty subject, with respect to which serious complaints had been constantly uttered, both in and out of the House; it heard a great deal of evidence, and deliberated for a whole Session; but when it had to decide upon its Report the Committee shrank from applying any adequate remedy to the enormous evils with which it had been expected to grapple. He spoke of the Committee in its corporate capacity, but the Report which decided that the system so generally condemned should continue, was only passed by a majority of a single voice. The Report was moved by his noble Friend the Mem-
  648
  ber for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), and was carried by his voice; but in the minority were the names of Walpole and Wilson Patten. He, therefore, thought himself justified in saying that, although the weight of numbers barely preponderated in favour of the Report, the weight of authority preponderated against it. There was no need to prove to hon. Members the burden entailed by the existing system. The labours of the House were severe enough in themselves—not, perhaps, at the present moment, but later on in the Session, when they were more thickly engaged in business—without the superadded attendance upon Committees. It was no slight addition to the duty of a Member of Parliament, which required him to be in his place from four o'clock in the afternoon till perhaps two o'clock in the morning, to be kept upon a Committee all day, and charged with the duty of deciding about petty roads or the conflicting claims of railways and canals. No Member would refuse to undertake labour rightly falling to his share; but the real objection to this Private Bill legislation was, that it was work which Members were not sent to Parliament to perform. Members were returned to Parliament to attend to the great questions concerning the Empire, to control the Government, to take part in making public laws affecting the welfare of nations at large, and it was for those purposes alone that they were returned by their constituents. The system by which Members were told off into small groups to spend all their time in listening to trifling litigation was entirely of modern origin. One hundred years ago it did not exist. It came into being with the enormous increase of private enterprise caused by the inventions of later times, and it never entered into the original constitutional theory of the House of Commons. Even now it never entered into the minds of constituencies. An election had recently been held for the important constituency of Brighton, and the result being naturally received with some congratulation upon the Opposition side of the House, the circumstances of that election might have been looked at more closely by friends round him than by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But upon the most careful scrutiny of what had there occurred, he could not find that any of the candidates had vaunted his efficiency upon Private Bill Committees, or that the electors had preferred any one of those candidates on account of his supposed capacity for deciding

  649
  upon the exact extent of a gradient or a curve. The constituency took no interest in questions of that kind; their minds were occupied with considerations of a much more important and general character. The fact that considerations affecting the labour upon Committees had not made their way on to the hustings showed that they were not looked upon as forming part of their legitimate duties, and that they were widely apart from the constitutional theory of a Member's office. The new Member for Brighton (Mr. Moor) might think that he came there to hear and take part in discussions on large questions of foreign and domestic policy; but if he indulged in such sanguine dreams he was much mistaken. He did not know the clutches of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten), and the engine of torture which that hon. Member wielded. Until he had felt the grasp of the hon. Member he could have no conception of the arduous and unnecessary labour to which he must be subjected for having become one of the representatives of the people. It might be endurable if it were of any use, or if the work could be done by no one else, or if the mode of doing it were satisfactory. He was rebuked the other night for assuming the character of a representative of the mercantile community; but he hoped, that in quoting the opinions of the Associated Chambers of Commerce he should not be exposed to the same reproach. The Association of the Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom said in their petition—
  "That the great expense and uncertainty attending the carrying of Private Bills for public works through Parliament form a serious impediment to the undertaking of large and important works, and in smaller undertakings suffice to cause the abandonment of many projects and improvements of great public utility. These evils are in a great measure caused by the double tribunal (namely, Committees of each House of Parliament) before which such Bills, together with the evidence by which they are supported, have to be considered, thus causing a double expense. Moreover, as such Committees have no recognized law of evidence, and are guided by no recognized or fixed principles in arriving at decisions, it necessarily sometimes happens that the decisions arrived at, in exactly similar cases, are contradictory, and this not merely as between the Committees of the two several Houses of Parliament, but also Committees of the same House. Much uncertainty is thus involved as to the probability of successfully obtaining an Act for any undertaking, however beneficial. That your petitioners respectfully submit that this evil would be best remedied by referring the evidence in support of, or in opposition to such Bills, to some permanent
  650
  judicial body of competent and experienced persons, sitting in public, and who would hear and examine the same, and report thereon to each House of Parliament."
  Such was the opinion of a body, above all others the most competent to decide on this matter. Let the House try to imagine what the state of things would be if the Court of Queen's Bench were abolished and a tribunal substituted, composed of five gentlemen, selected indiscriminately from the whole body of members of Lincoln's Inn, sitting one five in one day and another five on another day, with no security that the same judges who sat on one day would sit on any subsequent day. Several Bills had just been brought forward a second time, after being rejected last year, and the cause of the anomaly was that the promoters took their chance of another Committee. It was impossible that the same question could be brought forward again and again before the same Judges in a court of law, where certain fixed principles were acted upon; but the same schemes were brought forward again and again in the House, to the infliction of great hardship on those who opposed them. Then there was the incompetency of the tribunal. A body of gentlemen had been got together, who were ready to sit as Chairmen through an entire Session, and any one of them was competent to conduct an inquiry; but four other Members sat by his side, and it was a delusion to suppose that the Chairman was not constantly out-voted by Members who were absolutely inexperienced. No one denied that the tribunal was pure, but the result of all the various defects was to cast on the suit an enormous and unnecessary expense. In one Committee upon which he sat, hearing the division bell ring, he innocently thought that his best course was to leave the Committee-room and proceed to the House; but he was told that the counsel, agents, and witnesses engaged made it so costly, that £1 a minute was spent during every minute that the Committee was sitting, and he was begged to stay. The London and North "Western had spent from first to last £1,000,000 in these Committee-rooms; the Great Western had spent £800,000, and the Great Northern £300,000, before, he believed, a mile of their line was opened. The expense, too, was not in the first inception of a scheme, but a constant drain went on, not in the initiation of new schemes, but in having to come year after

  651
  year to "watch" the proceedings of other companies, in order that their interests might not be affected. It might be said that there was no harm in bleeding these powerful companies a little; but these expenses intimately affected the public interests. They should remember that dividends could not be screwed down below a certain amount, and that the effect of large expenditure in Parliament was seen in every portion of the arrangements, so that the frightful accidents which had disgraced the railway system were the result of this system of Private Bill legislation. To give a presentable dividend, the managers of the lines cut down the expenses in every possible way, and at last the arrangements were not sufficient to secure safety. It might be that a piece of the permanent way was neglected, or a pointsman who had been fourteen hours at work was so sleepy he could not see which way a train was coming. Accidents could generally be traced to injudicious economy. The injudicious economy was the result of the heavy burdens placed on the company from the commencement, and for those burdens this House was primarily responsible. As to private persons, they could not protect themselves against ill-advised and injudicious schemes. If they opposed for one or two years, the company was sure in the end to wear them out by appearing again and again before Parliament. He believed that if there were some more suitable tribunal to appeal to at which persons who complained could have been heard, the present cry against the invasion of the metropolis would never have been heard of; but small landowners knew very well that for them there was no security against injury, that they were at the mercy of the railway companies, and that they were debarred by the cost from appealing to the present tribunal for protection. "When, however, a change was proposed, the stock argument always was that the House of Commons could not part with its legislative power. In the principle of that objection he owned he concurred. The House of Commons ought never to part with the right and duty of legislation. It would be false to its trusts if it ever permitted any statutory interference with the rights of the subject without its direct sanction. But the House insisted on discharging judicial functions as well. What he contended for was that the House should satisfy itself that it was legislative not
  652
  judicial interference that was required. If the inquiry before Committees were a legislative proceeding, why was this enormous expenditure incurred for counsel, agents, and witnesses? Private Bill legislation resolved itself under two heads—the facts on which the legislation was founded, and the legislation itself. The legislation the House would never part with; but why were Members of that House forced to discharge the arduous, unsatisfactory, and trivial task of ascertaining the facts on which it was based? This was not the practice of the House in more important investigations. In its public legislation the House dealt with interests of enormous importance, but it did not appoint Select Committees to sit and hear counsel and Parliamentary agents. The House either relied on information supplied by the Executive, or it referred the matter to a Select Committee, which sent for witnesses and examined them itself at little or no expense. The mind of the House was enlightened on the subject by the Report and Evidence, and its legislation was at least as satisfactory as on Private Bills. Why should not the facts be ascertained outside the House in the case of Private Bills? Let the House, if it saw fit, commit the inquiry to a Government Department, or to some local authority on the spot with adequate knowledge, and which might conduct the investigation without undue expense. Let the evidence be reported to the House and referred to a Select Committee. If there was any matter on which that Committee desired to be further informed, let it send for the witnesses and examine them for itself and without counsel. In ordinary cases, however, it would be fair to presume that the sole expense to the suitor would be in this local and preliminary inquiry by which the facts would be ascertained. The legislative power of the House would thus be preserved, and all the judicial part of the duty, in which the burden to Members and the cost to parties arose, would be handed over to those who were more competent, and by whom it could be done more cheaply. It was to some such tribunal that the Chambers of Commerce pointed in their petition. Depend upon it, the public would not long be satisfied to endure the enormous evils of the present system—the cost was too great and the hindrance to enterprise too appalling. The oppression to private individuals was, meanwhile, growing and: increasing, and the burdens which the sys-

  653
  tem imposed on Members of that House were beginning to be found intolerable. The labours of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) were becoming more arduous every year, in consequence of the difficulty of finding Members to take part in a system of which they could not approve, and of which they saw the uselessness. That difficulty would increase as every fresh Session returned. An effort was made by the Committee of last year to lessen the labour thrown upon hon. Members by their recommendation that the Members upon Committees should be reduced from five to three. The President of the Board of Trade had not attempted to carry out this recommendation; but he would soon be compelled, whether he would or not, to make some amendment in a system which had grown up gradually and accidentally, and which ought not to be continued. He well knew that any change of the kind he now proposed could not be introduced suddenly, and that there was an enormous pressure of business this Session which must be disposed of. He was willing to add words to defer the operation of his Resolution to a future Session, but the time had come when the House must listen to the numerous complaints which from every quarter were heard against the present system of Private Bill legislation.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the duty of ascertaining the facts upon which Legislation in respect to Private Bills is to proceed, should be discharged by some tribunal external to this House,"—(Lord Robert Cecil,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONhoped, as the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) did not object to the Resolution before the House, he would not press his Motion as an Amendment to it, seeing that he would have a more suitable opportunity afterwards of raising the question by a substantive [Resolution. The question raised was, Whether the House was to transfer its jurisdiction over Private Bills to a great extent to some external tribunal? But so far as he could collect from the noble Lord, he was afraid that the plan he suggested would not diminish the expense. If he understood
  654
  rightly, there was to be a preliminary inquiry to ascertain certain facts—what facts he did not know—and that having been done, the result was to be reported to the House, and the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, who would, he presumed, hear counsel, as now. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly not.] Well, then, there was to be no argument upon the facts reported; but if the facts were not sufficient, the Committee was to call for further evidence; so that the probability was, that by this preliminary inquiry they would only be adding one more stage to the present proceedings on Private Bills, and so increasing the expense. The plan suggested by the noble Lord had been tried in 1846, and was given up in 1851, because the Parliamentary Committees declined to be bound by the decision of external committees. Their argument was that they were called upon to grant compulsory powers, and to settle questions of very important public policy; and that they could only discharge their duty satisfactorily by ascertaining the facts for themselves, and using their own judgment as to what were material in guiding them to a proper decision. In Courts of law certain facts being ascertained, the Judge would apply the law to them; but Parliament had no law applicable to particular facts. This was a question not of law, but of public policy, changing with the times, fluctuating from day to day, bound by no precedents, but regulated by the wants and circumstances of the day. He thought it very doubtful whether any body could be found in this country whose decisions would give so much satisfaction to the public in matters of this sort as a body composed of Members of the Legislature, and especially of Members of the House of Commons, who were themselves fluctuating, moving with the times, and who would not be bound by those precedents which probably were suited to judicial proceedings, but which were not adapted to settling what should be done in reference to new undertakings founded upon recent scientific discoveries. The first Railway Bill introduced into Parliament—the Bill for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway—was thrown out; so that if they had had uniformity of practice, if there had been no change in the decision of Committees, the country never could have had any railway at all. He was one of those who thought they must be prepared for repeated changes of deci-

  655
  sion; that schemes which might be very properly rejected one year, might in the next year be justly granted. It would be, he thought, a very unsatisfactory state of things if Committees of that House were bound by such precedents as courts of law were compelled to observe. But the fatal objection to the particular plan of the noble Lord was, that there was nothing final in the matter. There was to be a preliminary inquiry at great expense to the parties, but nothing final in the decision—it would still be open to the Committee of the House to go through the whole case as if no previous inquiry had taken place: indeed, the parties would never be satisfied that full justice had been done unless they were allowed to be heard upon every branch of the question. There was also another point to be considered. It was most important that no power of less authority than Parliament should be able to grant to individuals such powers as were claimed for these great railways and other undertakings—namely, that of compulsorily taking the lands and houses without consent of the owners. If Parliament was to have the ultimate decision, he was far from saying that some assistance might not be given by auxiliary means; but if Parliament was really to decide these questions, it must be at liberty to provide itself, and in its own way, with all the facts and information necessary for legislation. It had been laid down by lawyers that nothing was more unsatisfactory than that facts should be found in one place and the decisions come to in another; and the Court of Chancery had recently given up proceeding upon affidavits and evidence taken elsewhere, and had recourse to vive, voce examination. There was a great deal in the manner of witnesses, and their conduct under cross-examination, which was important in guiding to the derision. But what was of more importance still was, that it was not at all clear that if the facts were found before the external tribunal, they would prove to be the facts which the Committee of the House would think material in order to enable them to form their judgment. Unless, therefore, they could define beforehand what the facts were that were to be proved, they ran the risk of a great expense being incurred without any advantage. The Committee of last year did not altogether discard the idea of having auxiliary means for obtaining information; the question was considered, and though an
  656
  adverse decision was come to, that decision did not go so far as to say that there might not be some formal matters in reference to particular classes of Bills in which evidence might be provided from some other quarter. But it would be found, he was satisfied, as it had been before, that unless they gave this external tribunal power to make its decisions final, it would only be an addition to the expense already incurred, and would perhaps have the effect of causing greater expense and trouble than oven in connection with private legislation. The proposition of the noble Lord deserved the fullest consideration; but he hoped that it would be deferred to some other occasion, when it might be discussed upon a substantive Resolution.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) would withdraw his Amendment. At the present moment it appeared to him ill-timed; but whenever the subject should be brought forward, in a substantive and practical shape, he should he inclined to support it. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) was mistaken in supposing that some such tribunal as that proposed by the noble Lord had never been put into action. Lord Dalhousie, when president of the Board of Trade, in conjunction with Mr. Laing, at a time when there was an enormous mass of private business before the House, drew up certain recommendations for the guidance of Committees. Sir Robert Peel, however, was at that time (1846) too weak to express any positive opinion in support of them. It was quite right that certain regulations should be laid down which ought to bind Committees, and if they came with the weight of the authority of that House those regulations would be attended to. Our legislation at present was hap-hazard legislation, and it was matter of notoriety that small railway companies had no power of carrying Bills through the House, owing to the opposition of the great companies, their antagonists. There was no supervising power over these companies. The whole country was divided among the great companies, and when there were two lines in opposition they never accommodated each other, and the public was placed at a great disadvantage. If there was a place of stoppage for two companies, great care was taken that the trains of the one should not be allowed to depart at the time of the arrival of the trains of the other, and thus the public were put to

  657
  the greatest inconvenience. He had no confidence in Ministers who were fleeting; there ought to be some competent tribunal of a permanent character, who should exercise a supervision. He hoped the noble Lord would at some future time bring forward a practical measure, which would serve to correct the evils of which, in the present Session, they had had so many examples.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would add his entreaty to that of the noble Lord who had just sat down, that his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) would not press his Amendment: not because he did not participate in some of the opinions which his noble Friend had expressed, for he himself had on former occasions shown that he entertained similar views, and in the Committee of last year he had given his testimony that some tribunal might be appointed by means of which the Committees of that House might be relieved from some of the onerous duties which they were now called upon to discharge—but because he doubted whether the present moment was the best time for entertaining it. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson), that it would be most unadvisable to transfer the private business of the House to a tribunal external to it; but he had never been able to comprehend why it should be the duty of Members of Parliament to sit in a room to ascertain facts which could be ascertained as well if not better by some other body. Committees were occupied day after day in deciding what was the amount of traffic between two towns, what was the nature of a viaduct, and other such points, which might well be decided before the Bill came before them. As to the difficulty of finding Chairmen to preside over these Committees, he was in as good a position to judge of that, perhaps, as any one, and he was bound to say that Members were daily growing more dissatisfied with being shut up in a room day after day, wasting their time in discharging duties which they did not believe to belong to a Member of Parliament. This Session, in consequence, perhaps, of the apprehended increase of private business, there had been more difficulty than ever in obtaining the services of those Members who had usually devoted their time to private business. He did not like to name particular Members, but as the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn
  658
  (Lord Stanley) as eminent for the services he had rendered on Committees, he might say that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Adair), who for eleven years had devoted himself to presiding over these Committees, had this year bolted from the standing Committee of Chairmen, and he had not been able to induce him to return. This was to be regretted, because there was no hon. Member whose services it was more desirable to retain. He regretted very much that the Committee of last year had not been able to devise some means of lightening the labours of Members. His right hon. Friend was quite right in saying that every effort had been made by the Committee themselves to lighten their labours. He had had some share in passing the Preliminary Inquiries Act; but it had totally failed, because the inquiry had to be gone over again in a Committee of that House, and the simple result was that the expense to the parties was doubled. In consequence of that increase of expense he himself had moved the repeal of that Act; but he was convinced that if the object of that Act had been limited to inquiries into such preliminary facts as he had alluded to, great good would have been done and much expense saved. He wished his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) had made his speech last year; but the present moment was inopportune, because we were now at the beginning of the Session, and there was a vast amount of business to be done which it would be still more difficult to get through if his noble Friend's Amendment were carried. The propositions of the President of the Board of Trade were founded on the recommendation of the Committee which sat last year, and would, it seemed to him, tend to diminish the labours of Committees, and he should therefore give them his best support.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he should undoubtedly be glad if the great question, whether the House of Commons should retain the private business of the country in its own hands, or delegate it to a foreign tribunal were raised, not incidentally, but as a substantial question. He did not, however, think that the question could now be discussed in a fitting manner. It had been discussed on former occasions, and whenever the proposal was made to transfer this business to a tribunal out of doors, it had been resisted by the most eminent authorities in the House; but so many years had elapsed, and such a change of circumstances had taken place,

  659
  that any hon. Member would be justified in. raising it again. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would take some opportunity of putting it before the House in a distinct form; but he must be permitted to say, that it was desirable that the proposition on which the sense of the House should be taken ought not to be of the character of that now before it, but should raise distinctly the question, whether the dominion over Private Bill Legislation should be retained by Parliament, or should be transferred to some tribunal out of doors. If that proposition were made, it would be intelligible; but he could not understand the proposition that one body should hear and another determine. It was discussed last year before the Committee, which came to the conclusion, that any such attempt to delegate the private business to a foreign tribunal—such, for instance, as a Commission which should take evidence on the spot and Report to the House—would lead to no practical benefit. No Committee of the House would adopt implicitly the Report of any such Commission. In fact, it would be impossible to constitute a Commission of such a character, that the House would implicitly adopt its recommendations. However high might be the character of the persons constituting the Commission, or however great might be the authority delegated to it, when its Report was laid, before the House Committees it would be sure to re-open the inquiry, and would institute precisely the same mode of proceeding as was now adopted. It would be placing the House in a strange position to expect it to become a passive instrument of legislation on any subject on which it might be engaged. The analogy between the Courts of Law and Parliament entirely failed, and the noble Lord would find that there were numerous points of law on which the Courts of coordinate Jurisdiction were entirely opposed to each other in opinion. The uncertainty of which the noble Lord spoke was an element in all human affairs. With regard to the specific proposition before the House, as his right hon. Friend had said, it was one which he had taken the liberty of recommending to him; and though it might be of a very moderate character, and might not lead to any great practical results, it was their duty to try all the resources at their command to endeavour to lighten the labours of the members of Committees. Though his duties in the
  660
  House might occasionally be of a somewhat onerous character, he had frequently in the earlier part of the day much time to spare, which he considered at the command of the House, and he believed there were many questions on which the arbitration suggested might be conveniently employed, so as to relieve the Committees of a portion of their business. On the question, whether it would become necessary to take the private business from Committees of the Houses of Parliament, and provide another tribunal for transacting it, he reserved his opinion; but he was sure that if, after all efforts had been made to discharge this business within the walls of Parliament, it should appear that, from the increase and accumulation of Private Bills, they were more than Parliament could examine and legislate upon with satisfaction, the House of Commons would be the first to avow that fact, and to make other provision for the transaction of important business, which, under the present system, was put into the hands of Parliamentary Committees. In conclusion, he would express his hope that the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the Act of 1846 had been found useful in reference to inclosures, improvements of towns, and other matters; and it would have worked in reference to railways also, but that it was the interest of the great railway companies to make the tribunal as costly, expensive, and uncertain as possible. Such a system enabled them to resist what they called aggressions, but which he (Mr. Whalley) called legitimate endeavours to extend railway accommodation throughout the country. Although the facts required in reference to Railway Bills were somewhat different to those required for other private legislation, still he did not think that there could be any difficulty in delegating to some tribunal the duty of ascertaining those facts. As an instance of how the Act of 1846 worked, he might mention, that before that statute the average expenditure upon an Inclosure Bill up to a certain stage was £970, whilst new that expense was diminished to £5 17 s. 9d. If hon. Members would look to other countries they would find a much simpler method resorted to. An inquiry was first made to ascertain whether a railway was wanted between two places, and when this point was decided, they then went into details. But in this country the entire

  661
  was jumbled up, while the time of the Committee was wasted in quibbles, to the disgust of hon. Members, who were glad to get rid of the entire matter. The present tribunal was maintained at the cost of the health of the Members and the efficiency of the House, not because it answered its purpose, but because the great companies found it necessary, by every means in their power, to maintain a monopoly, and to oppose lines which did not exactly fall in with their views.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid that, as one of the Members who had fallen under the clutches of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire, he trusted he might be allowed to make a few observations on the subject. He wished to state that the dissatisfaction he, in common with many other Members, felt at the present system of conducting railway legislation arose not so much from the trouble and toil incurred by the members of the Committee, as from the conviction that the guarantees and restrictions which the House imposed on the promoters of Bills were set at nought. It was bad enough, certainly, to be confined in a Committee-room for several hours a day—and particularly on "Wednesdays, when important business was going on in the House itself—but the feeling of annoyance was aggravated by the reflection that the parties who were the cause of all the trouble evaded before going before the Committees the proper restrictions laid down by that House, particularly with regard to deposits. The deposit system had become a farce, though it had been intended to provide a guarantee of the solvency and respectability of the parties who appeared before the Committees, and the deposit was meant to form part of the capital to be devoted to the completion of the works. But now the guarantee was only borrowed for the occasion. He had heard it stated that one gentleman was doing a good business by lending money for deposits—that he had recently made over £9,000 in that way. It was this abuse which made him dissatisfied with the present system, and he thought that a considerable remedy might be provided for the mischief, not so much by any new legislation as by Parliament taking care that its rules and regulations were properly complied with. He was Chairman of the Committee which sat on the Hartlepool Bill of last year. Parliament had given the company power to raise a capital of £2,000,000, and to bor-
  662
  row about £700,000; but the Act was evaded, and it was proved that, while the company had only raised a capital of £700,000, they had borrowed from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000. He was told that a person in the Bankruptcy Court once described himself as "a provider of capital;" and a man who did not pay his debts might on that account be in a better position to provide capital, like the American gentleman who said, "We have no money, and nobody will give us any, but at all events we can set up a bank and lend money." There was a class of persons springing up in this country who were providers of capital; and he thought the House might effect much by securing the performance of the preliminary conditions it laid down, and visiting with punishment those who infringed them.
  MR. BONHAM- CARTERsaid, he thought it undesirable that the very disparaging statement of the noble Lord with respect to the members of Railway Committees should be accepted. Speaking as a member of the Committee of Selection, he could give an entire contradiction to the statement that the Chairman and members of Railway Committees acted without uniformity of principle or practice. He was not going to defend the constitution of the Committees as being perfect, but the whole of the evidence given before the Committee on Private Business last year led to the conclusion that the practice of Railway Committees, though open to improvement, was more perfect and certain than heretofore, and the public had little conception how laborious were the duties of the Gentlemen composing those Committees.
  MR. KINNAIRDdid not think that the observations of the noble Lord implied as much as some seemed to imagine. There was undoubtedly a prevalent impression throughout the country, and it was by no means unfounded, that parties after having had a scheme rejected, were encouraged to come back with it again, in the hope of getting a new Committee.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in deference to the opinions of the hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Massey) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten). He would, however, bring the matter forward on another occasion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  (1.) Resolved,
  That the Committee of Selection and the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, at any time after the committal of any Bills, be empowered, with the consent of all parties promoting and opposing, to refer the same, wholly or with reference to particular Clauses, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and that such Chairman, together with Members to be appointed in like manner as Members of the Committee on Unopposed Bills, be empowered to hear the parties promoting and opposing such Bills or their agents, and to report upon the same to the House—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that although expenses did not so much matter to promoters, who had generally the funds of companies or corporations to draw upon, the opponents, who were often private landowners, compelled to appear in selfdefence, deserved some consideration in that respect. He, therefore, proposed the second Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in lieu of the Fees to be paid by the Opponents of a Private Bill for proceedings before any Committee, the following Fee be hereafter paid:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  "For every day on which the Petitioners appear before any Committee

  2

  0

  0

  —(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONwished to know, what amount of loss would accrue to the fee fund by this reduction?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if the fee now proposed had been charged last Session, there would have been a loss of £3,941 on the fee fund.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, it was very hard that an owner of property in defending his rights should be put to such very heavy expenses, not only for counsel, but for House fees and shorthand - writer's notes. The way in which railway companies treated the owners of property was so arbitrary and unjust, that a respectable Parliamentary agent, who was examined before a Committee two years ago, stated that in no case would he advise an owner to appear in Parliament against a Bill. He himself knew a case where a gentleman was put to an expense of £300 or £400 in preparing his case, and had his counsel and witnesses all ready, and just at the last moment the railway company told him they did not want his land. They took care not to let him know earlier. He, therefore, thought that those who opposed a Private Bill, not frivolously or vexatiously, but in a bonâ fide spirit, should be entitled to be relieved from the pay-
  664
  ment of fees if the Committee saw fit. He would, therefore, move to add certain words to the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "Committees shall have discretion to exonerate Petitioners, owners or tenants of property to be affected by Bills, from the payment of Fees in seeking for exemption, or for Clauses, if they shall see fit; and to charge the Promoters of such Bills with all Fees to be paid in respect of the same."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, this question had been considered by the Committee, who had come to the conclusion that it would, on the whole, be better not to give any discretionary power in this respect. One side could not be rendered liable for costs unless the other were also liable, and that opened up a very wide and delicate question. If, on the one side, the promoters of schemes were condemned to pay costs, on the same principle, vexatious opponents should be condemned to pay them.
  MR. KINNAIRDdid not think the question of costs was involved in the Amendment. It only referred to owners of property who came forward bonâ fide to defend their property. The principle involved was not the imposition of costs, but exemption from costs in certain cases.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 65: Majority 23.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Resolved
  That in lieu of the Fees to be paid by the Opponents of a Private Bill for proceedings before any Committee, the following Fee be hereafter paid:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  "For every day on which the Petitioners appear before any Committee

  2

  0

  0

  —(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONproceeded to propose the third Resolution, which had reference to the fees paid by promoters of Private Bills upon the various stages of those Bills. The present ad valorem fees were very much objected to, and it had been suggested that the better course would be to abolish them, and no doubt much was to be said in favour of such a course. But Members and officers of the House who had most experience were of opinion, that in general the Bills which applied for powers to raise the largest capitals were those which gave the most trouble to the House, and certainly were Bills which

  665
  sought the largest amount of privilege. Under the present system, every Bill paid certain fees upon reaching various stages—£5 was paid on the presentation of the petition; £15 for the first reading, £15 for the second, £15 on the Report of the Committee, and £15 on the third reading; and in addition there were ad valorem fees, calculated upon the amount of capital sought to he raised, which were double at £100,000, treble at £200,000, and so on. By his proposal, the reduction would be considerable, namely, double when the capital reached £500,000, treble when it got up to £1,000,000, and never more than four-fold for sums above £1,000,000. His proposition would effect a considerable reduction in the amount now paid. Taking the private business of last Session, the relief that would be afforded by his proposition would be £16,919 upon a total of £45,135. As special instances, he might mention that, upon the Charing Cross Railway Bill, £525 was paid, while under the present scheme only £200 would be required; the West Drayton line, instead of paying £395, would have had only to pay £135, and other Bills would have been similarly situated. It had been argued with much force, that the Fee Fund ought not to be larger than was required to defray the expenses that were thrown upon the House by the private business, but that depended upon the estimate of the cost of the private business. One witness before the Committee had made an estimate that the private business of the House cost £18,000. But upon examining that estimate it was found, that almost every item was debateable; and he was assured upon the authority of the officers of the House that it would not be too much to assume, that the whole cost of the private business before the House was at least one-half of the total amount voted by Parliament for the expenses of the House. The total estimate was £50,000, which, with the payments from the Consolidated Fund for the Speaker and the Chairman of Way sand Means, made the total cost £58,000, one-half of which would be of course £29,000. He had proposed, and the House had agreed to, by the Resolution in regard to fees by opponents which it had passed, reductions which would diminish the receipts by £4,000. He now proposed reductions which would certainly not amount to less than £17,000; making altogether a reduction of £21,000 in the Fee Fund. It was true that a margin was left, after allow-
  666
  ing £29,000 for the expense of the Private business, if you put the whole Fee Fund at £55,000; but he had given notice of three Bills, which would, if adopted by the House, materially affect the receipts from fees. One Bill would enable two or more companies to enter into working arrangements, upon compliance with certain requisitions, without the necessity of coming to Parliament. The other Bill would permit the sale of surplus lands belonging to railways, the construction of new lines which were consented to by all parties, and the raising of further- capital under certain conditions. If these Bills should be adopted a further diminution of fees must be looked for, and therefore he did not think he had left too wide a margin in making his reductions. Parliament never would wish that the country should be taxed to pay the expenses of the promoters or the opponents of Private Bills. There was another consideration. If they parted with the ad valorem principle, it might deprive them of the power of making reductions in the fees on the various stages of small Bills, which were felt to be a heavy burden. They could not always carry principles to the exact point they desired. But they were moving in the right direction, and. they had made a considerable reduction—a reduction which he thought might be made with safety; and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend who had given notice of Amendment, would allow this Resolution to pass.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in lieu of the ad valorem Fees to be paid by the Promoters of Private Bills for proceedings in the House, where money is to be raised or expended under the authority of any Bill for the execution of a work, the following Fees be hereafter paid:—
  "If the sum be £100,000, and under £500,000, twice the amount of such Fees.
  "If the sum be £500,000,and under £1,000,000, three times the amount of such Fees.
  "If the sum be £1,000,000 and above, four times the amount of such Fees."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment on this Resolution; and, so far from being satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he should take the sense of the House upon it. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee which sat last Session, that the taxation of Bills on the ad valorem principle in the shape of House fees was indefensible; and he

  667
  would undertake to show that there was no risk whatever that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to pay any difference between the amount of fees and the expense of Private Bills. The margin was much larger than the right hon. Gentleman had stated. Taking the last three years for which he could obtain Returns—1860, 1861, and 1862—the average amount of fees paid by promoters and opponents of Private Bills was £67,000 a year; the average cost upon the Consolidated Fund was £58,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not therefore to pay, but he derived a surplus from these fees of £9,000. The right hon. Gentleman said, he found that the expense attendant on Private Bill legislation might be calculated at half of the whole expense of public and private business; but they must deduct from the whole the salaries to Mr. Speaker, the Clerks at the table, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, which must be paid independently of Private Bill legislation. These amounted to £12,000 a year, which, being deducted from the £58",000, left only £46,000 to be divided between public and private legislation. The Fee Fund produced in the last three years an average of £67,000. The reductions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were £4,000 and £17,000, still leaving a surplus of £27,000 over the expense of private Bills. He had hot stated the margin fairly, and he had failed to show what he was going to do with the margin further than that he would introduce other measures which would withdraw a certain class of Bills from the House, and on which he would charge no fees for what he did for them at the Board of Trade. It would be much fairer to charge some fees on Bills taken out of the House, and so remove the risk of loss, than to charge an ad valorem duty on those Bills which remained in the House. He could not admit the assertion, that Bills proposing to raise a large capital threw a larger expenditure of time and amount of labour on the House. Such Bills were often unopposed, yet they paid as much in the shape of fees as if they had required two or three weeks to consider their provisions. Instead of mulcting promoters of Bills, which caused no trouble or expense to the House, it would be fairer to increase the fee on every day parties occupied the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concurred in the Resolutions unanimously adopted by the Committee which sat last Session on Private Bill legis-
  668
  lation, yet he now proposed to continue the sliding scale which the Committee condemned. He called on the House to assist him in making the third Resolution consistent with the Report of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there shall be charged an uniform Fee on all Private Bills for proceedings in the House,"—(Mr. Richard Hodgson,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the House will perhaps excuse me if for a few moments I venture to occupy its attention with regard to points which the speech of the hon. Gentleman has tended to throw into obscurity. There is no great difference of principle between Gentlemen sitting in this House with regard to a matter on which I am bound, however, myself to say that but for the authority of the officers of the House I should have been disposed to take objection to the great reductions proposed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am not prepared to admit that in a country where it is found necessary for the absolute purpose of the public service to lay a tax on transfers of property effected under the ordinary operation of the law, it is unreasonable to make the application of private parties for special powers to the Legislature the means of yielding benefit to the public. However, I defer frankly, notwithstanding my own judgment, to that of the Committee, who examined this subject, and to the opinion entertained, I believe, in the highest quarters; and I will freely admit that the system of fees has grown up, like many other things, without any distinct principle underlying them. It is true that the Committee recommended the total abolition of the ad valorem fee, but the President of the Board of Trade was not a party to that recommendation. My right hon. Friend was in the chair, and was not called upon to vote. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON interposed a remark.] The House will observe, however, that the course taken by my right hon. Friend is not inconsistent with the approval of the Report of the Committee in its full extent, including that part of it which recommends the abolition of the ad valorem duty. All my right hon. Friend now says is, "Let us proceed step by step; let us abolish as much of the ad valorem duty as we safely can, and if we find in future years that the Fee

  669
  Fund yields a surplus, we may then abolish the remainder." That is more consistent with the recommendation of the Committee than the course proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Richard Hodgson), who leaps at once to conclusions which may leave the Consolidated Fund burdened with a charge for the purpose of carrying on the private business of this House. If, after the measures now proposed by the Government, there is a surplus on the Fee Fund over and above what is estimated to be necessary, we shall become cognizant of the fact next year or the year after. Surely, then, it is better to proceed cautiously in the reduction of these fees, and to reserve to ourselves the power of making a further reduction when it becomes clear that we have the means of doing it, rather than to go upon evidence altogether insufficient, exposing ourselves to the risk of being compelled to come down hereafter with the invidious proposal of again raising these fees. Let me now say a few words on the figures of the case. The hon. Member for Berwick takes for his average the last three years, except the last but one; but those years were years of the very greatest activity in private business. Now, there are good and bad years of private business, as there are good and bad harvests, and it is necessary to take a larger number of years than has been taken by the hon. Member for Berwick, in order to come at the truth of the case. The President of the Board of Trade has taken eleven years, and upon that average he finds that the yield of the Fee Fund has been £55,000 per annum. On the other hand, the expenses of the House have been £58,000, and the moiety of those expenses held to be fairly chargeable against the Fee Fund is £29,000. There is, consequently, an admitted excess at present of £26,000. How does my right hon. Friend deal with it? He proposes a reduction upon the opponent's fee, amounting to £4,000; and he proposes a reduction on the ad valorem fee, showing his deference to the wishes of the Committee, amounting to £17,000; that is £21,000 out of his £26,000. What does he do with the other £5,000? He is introducing two Bills, with respect to which it is judged probable that they may operate in cutting away one-tenth part of the Fee Fund altogether, by removing one-tenth part of the private business from the control and jurisdiction of this House. The gross sum of the Fee Fund is thus reduced to £50,000, and the gross sum of
  670
  the £26,000 which my right hon. Friend had to dispose of is reduced to £21,000, or the precise amount which he is giving away. Under these circumstances, if we are to act with prudence—if we are to avoid the risk of a demand upon the resources of the country in aid of the purposes of private parties, I think the proposal of my right hon. Friend, founded upon the principle of gradual advancement, is a safe and reasonable one, and I feel satisfied it will meet with the approval of the House.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the House must not suppose that the Committee were unanimous in recommending the abolition of the ad valorem, fees. He (Colonel Wilson Patten) himself protested in the Committee against the total abolition of the ad valorem fee, and still retained the opinion that the House should not adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Berwick. He could not, indeed, imagine anything more unjust than to subject all private Bills to the same amount of taxation. Under such a system the promoters of one Bill might have to pay at the rate of a quarter per cent, and the promoters of another at the rate of 10 or 12 per cent. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the right view of the subject. In some years the fees had amounted to an enormous sum, but in others they had not gone much beyond the expenses of the House. Such times might arise again, especially as the President of the Board of Trade was introducing Bills, which in certain cases would do away with the necessity of paying even the reduced scale of fees. He believed that if the hon. Member for Berwick were to succeed in carrying his Motion, a year would soon arrive when the expenses of the House would have to be paid out of the general taxation of the country. On the whole, then, he hoped the House would accept the moderate proposal of the President of the Board of Trade.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he believed that the only thing wanting to make the system of fees just was the introduction of the legal principle of costs dependent on the event. What was the principle of the law of costs? If a man brought a groundless action against another, he was obliged to pay all the expenses out of his own pocket; while, on the other hand, if he succeeded in his suit, the defendant who should not have resisted a lawful demand, had to defray the costs. That system

  671
  ought to be adopted with respect to Private Bills. The principle of costs were even more necessary in railway matters than in law; for in law a man could not repeatedly bring the same action in which he had been defeated; but Bills which had been rejected by the Legislature might be brought in again and again, even for twenty years. It was often said that the proper place to oppose a Private Bill on the merits was not the House, but a Committee upstairs, where the evidence was taken on both sides. As far as it went that was a fair enough argument; but it should be remembered that equally, whether the Bill was a bad Bill or a good one, they threw an enormous expense upon its opponents by referring it to a Select Committee, be cause there was no liability to pay costs. That objection, however, would be obviated if they adopted the principle of costs. He wished, therefore, to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER, interposing, invited the hon. Baronet's attention to the question before the House—namely, Whether there should be ad valorem fees? The question of costs had already been incidentally discussed that evening, and there would be other opportunities of discussing it; but the hon. Baronet was not in order in discussing it upon the present Resolution.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERmust say, with all deference to the Chair, that the point he was raising was relevant to the question of ad valorem fees, because the objection had been taken that the Fee Fund, if the fees were reduced, might not be sufficient to cover the expenses. He wished, therefore, to raise the question as to who should pay the fees, because, if the burden were thrown on the right parties, whether the fees were ad valorem or otherwise, there could fee no just ground of complaint in the matter.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 4: Majority 131.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Resolved,
  That in lieu of the ad valorem Fees to be paid by the Promoters of Private Bills for proceedings in the House, where money is to be raised or expended under the authority of any Bill for the execution of a work, the following Fees be hereafter paid:—
  If the sum be £100,000, and under £500,000, twice the amount of such Fees.
  672
  If the sum be £500,000, and under £1,000,000, three times the amount of such Fees.
  If the sum be £1,000,000 and above, four times the amount of such Fees,—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  (4.) Resolved,
  That in the Table of Fees to be paid on the Taxation of Costs on Private Bills, the third paragraph—namely, "For every Bill under £100, £1," be omitted—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONthen proposed two Resolutions,
  "That the Speaker be requested to revise the list of charges for Parliamentary agents, solicitors, and others, with a view especially to the reduction of the Charges allowed for Copies of Documents;"
  and
  "That the Minutes of Evidence in Opposed Private Bills be printed at the expense of the parties whenever Copies of the same shall be required."
  These Resolutions related to charges made by solicitors which were much complained of as being excessive, and calculated on wrong principles. The subject had been much inquired into by the Committee of last Session. There was one branch of the expenses which the solicitors threw on the Promoters and opponents of Private Bills which had been the subject of loud complaint—namely, the charge for copies of documents, which were charged at the rate of 8d. per folio, whereas copies of the minutes of evidence could be obtained at the rate of 2d. per folio from a law stationer. Between the two there was a considerable difference, and it had been thought by the Committee of last year that the mode of remunerating solicitors by charges of that kind was not what it was desirable to maintain. He proposed that the copies of the minutes when required to be supplied should be printed, which would be much cheaper than by the present system. He had as yet made no mention of the fees of counsel which had been represented by the public as excessive. The state of the case in reference to that point, as it stood at the present moment, he believed to be that no person could appear by counsel before a Committee in the most trifling matter under a fee of thirty guineas for the first day, which sum is made up thus, five guineas for retainer, ten guineas on the brief, ten guineas for attendance, and five guineas for consultation; then there was at least ten guineas as a refresher, and five guineas for consultation for every succeeding day afterwards. A private individual

  673
  compelled to come to Parliament to defend the most trifling case found himself at the outset met by that minimum charge. Now, he must not for a moment be understood as disputing the perfect right of a barrister and solicitor to make between themselves any terms which they might please; nor did he wish to interfere with the arrangements of any eminent leader who chose to say that his services were worth 500 guineas, and that he would not appear before a Committee under that sum. What he objected to was, that the Parliamentary bar should by any rule of their own prevent a barrister from taking such fees as were permitted to be taken in the ordinary courts of law and equity. He, for one, was against the arbitrary minimum thus laid down; and the Parliamentary bar had it in their power, he could not help feeling, to remedy the existing evil. It had, for instance, been stated by the late Attorney General, when examined before the Committee, that there was no general rule of the bar applicable to the case, and that he knew of no reason why barristers should not be allowed to attend before Parliamentary Committees for the same fees as before the ordinary courts. But, notwithstanding that it might be true that no such rule was laid down by the bar at large, it was said that any barrister who accepted a less sum before Parliamentary Committees than thirty guineas for the first day, and fifteen guineas for every day after, would be considered by his brethren in the profession to be guilty of an unprofessional act, and would, to a certain extent, be placed under a social disability. Now, he was not aware to what extent such a rule might be carried; but he thought it at the same time most desirable that the Parliamentary bar should put an end to all doubt on the question, and should pass a resolution to the effect, that barristers practising before Committees of that House should be guided by the same rules as those which prevailed in the ordinary courts of law. He might observe that a barrister with whom he was acquainted had, some time ago, been asked to appear before a Committee in a case in which the labour was little or nothing, and that when he appeared the solicitor handed him a cheque for twenty-five guineas, observing that that was the minimum fee at the Parliamentary bar, and to take a less amount than that would
  674
  be unprofessional. Now, a rule which so operated was, he believed, very injurious to the junior members of the profession; while as he had been informed that those connected with railway undertakings would very frequently be glad to secure the services of juniors in the unavoidable absence of eminent leaders, if such juniors were permitted to take such fees as they would willingly accept; but he was, he might add, glad to find from information which he had received, that the subject was under the consideration of the bar; and he had reason to believe that some of the most influential members of the Parliamentary bar were of opinion, that the rule relating to their scale of fees ought to be very considerably relaxed. Some resolutions had indeed, he believed, been already passed on the subject. For this reason he abstained from asking the House to come to any Resolution upon the subject; but unless he had had the assurance that some steps were in progress, he should not have considered that he had discharged his duty without asking the House to express some opinion in the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker be requested to revise the List of Charges for Parliamentary Agents, Solicitors, and others, with a view especially to the reduction of the Charges allowed for Copies of Documents."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the fees given to counsel at the Parliamentary bar were higher than those paid at common law or in the Courts of Chancery. The reverse was the case. ["No, no!"] The fees paid at the common law bar were in proportion to the pecuniary interests involved. ["No, no!"] The fee given was invariably proportioned to the importance of the case. According to the Resolution which they had just passed, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the pecuniary interests involved in the cases which came before Parliamentary Committees varied from £50,000 to £2,000,000. He had sat on Committees which had had to deal with still larger interests. In the Dyce-Sombre case, the amount involved in which was smaller than that at stake in cases which came before that House every day, the present, Lord Chief Justice received in the final appeal to the Privy Council 1,000 guineas

  675
  upon his brief and a refresher of 300 guineas a day. He was sure that no member of the bar would undertake the responsibility of fighting before the Committee a case involving pecuniary interests to the amount of £2,000,000 for the small sum mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Every member of the bar looked to the pecuniary interests involved, and expected to be remunerated in proportion. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that there were no arbitrary rules at the bar which must be observed. A gentleman practising on one circuit could not be taken to another on any special occasion for a less fee than fifty guineas. It had occurred to himself to be taken from the circuit on which he usually practised to another, and the lowest fee which he could then accept was 100 guineas. In some circuits the fee was higher, and in others lower, but in all there was a special fee.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into an extraordinary mistake—the complaint was not that the leaders in great cases were overpaid, but that small landowners and persons having small interests to protect were compelled to pay fees entirely disproportioned to the value of those interests. While the Committee was sitting upon this subject he received a letter from a gentleman in Gloucestershire or Wiltshire, who told him that, having to defend his garden against a railway, it cost him £37 before he could get into the Committee-room; and, although his garden was worth only £85, his bill for Parliamentary purposes ultimately amounted to upwards of £300. It was in such cases as that that the fees of counsel were so excessively high as to prevent the owners of small properties from obtaining justice. He, like his right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson), had heard that the leaders of the Parliamentary bar had taken this matter into consideration. He believed that they were by no means favourable to the maintenance of the abuses of the present system, and he felt great confidence that the bar would come to a Resolution which would meet the requirements of the case. He thought that his right hon. Friend had done wisely in leaving it to the Speaker to revise from time to time these charges. One enormous expense was that of making copies of evidence. To so great an extent had that evil grown that a solicitor told the Committee that if the allowance for
  676
  copies of evidence were withdrawn his profits would be diminished one-half. The sooner the House got rid of such abuses the better; and, therefore, he should support this Resolution.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not but regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have confined himself solely to the question of agents and solicitors. He thought it was a monstrous abuse to debar junior members of the bar from practising before Committees. If they had free trade in other things, they ought to have free trade in barristers' fees. It would ill become the House of Commons to stop short, as at present proposed, and he would therefore venture to move the insertion of the words "Counsel's fees" in the present Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be competent for the House to order that words, such as those proposed by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, should be inserted in this Resolution. The House, by the Resolution, called on the Speaker to discharge a duty in the regulation of certain charges which he is empowered to regulate by Act of Parliament; but the powers granted by the Act did not extend to any control over the fees of counsel conducting business before Committees.
  Resolution agreed to.
  (5.) Resolved,
  That Mr. Speaker be requested to revise the List of Charges for Parliamentary Agents, Solicitors, and others, with a view especially to the reduction of the Charges allowed for Copies of Documents.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Minutes of Evidence on Unopposed Private Bills be printed at the expense of the parties whenever Copies of the same shall be required."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. F. S. POWELLcomplained that the words were too vague, and said, it was absolutely necessary that some controlling power should be exercised over the printer, otherwise the confusion which arose last year before a Committee, who found it impossible to reconcile the various copies of one important document, would be repeated. Means ought also to be taken to have the printed copies of evidence taken one day in the hands of Members at their next meeting.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the printing ordered by the House was under the control of the Speaker, but he had no

  677
  doubt everything would be done to facilitate the despatch of business.
  MR. HUNTasked, what was the comparative expense of written and printed copies?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONbelieved, that if only one copy was printed it would be cheaper than by the present system. But Mr. Hansard told him that twenty-five printed copies could be supplied for the same cost as two or three written ones.
  MR. HUNTunderstood that the legal charge of copying documents was only 2d. a folio, whereas the House was charged 8d. Would the House get the benefit of any reduction to the legal rate when the copies were printed?
  MR. LYGONsaid, it was very desirable that Members should be furnished with copies of the proceedings de die in diem, and suggested that there should be some guarantee that all possible despatch would be used by the printer, and hoped the House would never hear of any such enormous delay as three weeks, which had lately occurred in the production of important documents.
  MR. DILLWYNasked, how it was proposed to apportion the expense among "the parties?"
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmentioned that when the proposal to print documents in the Court of Chancery was made, and finally adopted, evidence was given that, adopting the very smallest scale of expenditure for copying, the moment it became necessary to have more than three copies it was cheaper to print.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONhad not the least doubt the printed evidence would be supplied at least as expeditiously as it was under the present system. In proposing this Resolution, he was merely carrying out the recommendations of the Committee; the details could easily be settled by the officers of the House. He was assured that the phrase "at the expense of the parties" was perfectly well understood, and not likely to give rise to any questions.
  Resolution agreed, to.
  (6.) Resolved,
  That the Minutes of Evidence on Opposed Private Bills be printed at the expense of the parties -whenever Copies of the same shall be required.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, in proposing his last Resolution, "That Committees on Private Bills be ordered to meet at eleven
  678
  of the clock," said, he was afraid it would not be a very acceptable one to the House, although recommended by the Committee which had taken evidence upon the subject. Suitors complained of the short sittings of the Private Bill Committees, lasting on an average three and a half hours, as oppressive and much too limited in comparison with those of any other tribunal. He quite admitted that Members of Parliament had other duties to perform, that they were frequently kept up late at night, and consequently that eleven o'clock next morning might be an inconveniently early hour; but in the discharge of their onerous duties as Members of Parliament, it was impossible they could be otherwise than inconvenienced, and consideration was due both to the suitors and to the important subjects which came before Private Bill Committees. It had been alleged that several short sittings were not as satisfactory as one long sitting. He proposed, as a set-off to the Committees meeting at eleven o'clock, that no Member should be required to sit more than ten days, except to finish cases already commenced. But on further consideration he found that the limit of ten days would be very inconvenient, and that where in a group of Bills one Bill occupied fourteen or fifteen days, it would be necessary to have a new Committee constituted. He therefore was obliged to give up that proposal. He did not feel confident that the House would adopt this Resolution. At the same time, he would move it, and leave it in the hands of the House. The House were the best judges whether they ought to make the change. He should like to see it himself, and he believed it would be appreciated by the public. The public would see that Members of Parliament were taking their part in effecting improvements, and their conduct in be doing would be approved by their constituents.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That Committees on Private Bills be ordered to meet at Eleven of the clock."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that at an earlier part of the discussion he had described the machinery wielded by his hon. and gallant Friend as an instrument of torture. He called this proposition a cruel and inhuman attempt to give another turn to the screw. The right hon. Gentleman said he would like to see it. Would

  679
  he like to feel it? He was amused at the eagerness with which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench expressed a determination to keep Private Bills within the jurisdiction of the House. The glory fell upon them, but not the work. This proposal would do more than anything to cause Private Bill Legislation to be utterly incompatible with the duties of a Member of Parliament. They were often there until two and three o'clock in the morning, which precluded any comparison between their Committees and ordinary courts. He supposed most of them had some private business of their own requiring attention, and many gentlemen desired to read some portion of the voluminous matter circulated for their perusal. If this additional demand on their time were imposed, they would have to give up Bleeping altogether, except in the House of Commons. Counsel would be prevented having consultations, and they would obtain time by putting up their juniors to lengthen the cross-examination of witnesses. The proposal was utterly unpopular, and would do no good.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, no doubt if the Committees were to meet at eleven o'clock it would greatly reduce the expenses; but, on the other hand, he felt that considering the labours of Members of Parliament it would be almost impossible to carry out such a regulation. The noble Lord had alluded to him as if the whole duty of the selection of Members devolved on him. He was only the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and as such he performed his duty to the best of his ability, and with as little tyranny as possible. He was bound to admit that this proposal was unpopular. As an instance of it, he had secured seven Gentlemen for a panel of Chairmen of Committees on Railway Bills, and since the Resolution had been on the paper he had received notes from three saying they could not serve. The right hon. Gentleman had let fall an expression that the public would be persuaded that Members were really performing their duties if they would consent to commence their sittings at eleven o'clock; but he' believed that if the public were not already persuaded of it nothing would convince them. He believed that meeting at eleven would be a great improvement, but he did not think it could be adopted. He thought it would be better to direct Committees to meet at a quarter to twelve, so as to secure the commencement of the proceeding at
  680
  twelve. He recommended the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the proposal to allow any Committee, if it saw fit to meet earlier, to adopt such a Resolution. The hon. Member for Ipswich was very unpopular for having insisted on his Committee meeting at eleven o'clock; but he was bound to say the hon. Gentleman had got through a great deal of work in a very little time by that means.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, whether Committees could not gain time at the other end by sitting on until half past four?
  COLONEL SYKESthought there need be no Resolution at all on the subject. It should be left to the Committees themelves.
  MR. HASSARDmoved, as an Amendment, the substitution of "twelve" for "eleven," and the addition of the words "unless such Committee shall have adjourned to some other time."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "eleven" and insert the word "twelve,"—(Mr. Hassard,) —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'eleven' stand part of the Question."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in deference to the general feeling of the House, he would not press this Resolution.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHinquired how it happened that the recommendation of the Committee of last Session, that the number of Members of Committees on Private Bills should be reduced from five to three, had not been adopted. Such a change would be a great relief to hon. Members. ["Question!"]
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that there was no Motion before the House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would move that the Resolution of the Committee be adopted.
  MR. SPEAKERthought the hon. Gentleman, having had an opportunity of expressing his opinions, would see that he could not, with propriety, proceed to move the Resolution, having given no notice of his intention to do so.

PROPOSED BISHOPRIC OF CORNWALL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State

  681
  for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as has been publicly stated, that a communication has recently been made by him to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the effect that the Government will not sanction any step being taken towards the establishment of a Bishopric of Cornwall; whether he has received any communication with regard to the appointment of a Suffragan Bishop for the diocese of Exeter; and, if so, what answer he has made to it; and whether he will have any objection to lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the table of the House?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had received a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, with regard to a proposed division of the diocese of Exeter and the formation of a new diocese of Cornwall. There was no objection to produce the letter, and the answer made to it on the part of the Government.

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  Viscount Enfield nominated a Member of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Walter be one other Member of the said Committee."
  COLONEL FRENCHcomplained that the Irish counties were not represented in the proposed Committee. He suggested the postponement of the matter, with a view of Irish county Members being placed on the Committee.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Committee was to inquire into the registration of county voters in England and Wales, and it was on that account it was composed of English and Welsh Members, with one Scotch and one Irish Member to give the benefit of their assistance with respect to the system of registration in Scotland and Ireland.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate, in order to take the sense of the House, whether Irish county Members should be excluded from the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel French.)
  The House divided: —Ayes 6; Noes 48: Majority 42.
  Mr. WALTER, Mr. DODSON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. ALGERNON EGSRTON, Mr. HENRY AUSTIN BRUCE, Viscount INGESTRE, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. LOCKE.-KING, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr.
  682
  LONGFIRLD, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. CHARLES WYNN nominated other Members of the Committee. Power to send for persons, papers, and records. Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. HUNTmoved, That it be an Instruction to such Committee, "that they have power to inquire into the sufficiency of the powers vested in Revising Barristers for enforcing order in their Courts, and to report upon the same."
  Motion agreed to.

  RAILWAYS (FACILITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Bill to facilitate, in certain cases, the obtaining of powers for the Construction of Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. HUTT.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' POWERS BILL.
  Bill to facilitate, in certain cases, the obtaining of further Powers by Railway Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. HUTT.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT,
The LORD BRODRICK, after the death of his Brother.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S AUGMENTATION ACT.

  RETURN PRESENTED.OBSERVATIONS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that in laying on the table the Returns which he would take the opportunity of giving a more correct answer to the questions which were put to him by his noble and learned Friend. He found that he had succeeded in selling thirty-seven livings; there were under negotiation, many of which would be soon sold, fifty-three more; and inquiries had been mad in respect to eighty fibe other livings. The Act did not come into operation until the 1st of November, and some
  618
  time elapsed before its principles became generally understood. The purchase-money of the thirty-seven livings finally sold was £65,300, and therefore that sum represented the amount of benefit which the Act had already been the means of conferring on the Church. Of the £65,300, £37,850 had been paid into the Bank of England, and the remaining £27,450 was represented by amounts to be secured by rent charges, by land, and sums of money which had still to be paid. The total amount paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was £16,800. As examples of the prices which he had succeeded in obtaining, he might mention that one living, the net income of which was £261, fetched £5,000. Another living, the net income of which was £197, the incumbent of which was very old, fetched £3,500. Another, where the net income was £214 and the incumbent aged fifty-eight, fetched £3,000. Among the smaller livings, one of £16 12 s. 3d., the incumbent of which was seventy-two, fetched £550. He was sure their Lordships would be pleased to know in what manner the provisions of the Act were being carried out, and the disposition that there was to confer benefits on the Church.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The statement just made by the noble and learned Lord is highly satisfactory. Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to ask him, whether any livings have been sold under the arrangement which I took the liberty of suggesting, under the 23rd section?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the noble Earl for reminding him on that point. He had only succeeded in selling one living under the twenty-third section, and he was afraid he should be under the necessity, in the course of the Session, to submit to their Lordships some modification of the section. There were, however, negotiations going on for the sale of three more livings under that section.
  Return laid before the House (pursuant to Act) of all Sales, &c, under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, up to February 15th, 1864. (No,12.)

UNITED STATES. BRITISH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to move for "Returns of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States'

  619
  Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of; and to ask for any farther Information as to Claims made by the United States' Government upon Her Majesty's Government for Damages alleged to be done to American Ships by the Alabama and other Confederate Cruisers." The noble Earl said:—My Lords, the notice which stands upon the paper in my name divides itself into two parts. In the first part I ask for a return of all the claims made on the American Government by British subjects for injuries sustained either in person or property since the commencement of the civil war, and for which the Federal Government is deemed responsible. I presume there can be no real objection to this part of the return. It is not open to the objection sometimes made, that it may prejudice negotiations in progress, because it is simply a summarized statement of the particular claims which have been made, and the grounds on which they have been accepted, rejected, or disposed of by the American Government. I can easily understand that it may not be quite practicable to make that return complete or precise; but I shall be satisfied if it is an approximate return, and puts the House and the country in general possession of the facts. I can easily believe that under the peculiar circumstances of the United States' Government many claims may have arisen to which many counter claims and objections may have been made, and which require the most grave and serious consideration; and I should be the last person to show any want of forbearance to the Government of a country situate as the Government of the United States is. Wherever we can safely assume a bonâ fide intention on the part of the Federal Government to do that which is right, we ought not to be very minute in marking that which has been done amiss. With regard, too, to those British subjects—and the case is by no means an unfrequent one—who have gone out to the United States within the last few years with the intention of acquiring the rights of American citizens, and consequently of divesting themselves, as far as lies in their power, of their nationality and allegiance to the Crown, and have only been prevented from carrying out that purpose by recent events—though they may not have wholly forfeited the
  620
  protection which the British Crown extends to all its subjects everywhere, still they do not come into court with a very satisfactory case, and do not possess a very strong claim on the consideration of Parliament. But in the case of persons who are clearly British subjects, and who on mere suspicion have been arrested, put into prison, subjected to indignities and hardships—sometimes even imperilling their lives — Her Majesty's Government, I think, are bound to require the amplest compensation and redress at the hands of the Federal Government. Then, again, there is another class of British subjects who are in a position to make claims for redress. There are British subjects who are engaged in a legitimate trade, and who, while acting in conformity with international law, have nevertheless seen their ships condemned in American Prize Courts on principles which, if correctly reported, are of a very questionable nature. I have, indeed, always thought that we, who in former wars have jealously maintained certain principles of international jurisprudence, ought not to depart from those principles now that our position is reversed, and we have become neutrals instead of belligerents. But, at the same time, if the statements we have received of the judgments in the American Prize Courts be correct, there can be no doubt that neutral rights are almost brought to the verge of extinction. I will not now go into that question; but there are two cases on which I must say one word. The first is that of the Saxon, which must be familiar to all your Lordships, inasmuch as it has already appeared in every newspaper. If that case be correctly reported, it appears to me one of the most monstrous that has ever appeared before Parliament. That ship was an English ship, and was taking in a cargo at an island at no great distance from one of our settlements on the coast of Western Africa. It is said that the island (Angra Pequena) had been annexed by proclamation to the Cape Colony in 1861 by Sir George Grey, but that that proclamation had never been confirmed by the Colonial Office. I believe that, looking to the practice of the Colonial Office, it will be found that proclamations of this sort have not been ratified sometimes till one, two, and three years afterwards. But, however this may be, the ship was taking in her cargo, and on the point of sailing, when she was boarded by an armed boat's crew from a Federal war vessel the Vanderbilt. The

  621
  captain was sent down, and the American lieutenant ordered the crew below. The mate of the Saxon was going down the ladder when the lieutenant pushed him on the shoulder, and as the unfortunate man turned round to see who it was that touched him, the American officer drew a revolver and shot him dead. If this statement be true, there certainly never was a more wanton, atrocious, or barbarous murder committed on the high seas. The captain of the Vanderbilt is said to have expressed his regret at the occurrence; but I hope that the Government will require something more than a mere expression of regret. The only compensation which can satisfy the honour of the country and the justice of the case is to bring the offender to speedy trial, and to execution if the case be proved against him. This transaction took place in the middle of September—five months ago. It is hardly a case which can require much communication ornegotiation; and I hope therefore that the noble Earl will be able to lay the correspondence on the table, or name an early day for its production. There is also another case to which I wish to call the attention of the House; and in doing so I will take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl a question with respect to it. I see it stated in the newspapers that a Confederate vessel, the Tuscaloosa, has been seized by order of the Government in Simon's Bay, near the Cape of Good Hope. That ship is referred to in the papers recently laid before Parliament, and she is stated to have been a Federal ship originally, captured by the Alabama, and converted into an armed tender to that vessel. She appeared at the Cape last year, when the United States' Consul demanded that she should be detained. The Governor, however, did not consider himself at liberty at that time to take that course. The facts were brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and this is what the noble Earl wrote on the subject—
  "As regards the Tuscaloosa, although Her Majesty's Government would have approved the British authorities at the Cape if they had adopted towards that vessel a course different from that which was adopted, yet the question as to the manner in which a vessel under such circumstances should, according to the tenour of Her Majesty's orders, be dealt with, was not one altogether free from uncertainty. Nevertheless, instructions will be sent to the British authorities at the Cape for their guidance in the event of a similar case occurring hereafter, and Her Majesty's Government hope that under those instructions nothing will for the future happen to admit of a
  622
  question being raised as to Her Majesty's orders having been strictly carried out."—Correspondence, No. 1 (1864), p. 43.
  It is, no doubt, under the instructions here mentioned, that the authorities of the Cape acted when they arrested the vessel, and I trust that the noble Earl will have no objection to lay them on the table.
  I come now to the second part of my notice, which refers to claims put forward by the United States' Government upon the British Government for damages alleged to have been done to American ships by the Confederate cruiser, the Alabama. Your Lordships have doubtless seen the Correspondence relating to the Alabama, which was placed upon the table of the House a few days ago. It is not long, but it contains matter of serious importance. It comprises five different series of applications from Mr. Adams on the part of the United States' Government. The first application was made on the 19th of February last year, and was presented in consequence of the destruction of the Brilliant and the Manchester, and repayment was demanded for the value of the cargo and the ship, with interest thereon. On the 9th of March the noble Earl replies to Mr. Adams, and disclaims all connection with the Alabama, and all responsibility for the mischief she may have done. On the 29th of April another claim was made by Mr. Adams on account of the destruction of the Golden Rule, which was simply acknowledged by the noble Earl. Again, a third application was made on the 7th of July, and on the 13th of July the noble Earl returned an answer referring to his first dispatch, and again disclaiming all responsibility for the acts of Confederate cruisers. On the 24th of August there came another claim for the destruction of the ship Nora by the Alabama; and I should like to read to your Lordships the description there given of the Alabama. The owners of the ship, in their memorial to Mr. Seward, say—
  "The vessel calling herself the Confederate States' man-of-war Alabama is an English vessel, and no other …The said steamer was allowed to leave port under the pretence of making a trial trip, and has never been in any port of the so-called Confederate States, so as to change her flag, or to be otherwise than a British vessel. ….Your memorialists would further represent that said steamer, after thus fraudulently leaving the ports of Great Britain against the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, repeatedly visited or came within the jurisdiction of certain British islands in the Atlantic Ocean, when and where it was well known and patent to the world that she had destroyed American vessels on the

  623
  high seas; and instead of being seized and detained by the British Government, as they were in duty bound to do, was allowed every facility for obtaining supplies and advice and to resume her piratical cruise. … In view of these matters, and of others which may be made to appear, your memorialists do now and for ever enter their solemn protests against the British Government and people as willing parties, negligently culpable in the destruction of their property on the high seas, and thus in first violating the proclamation of the Queen by building and manning said steamer, and then allowing her to continue her depredations."—p. 17.
  These are the terms in which the Alabama is described, and in which the claims of the American marine are urged upon the British Government. A few days after the noble Earl repeats his disclaimer, and winds up with the hope—very properly expressed, I think—that no such claim may ever be brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government again. But the application to which I would call the especial attention of the House is that referred to in a letter from Mr. Adams, dated the 23rd of October. In this letter Mr. Adams renews the charges he had previously made with regard to the depredations of the Alabama, and then proceeds—
  "Upon these principles of law and these assumptions of fact, resting upon the evidence in the case, I am instructed to say that my Government must continue to insist that Great Britain has made itself responsible for the damages which the peaceful, law-abiding citizens of the United States sustain by the depredations of the vessel called the Alabama."—p. 27.
  I would ask your Lordships to observe the similarity of that language with the language used in the despatch of the 11th of July, which has been so much spoken of. There is, however, this difference— that in the letter from which I have just quoted Mr. Adams proceeds to qualify his language in these terms—
  "In repeating this conclusion, however, it is not to be understood that the United States in. cline to act dogmatically, or in a spirit of litigation. They desire to maintain amity as well as peace. They fully comprehend how unavoidably reciprocal grievances must spring up from the divergence in the policy of the two countries in regard to the present insurrection. They cannot but appreciate the difficulties under which Her Majesty's Government is labouring from the pressure of interests and combinations of British subjects, apparently bent upon compromising by their unlawful acts the neutrality which Her Majesty has proclaimed and desires to preserve, even to the extent of involving the two nations in the horrors of a maritime war. For these reasons I am instructed to say that they frankly confess themselves unwilling to regard the present hour as the most favourable to a calm and candid examination by either party of the facts or the principles
  624
  involved in cases like the one now in question. Though indulging a firm conviction of the correctness of their position in regard to this and other claims, they declare themselves disposed at all times, hereafter as well as now, to consider in the fullest manner all the evidence and the arguments which Her Majesty's Government may incline to proffer in refutation of it! and in case of an impossibility to arrive at any common conclusion I am directed to say there is no fair and equitable form of conventional arbitrament or reference to which they will not be willing to submit."—p. 27.
  On the 26th of October, three days afterwards, the noble Earl, in answering that despatch of Mr. Adams, uses these words—
  "You add, further on, that the United States frankly confess themselves unwilling to regard the present hour as the most favourable to a calm and candid examination by either party of the facts or the principles involved in cases like the one now in question."—p. 42.
  Up to that despatch I entirely assent to nearly every word used by the noble Earl in this Correspondence. I had felt persuaded that it contained not merely the drift, but the plain view, of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It appeared to me that from the first the noble Earl had declined all responsibility connected with the building of the Alabama, and with the depredations which she was alleged to have committed. Nothing can be plainer and more complete in every way than the noble Earl's language; but after all this the noble Earl ends by accepting the proposal for an arbitrament.
  EARL RUSSELL: No.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: At a future period?
  EARL RUSSELL: No.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble Earl says "No;" but, on reading the despatch from which I have just quoted, can any one come to any other conclusion than that the noble Earl did accede to the proposal for arbitration at a future period? Mr. Adams asks for arbitration, and the noble Earl says—
  "With this declaration, Her Majesty's Government may well be content to await the time when a calm and candid examination of the facts and principles involved in the case of the Alabama may, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, usefully be undertaken."
  I very much regret, whatever may be the intentions of the Government, that the noble Earl ever used such language as that. Arbitration applies to a question in which there is some doubt; but if there is a perfectly clear right—a perfectly unquestionable one—then men do not arbitrate, If, indeed, Her Majesty's Govern-

  625
  ment feel any doubt as to the propriety of the position which they had taken throughout the previous correspondence, let them say so. It is never too late to go back if one has committed an error. And here I must observe that the noble Earl did on one occasion use an ominous expression—namely, that the case of the Oreto and the Alabama was a scandal and a reproach to English law. If the noble Earl is decided and clear in his opinion he had better say so. If he believes that those claims are founded neither on reason nor on justice, then he should hold out no shadow of hope that they can by any possibility be admitted. But it is unwise to endeavour to tide over a present difficulty by creating a much greater one for a future time. I would urge upon Her Majesty's Government, as far as my feeble voice can do so, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I entirely agree in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl in his earlier despatches, that there is no ground for those claims; but it would be even better to admit and satisfy them, at whatever expense, than to allow the matter to run on unsettled and indefinite, and at length to be compelled to undergo the humiliation of retracting the words you have said. My Lords, I cannot see that there is any practical advantage in leaving a question of this sort unsettled. There are two classes of politicians, as this House must know, in America, who look at this matter from different points. One class—composed of, I believe, honest men, but men holding, very mistaken views—are convinced that the Alabama sailed from these shores through the fault and negligence of Her Majesty's Government, and hold us accountable for the damage which she has done to the American marine. The American estimate of the amount of that damage is a very heavy one. I do not at all make myself responsible for its accuracy—but according to that estimate, 148 American ships were destroyed or bonded from the time of the sailing of the Alabama to the 30th of June, 1863. The tonnage of those ships is stated to be 61,292 tons, which, at n valuation of £10 per ton, amounts in money to a loss of £612,920. To this is added a sum of £20 per ton, making a total of £1,100,000 as the value of the cargoes, and a sum of £700,000 for Chinese cargoes, which bring up the entire loss to £2,412,920. I do not know whether this is a correct estimate; but there can be no doubt that great injury
  626
  has been inflicted on American commerce. This is shown by the heavy rates for insurance now prevailing, and by the considerable sale of American ships, which has recently taken place, to other nations. Well, my Lords, this class of politicians to whom I have already alluded, are smarting under a strong sense of personal injury, and they urge their claims against our Government in no measured language. And I must say that the Government of America, from whatever motive, have so lent themselves to their views that hereafter, when this sum has rolled up into a very much larger one, it will be absolutely impossible for that Government to restrain the machinery which they themselves have put in motion. I therefore think it is most important that Her Majesty's Government should bring this matter to a settlement one way or the other. But there is a second class of American politicians, and they make no secret of their object —they have openly and avowedly said that they will wait until the embarrassment of England shall be America's opportunity, when they will be ready to resort to hostilities in order to wipe off some fancied national humiliation. This should impress upon the noble Earl the importance of at once settling this question. And, my Lords, in our political intercourse with America, if there be any conclusion which we ought to have drawn from past history, it is this—that it is the policy of English statesmanship to limit these debateable questions, and not allow them, either from accident or design, to be kept open. You might number up a score of those questions, which, by being kept open, have affected very considerably the good relations between the two countries, caused great irritation both here and in America, and at times threatened very disastrous consequences. Such were the questions of Maine boundary line, of the Oregon line, and of the fishery controversies. Not many years ago, a dispute arose with regard to the boundary line at Vancouver's Island. The island of San Juan was taken possession of by a hot-headed American officer, and it was only owing to the exercise of great tact and forbearance that hostilities were averted. Now, it should be the object of good statesmanship to put an end as soon as possible to all these questions of debate and litigation But in these despatches—whether intentionally or no I do not know—the noble Earl holds out, in order to tide over the present difficulty, some vague and shadowy hopes of

  627
  means by which differences may be reconciled. But I warn him to beware, lest be thus deliberately create, in order to relieve himself from present embarrassment, a difficulty which may be ten times as formidable and ten times as dangerous as a fishery or a frontier dispute, inasmuch as it will be backed by stronger material interests, founded on personal considerations, and in all probability supported by an unreasoning mob. The noble Earl then moved an Address for
  "Return of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the Grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of."
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl seems to suppose that I shall have no difficulty in granting the first part of his Motion, relating to the returns of claims mutually made by the United States Government and the British Government in respect of injuries sustained since the secession of the Southern States. Now, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, there will be very little difficulty in giving any information that is asked for as to representations which have taken place on the part of the Government; but when I consider the public utility to be served by this Motion, I cannot encourage the noble Earl to press it. The fact is, that these despatches upon cases arising from time to time, and almost from day to day, become formidable in point of extent. I saw in the Foreign Office to-day a volume—not, indeed, a very thick one, but one of several folio volumes, many of them exceedingly thick—which are said to contain about half of the returns which the noble Earl moves for. Now, I ask, what would be the advantage of producing, what would be the advantage of printing, for this House, such a voluminous return of cases that have arisen between this country and the United States? I am quite sure that my noble Friend would hardly think of pressing a Motion of such a character. And if there is no advantage in it, there may be some disadvantage; because, if hereafter there were to be any Commission on these claims, the American Government would probably take the evidence which had been laid before Parliament as complete with respect to them. They would say, "There is your case. It has been laid before the Foreign Office; it has been presented to Parliament and printed, and it is impossible to
  628
  go beyond it." If, therefore, these cases were printed, and a Commission on claims were hereafter appointed, persons who had claims, and who were prepared to produce further evidence in support of them, might be precluded from the full benefit of that evidence. I cannot, therefore, think that there would he any advantage in producing this voluminous mass of papers. The noble Earl seemed to think that our commerce was nearly extinct. [The Earl of CARNARVON dissented.] I took down the noble Earl's words, and he certainly said that our commerce on the southern coast of America had been brought almost to the verge of extinction. Now, to what do these words apply? It is known that this trade of blockade-running has been a most profitable trade, that great fortunes have been made by many persons in carrying it on, and that Nassau and some other places have swarmed with vessels which had never previously been seen in those ports. That a great number of vessels have been stopped by the American cruisers I readily admit. The noble Earl says, that the Judges of the Prize Courts in the United States have given decisions some of which are not based upon principles of international law. Now, I say here what I have frequently had occasion to say before, that we are bound in the first instance to accept these decisions; and I think the complaints which have been made very often arise, and naturally arise, from ignorance of the principles of international law as laid down by Lord Stowell and other great jurists in this country. It has been many times complained of, that a vessel bound from this country to Nassau should be captured on her voyage while upon the high seas, and should be sent for adjudication before an American Prize Court. Evidently the persons who make that complaint think it quite sufficient if the nominal destination was Nassau, and do not take into consideration the circumstance, that if Nassau was not the ultimate destination, but it was merely meant that the vessel should touch at Nassau, and then, without transhipment, carry her cargo into the blockaded port, that vessel, according to the principles laid down by Lord Stowell, would be liable to capture. But it is natural that this should be forgotten when for so many years these belligerent rights have been in abeyance; and the result is, that many of the persons who have employed their capital in this manner are severe sufferers. With regard to the Saxon,

  629
  we were advised that that vessel was taken not in British, but in foreign waters. The noble Earl says that the Law Officers of the Crown must have been completely wrong, because it was quite sufficient if the Governor of the Cape had declared the island of Angra Pequena to be a British possession. Now, I do not think that we should be guided by such a declaration in an analogous case. Suppose that on the coast of Africa a slaver was taken by one of our cruisers near an island, it would not be sufficient to prevent the capture by the statement that the Governor of the neighbouring French or Portuguese settlement had declared that island to belong to France or Portugal. We should say at once, "Have the French and Portuguese Governments confirmed that declaration?" and if they had not we should hesitate to acknowledge that the island belonged to either country. The argument which we should use ourselves, we ought to accept from another nation; and acting, therefore, on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, I did not assert that this vessel had been wrongfully captured. What was affirmed by the American captors was that the Saxon had received from the Alabama and the Tuscaloosa part of the spoil which they had taken from American vessels. The noble Earl refers to what appears to us, if the information we have received be accurate, to be the wanton and barbarous murder of the mate of the Saxon. All that we could ask in such a case was that the person accused of that crime should be tried, and should be brought as soon as possible before a tribunal in which the charge could be fairly examined into. That, accordingly, is the demand which we made. The noble Earl says it was no satisfaction that the captain of the Vanderbilt expressed his regret. But I do not know what more he could do. He did not order that the mate of the Saxon should be killed. He had no concern in the murder, but when he heard of the occurrence he expressed his regret. He could not immediately order a trial and have the man convicted and executed.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Did the captain order the man under arrest?
  EARL RUSSELL: That is a point upon which we have no information. But certainly I do not think it an injury that the captain expressed his regret at the occurrence. I believe it is stated in the newspapers that the man was afterwards put under arrest; but that is only a newspaper
  630
  report. With regard to the Tuscaloosa, that vessel was captured by, and was a prize to, the Alabama. The Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that she should have been detained, and orders were sent out in conformity with that opinion. She has now been detained, and it will be for the noble Earl to show that the Law Officers were wrong in that opinion, and that upon grounds of public law known to himself Her Majesty's Government should have taken another course. I now come to the noble Earl's statement with regard to the Alabama, and I cannot say how much I feel indebted to him for enabling me to clear up a misconception which, as it has affected his mind, may also have affected others in the same way. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always maintained that they were in no way responsible for the hostilities against the merchant ships of the United States committed by the Alabama. We have maintained that position from the beginning; we shall maintain it to the end. The noble Earl seems to suppose, that in a letter of mine of the 26th of October, I admitted that these questions would afterwards be referred to a Commission. My Lords, I admitted nothing of the kind. I stated then, as I have always stated, that Her Majesty's Government was not responsible for the acts of the Alabama. The United States' Minister may have in view some kind of commission or arbitration; but Her Majesty's Government have never consented, and never would consent, to a commission or arbitration. According to all the principles of international law, Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the doings of the vessel referred to. There has been a question of a Commission, but we have always thought that a Commission would be of no use, because the United States' Government would be sure to propose that the case of the Alabama should be referred to the Commission, and it is quite impossible that we could consent to that. Therefore, we have never proposed what under ordinary circumstances would be a proper course—we have never proposed a Commission to consider the respective claims of the subjects of each country, and which the United States' Government intimated they were ready to agree to, because we knew that it would be proposed to include the case of the Alabama, which we were determined not to consent to. I say, therefore, the Government may well await the time when a calm consideration of the

  631
  principles involved in the case of the Alabama can be given. Every one is aware that for a long time there has been great excitement in America upon the subject of the Alabama; that she has been called "a British pirate," and the American nation has been roused to anger against this country for the doings of that vessel. I say, that when the United States' Government say they do not wish to press that question further now, it is fair to believe that a time may come when the United States' Government, considering all the precedents laid down by their own Judges, as well as by British Judges, will be satisfied that they have no claim against this country on account of the Alabama. My expression was not intended to convey the notion that the British Government would change their minds, but that the United States' Government would change theirs when the excitement of the moment had passed away. Therefore, I go on to say —
  "The British Government must decline to be responsible for the acts of parties who fit out a seeming merchant ship, send her to a port or to waters far from the jurisdiction of British Courts, and there commission, equip, and man her as a vessel of war."
  And I further say, that if
  "An admitted principle was thus made elastic to meet a particular case, the trade of shipbuilding in this country would be seriously embarrassed."
  The noble Earl, in a manner unaccountable to me—for it never, from the time I wrote that letter until now, occurred to me that such a meaning could be applied to it, and that it could be understood as admitting a future examination of this case—the noble Earl says it is desirable that these cases should not be kept open, but that they should be settled at once. I quite agree with him that they ought to be settled at once, if there is any amicable way in which they can be settled. The American Government says, "We have a clear and undoubted case for reparation on account of the Alabama."We say," We have a clear and undoubted case for refusing reparation in the case of the Alabama." Who is to be the arbitrator unless we resort to that method of arbitration which the noble Earl thinks I agree to? In no way can this question be settled unless the United States should push us to the verge of war for the purpose of getting this question settled. The United States' Government say, "We have a good case, but we are
  632
  ready to keep it in abeyance, and to continue on terms of amity and friendly relations with Great Britain if Great Britain will consent to do so." Am I to say, "We will not agree to anything of the sort. Why do you not make war upon us? Why not push your claims to the utmost extremity?" That is the case of the noble Earl. He says it is desirable to have these questions settled, and not to have them hanging over us. It is desirable indeed; but how is it to be done while the position of the two countries are so entirely opposed? I have had the good fortune, in some cases, to bring to an amicable termination matters which had long been causes of dispute between this country and the United States. For many years there was a dispute pending upon the question of the Mosquito Shore and of the Bay Islands. The President of the United States said at the time, "If this be the only question of difference,"—as I believe it was until the secession occurred—" If this be the only question of difference we have with the Government of Great Britain, let us endeavour to settle it." I, for my part, was quite ready to make concessions of what might be considered fair claims on the part of the British Government in order to settle the dispute, and happily I was enabled to make a treaty which put an end to that dispute. There was another question which arose since the Ashburton Treaty, and which went on for some years, respecting the Hudson's Bay Company; and that dispute it was agreed to refer to arbitration, and a convention has been made for that purpose. So I am by no means indisposed to settle these questions, which, as the noble Earl truly says, ought not to be kept open if they can be settled. There is also the question of the Island of San Juan, adjoining Vancouver's Island; and in that question also I proposed an arbitration, which proposal has been for some time under the consideration of the United States' Government. That Government thought the Senate could not agree to arbitration but I trust there will he an agreement upon that question also. I think it would be much better that the question relating to the Island of San Juan should be decided by an arbitrator than that it should remain a cause of dispute between the two countries. Referring again to the Alabama, the noble Earl seems to be much shocked because I said that that case was a scandal, and in some sense a reproach upon British law. I say that here, as

  633
  I said it in that despatch. I do consider; that having passed a law to prevent the enlistment of Her Majesty's subjects in the service of a foreign Power, to prevent the fitting out or equipping, within Her Majesty's dominions, of vessels for warlike purposes without Her Majesty's sanction,—I say that, having passed such a law in the year 1819, it is a scandal and a reproach that one of the belligerents in this American contest has been enabled, at the order of the Confederate Government, to fit out a vessel at Liverpool in such a way that she was capable of being made a vessel of war; that after going to another port in Her Majesty's dominions, to ship a portion of her crew, she proceeded to a port in neutral territory, and there completed her crew and equipment as a vessel of war, so that she has since been able to capture and destroy innocent merchant vessels belonging to the other belligerent. Having been thus equipped by an evasion of the law, I say it is a scandal to our law that we should not be able to prevent such belligerent operations. I venture to say so much because at the Foreign Office I feel this to be very inconvenient. If you choose to say, as you might have said in former times, "Let vessels be fitted out and sold; let a vessel go to Charleston and there be sold to any agent of the Confederate Government," I could understand such a state of things. But if we have a law to prevent the fitting out of warlike vessels without the licence of Her Majesty, I do say this case of the Alabama is a scandal and a reproach, A very learned judge has said that we might drive, not a coach and six, but a whole fleet of ships through that Act of Parliament. If that be a correct description of our law, then I say we ought to have the law made more clear and intelligible. This law was said to be passed to secure the peace and welfare of this nation, and I trust it may be found in the end sufficient for that purpose. I say, however, that while the law remains in its present state its purpose is obviously defeated and its enactments made of no effect by British subjects who defy the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. To these observations I will only add, that if the noble Earl wishes for any other Paper relating to the Alabama—I believe there is only one—I should be willing to give it; but as to the folio volume of papers to which I have before referred, I hope the noble Earl will not press for their production.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had already explained that he did not wish for the Correspondence in extenso, but would be satisfied with short summaries of each case, containing such details as names, dates, and amounts of claim. There would surely be no difficulty in producing such information. With regard to the interpretation he had put on the language of the noble Earl, he thought their Lordships would agree that he had been not unnaturally misled, and was justified in asking further explanation. He accepted, however, the explanation the noble Earl had given him, and he rejoiced to receive it. He hoped there would be no objection on the part of the noble Earl to produce the papers in the case of the Saxon. That transaction had occurred between five and six months ago, and the negotiations in that case must be nearly complete. It was most important that Parliament should know precisely the position in which it stood in reference to such matters; and when the noble Earl challenged him to prove his case, although he was quite ready to take up his challenge, he could not do so unless the noble Earl supplied him with the materials. He should only further press for a copy of the instructions which were sent out to the colonial authorities at the Cape of Good Hope, and on which they had acted in the case of the Tuscaloosa. He hoped there would be no objection to give a copy of these instructions.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he should have no objection to the Motion of the noble Earl on the understanding that names, dates, and other details of that kind only were to be given. With regard to the papers connected with the case of the Saxon, he was quite ready to produce them if the noble Earl would move for them.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthen moved, for the Correspondence or Extracts relative to the capture of the Saxon; and for Copy of Instructions to the Colonial Authorities relative to the detention of the Tuscaloosa.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, it would be necessary to communicate with the Colonial Office in regard to the instructions to the authorities at the Cape.
  Address for—
  "Return of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the

  635
  Grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of."
  Also,
  "Correspondence or Extracts from Correspondence relative to the Capture of the Saxon by the United States Ship Vanderbilt."
  And also,
  "Copy of Instructions to the Colonial Authorities relative to the Detention of the Tuscaloosa."
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.