Sitting of 21 February 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right hon. Michael Morris, for Galway Town.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance.
Ordered—Church Rates Regulation *; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance*; Lyon King of Arms (Scotland).*
First Reading—Church Rates Regulation * [42]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* [43]; Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* [44].
Second Reading—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance [35]; Metropolitan Poor [9]; Shipping Local Dues * [5]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names * [31]; Sugar Duties* [37]; Duty on Dogs [36]; Railway Debenture Holders [20].
Referred to Select Committee—Railway Debenture Holders [20].

IRELAND—EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. LANYONsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) lately adopted a Resolution to the effect that in future no member of the Board would be allowed to enter his reasons of protest against any Motion adopted by a majority of the Commissioners; and, if so, will he have any objection to produce a Copy of the Resolution in Question?
LORD NAASsaid, the best answer he could give to the Question of the hon. Member was to give the contents of a letter he had received from the Secretary of the Edu-

721
cation Board in Ireland, who said there was no resolution now on the minutes of the Board to the effect that in future no member should be allowed to enter his reasons of protest against any motion adopted by the majority, and that the practice was not to record on the minutes the reasons assigned by any member for assenting to or dissenting from any motion adopted by the majority.

SCOTCH BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What Scotch Bills are to be introduced by Government, and who is to take charge of the Scotch business in the House of Commons, the Lord Advocate not having a scat?
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, the Hypothec Amendment Bill and the Recovery of Debts in Sheriff Courts Bill have been already introduced and read a first time in the House of Lords. To-night the hon. Member for Peebleshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) will introduce a Bill for the Regulation of the Court and Office of the Lyon King at Arms. Several other Bills are in an advanced state of preparation—namely, the Writs Registration Bill, the Justiciary Court Bill, the Heritable Securities Succession Bill, and the Consolidation of Law of Nuisance, &c, in Scotland Bill. Inasmuch as the now Lord Advocate will probably be promoted to the Bench in a few days, I cannot state until I have consulted the new Lord Advocate, the present Solicitor General, as to the time at which they will be introduced.
MR. BAXTER: In the meantime, who is to be responsible for Scotch business?
MR. WALPOLE: I will answer that Question another day.

QUARANTINE IN THE WEST INDIES.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN SPEIRSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What are the regulations in the British West Indian possessions as to quarantine, stating its duration in each colony, whether performed in vessels or on shore; if in vessels, their average tonnage and whether provided at the expense of the Government, or of those subjected to quarantine; if on shore, whether in reach of medical attendance, and whether such attendance is provided at the expense of
  722
  the Government, or of those undergoing quarantine?
  MR. ADDERLEY,in reply, said, it was impossible to state what the regulations in the British West India possessions were as to quarantine. Looking through the Acts on the subject, he found that one of them made specific regulations, but they left it to each Governor to make such regulations as the circumstances of a case might call for. There was no specific regulation as to whether quarantine was performed on shore or in vessels. As to medical attendance, he believed it was charged to the masters of ships, but was not certain. If the hon. Gentleman had in view any particular case, and would move for a Return of the regulations affecting it, he would obtain them by sending to the colony for them.

WEST INDIES—MORTALITY IN THE HARBOUR OF ST. THOMAS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN SPEIRSsaid, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the table of the House, Returns of the Mortality on board all British Vessels in the Harbour of St. Thomas's from yellow fever, dysentery, and cholera from the 1st day of July till the 31st day of December, 1866, as well as on board the Intra Colonial Mail Steamers having intercourse with that port; whether the British Consul at St. Thomas's and the Mail Agents had reported the appalling number of deaths, and what steps the Government had taken in consequence?
  MR. ADDERLEY,in reply, said, that St. Thomas was not an English colony, and his Department had no information whatever on the subject of this question. He had, however, made inquiries in other Departments whether there were any Returns made by the British Consul at St. Thomas. The Board of Trade had received a report of the number of deaths of seamen in that island and on the voyage home, but that was imperfect, as it did not include passengers. If the hon. and gallant Member thought fit to move for that Return there would be no objection to its production. As to the destination of vessels going to that harbour, over that harbour they had no control; but with reference to the mail packet ships, they called there under a contract which would shortly expire, and on its termination arrangements would if possible be made to prevent their calling at that unhealthy place.

IRELAND—WATERFORD ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, taking into consideration the alleged conduct of sixteen men of the 12th Lancers, who, on the polling day of the late Election for Waterford, according to the sworn testimony of the officer in command, broke away from his control, and without orders charged along the Quay of Dungarvan, the result being that two persons were killed, one of whom, while standing near the door of his house, was stabbed by one of the soldiers with a lance, as appears by the reported evidence of the coroner's jury—taking this into consideration, Whether he coincides in the opinion expressed by Colonel Sawyer in his Report to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, that the conduct of the troops at the late Waterford Election was admirable, and that if casualties among the people, however much to be regretted, did occur, they were unavoidable; and whether he considers it necessary there should be a searching investigation into the breach of military discipline resulting in so lamentable a catastrophe?
  GENERAL PEEL: Sir, I can have no hesitation in saying that if the sixteen men of the 12th Lancers had broken away from the control of their commanding officer, and had charged along the quay of Dungarvan, I should not concur with the opinion that they behaved admirably, but I should consider that further inquiry was necessary. I think I stated before that Colonel Sawyer's official Report was borne out by those of all the officers who commanded detachments on that occasion; and I will read an extract from the official Report of the officer who commanded the detachment alluded to.
  MR. BAGWELL: What is the name of the officer?
  GENERAL PEEL: The hon. Member has had the good taste not to insert the name in the Question, and I trust he will allow me to adhere to the course he has adopted. The officer says—
  "On crossing the bridge, just before reaching the Court House, the magistrate requested me to bring some men, and clear the corner of the bridge and a portion of the quay. I was in the act of doing so when a mob inside some iron railings hurled some tremendous big stones at the men, and the people on the quay did the same. At this period the conduct of the rioters, a great body of whom had rushed into the shipping, was so violent that my men were, in some cases, obliged, in self-
  724
  defence, to offer resistance, and if any casualties have occurred among the mob they were (while much to be regretted) entirely unavoidable, considering the circumstances of the case and the active attack made directly upon the troops. I must add that a cross-fire of stones and other missiles was hurled at the troops as they advanced along the quays. It is the firm opinion of myself and the officers under my command that the proceedings of the rioters were the result of a preconcerted organization."
  As to the evidence given at the inquest> application was made to the officer to know how he reconciled his Report with that evidence, and in his answer he says—
  "Permit me to observe that I adhere to the official Report. I regret extremely that at the inquest, owing to the cross-examination being so entirely different from what I had expected, the exceedingly puzzling way in which questions were put, and my being always stopped when I was about to explain, I became confused, my presence of mind failed me, and I gave irrelevant answers. For instance, when asked 'Did not your troops break away from your control?' I said, 'They did on that occasion,' whereas, 'on that occasion' I was not with them, having left them on the quay to perform the duty the magistrates had ordered through me."
  The noble Lord commanding the troops in Ireland, Lord Strathnairn, is the best judge as to whether that answer is satisfactory, or if any further military inquiry is necessary. There is another view of the question which it was for the civil authorities to take into consideration.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he wished to say, in explanation, that he thought himself justified in putting the Question, because the officer in command of the 12th Lancers swore that the troops did break away from him on the occasion.

CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
MR. FORDYCEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in awarding compensation to the owners of cattle killed before the passing of the Cattle Plague Act, it is the intention of Government to include in such compensation counties which defrayed such expenses at the time from local funds?
MR. CORRYsaid, in reply, that some nights ago he stated, in answer to a Question put to him, that any compensation to be made by the Government would be reduced by the amount received by the owner out of public rates or from any other source. It followed, therefore, that in any county where compensation had been made to the full amount no further sum would be given, because the object

725
was not to compensate for county, but for individual losses.
MR. FORDYCE: Would that apply if the funds were the result of public subscription?
MR. CORRY: It did not matter what source the compensation came from, the amount would be deducted from that given by the Government.

COURTS OF JUSTICE CONCENTRATION ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the certificate referred to in sec. 19 of "The Courts of Justice Concentration Act, 1865," has been received by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and what is the probable cost of the land and buildings respectively as stated in the certificate?
MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that a certificate, dated July, 18G5, had been sent to the Treasury. It did not state in terms that the amount which the Commissioners had certified would be sufficient, but it used these words—
"We certify that the land to be taken will be sufficient for all the purposes of the Courts, and that the probable cost of the land and buildings will not exceed the amount of the funds provided by the Courts of Justice Buildings Act of 1865."
It would be in the recollection of the House that £1,500,000 was the amount provided by the Act.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—STUD SHOT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for War, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Commanding Officer of Artillery at Halifax in respect to the Ordnance Select Committee's stud shot sent to that Colony; and also, whether he will lay upon the table the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee upon the same?
  GENERAL PEEL: I have no objection whatever to lay the papers on the table.

SCOTLAND—EDUCATION.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Commission on Education in Scotland have given in their Report to the
726
Government, and when it will be laid before this House?
MR. CORRY,in reply, said, the Report had not yet been received, nor had he any moans of knowing when it was likely to be received. The Report would not be sent to the Committee of Council on Education, but to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

GRANTS TO MISSIONARIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretrary of State for the Colonies, When a Return, ordered by the House of Commons on the 7th of June last,
  "Of the names of the several Missionaries who participate in the grant this Session of £2,013 made by Parliament to 'Missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,' the amount paid to each Missionary, where each is stationed, and how long each has received a grant from Parliament,"
  will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that he would lay the Returns on the table in a few days.

LANCASTER ELECTION COMMISSION REPORT.—QUESTION.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Commission appointed to investigate the proceedings at the late Lancaster Election, which has been already circulated, will be presented to the House? He begged to add that extracts from the Report were at present having a very wide circulation, and were causing a good deal of uneasiness.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, that Report, as well as the Reports on Reigate, Yarmouth, and Totnes Elections were directed to be laid on the table this very day, and I believe they wore. When laid upon the table the officers of the House will see that they are printed and circulated among the Members, and the matter is out of my hands, as far as I have power over it. As to the circulation of the Lancaster Election Report, I have no notion how it was done. Certainly it has not been from any command given by the Home Office. It is very much to be regretted that portions of the Report should so have got into circulation.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
(Lord Naas, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.

  [BILL 35.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD NAAS: Mr. Speaker—When at the commencement of tins Session Her Majesty, in her gracious Speech from the Throne, announced to Her Parliament that the Government would be enabled to dispense with the exceptional powers granted last year, no Member of the Government, nor, I believe, any one possessed of information with regard to the state of Ireland, had any expectation that it would be necessary at so early a period to ask Parliament to renew, even for a limited time, those exceptional powers. This might, in the opinion of some, indicate that the Government were not in possession of that information which they ought to have had. But, in truth, it is the peculiar nature of this movement, and the extraordinary characteristic of this conspiracy, that it is beyond anything difficult to obtain the information which is usual when such designs are intended. I do not believe that that circumstance evinces any particular skill or ability on the part of those engaged in these treasonable designs, but it arises simply from the fact that the leaders and principal organizers of the conspiracy are not in Ireland, but carry on their plots in a foreign land. As far as we can discover, all they have been lately doing is issuing orders to their sympathizers and agents in the United Kingdom. It is very well known to this House that the leaders have been anywhere but in Ireland. Sometimes they have been in this country, at other times in France, but the general seat of their designs has been the United States. Therefore, it has been impossible to obtain that amount of information with regard to their designs which would have been attainable had they carried on this conspiracy within the United Kingdom. Experience has shown that when active operations have been planned in this country, they speedily become known to the authorities, and there is no difficulty whatever in obtaining ample notice of the fact. If, Sir, it was with reluctance last year that I undertook the disagreeable duty of moving for the continuance of the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, that reluctance has not been decreased by the
  728
  administration of the powers conferred on the Government by that Act. No man who really appreciates the advantages of the free Constitution under which we live can without feelings of dislike, and even loathing, exercise those exceptional powers which circumstances have rendered necessary. No man can take part in a proceeding which consigns an individual to gaol, without the prospect of a speedy trial, without feeling that he is doing an act which nothing but the absolute and imperative necessity of the case could justify. That has been my feeling and the feeling of the Lord Lieutenant, and of my learned colleagues who have been engaged in the performance of this most disagreeable and irksome duty. I think it is due to the House and the Government that I should state as briefly as possible the course of events with regard to this conspiracy since I had the honour of addressing the House last year. When the present Government came into office there were, I think, about 330 prisoners detained under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. On the 1st of September that number was reduced to 286, and so satisfied were we of the general appearances that presented themselves of the decline of the conspiracy and of the partial abandonment by the conspirators of their designs, that we were enabled by the 24th of November through the release of persons, many of whom were, in humble condition, to reduce the number in confinement to seventy-three. This fact, together with the small number of warrants issued, will show how indisposed we were to exercise the powers with which we were invested except in cases where absolute necessity existed for it. In September one warrant was issued, in October one, in November five. Sir, about the end of November a considerable amount of activity began to be displayed among those persons both in England and in Ireland who were known to be members of the Fenian Brotherhood. The usual stories were promulgated with wonderful industry throughout the country to the effect that an immediate rising was about to take place. These stories were found to be circulated everywhere; circulated not by Fenian agents only, but by persons whose ordinary business led them to travel about the country. It was evident that these stories came from one and the same source, for whether it was in Cork or in Donegal it was always precisely the same alarming rumour which was detailed. Moreover, discoveries of

  729
  concealed arras were made, and in one case a seizure was made on board an English steamer arriving at Cork of as many as eighty rifles with their usual accompaniments, a considerable quantity of ammunition being also found, with a fictitious address. The usual symptoms of activity likewise presented themselves in collecting money, the well-known collecting card used by Fenian agents being found in almost all the northern towns in England and in many towns in Ireland. Raffles were also held, and all the wonted exertions for the collection of money were put into active operation. It was reported that those leaders of the conspiracy who had openly declared their intention of levying war in Ireland had left America, and this report considerably increased the alarm. The result was that a state of alarm, almost amounting to panic, prevailed from one end of the country to the other, and the most unfortunate consequences followed. Numbers of people, believing these stories, left their homes, there was a run upon many of the banks, and the Government were inundated with demands for protection from every part of Ireland. Nor was this alarm altogether unfounded, because the circumstances I have mentioned were the same as those which occurred in February, 1866, which justified the then Government in applying to Parliament for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Sir, the Government did not think it necessary to add any very extensive or serious precautions to those already existing. A slight increase was made in the military force in Ireland, but that increase only brought up the numbers of men actually serving in Ireland to the same number as they were in March and April of last year. A slight addition was made to the naval force stationed on the coast, and a few detachments were placed in different small towns where information had led us to believe that the greatest danger existed. The latter measure had the most salutary effect, for it has always been observed that whenever a small military force is placed in Ireland, alarm disappears, and the loyal and well-disposed among the population take heart and feel renewed confidence. A remarkable occurrence took place in a certain small town in the South of Ireland which it is not necessary to name. During the 24th, 25th, and 26th of November, as large a sum as £5,000, entirely in gold, was drawn out of the Bank. Early information reached the Government, which led us
  730
  to believe that it was advisable to station a small force there, and as soon as an announcement was made that some soldiers were likely to arrive the next day, the run upon the bank ceased, and confidence was restored. About that time very important information came into the possession of the Government, which induced us to make some arrests in Dublin and in the country, and that stop was attended with the best results. The number of arrests was not, however, very considerable. In December ninety-seven warrants issued, in January seventeen. During the present month there have been nine, making in all, with the seven issued in September, October, and November, 130 warrants issued by the present Government since they assumed office. The policy which the Government have endeavoured, and, I believe successfully, to carry out is this—we have taken as much care as we could to arrest those persons only who we had reason to believe were leaders, or were taking a prominent part in the conspiracy. We did not think it necessary to make the indiscriminate arrests which were thought necessary, and, perhaps, were necessary, in the earlier stages of the conspiracy. We endeavoured to select a few of the leaders, and consign them to prison, and we found that the effect produced was quite sufficient, the immediate result being, that wherever arrests were made the conspiracy scorned at once to come to an end. A most gratifying feature presented itself in connection with this matter during the months of November and December, for a spirit was evoked such, indeed, as had been evoked on many occasions before, which led all classes and all parts of the population to testify their utter repudiation of the designs of these persons. We received loyal addresses and resolutions passed by meetings held in various parts of the country, and composed of men of every class and creed. There was hardly a man of any influence in the districts where danger was supposed to exist who did not at once record his desire to give every support in his power to the Government, and who did not repudiate, in the strongest terms, any sympathy with the conspirators in their designs. Sir, the Government received these assurances thankfully, answering them in almost every instance. The answer was this—that if the Government saw any necessity for appealing to the active support of the loyal population of the country of all classes and creeds in their endeavours to maintain

  731
  the public peace, they would not have the slightest hesitation in doing so. At the same time, it was pointed out that the law is express upon this subject, and it is that no measure of the kind, such as swearing in special constables, shall be taken unless it is proved by satisfactory evidence that the ordinary powers placed at the disposal of the Government are insufficient to cope with the danger. I am happy to say that in no part of Ireland did any circumstance arise which could justify the Government in informing the magistrates that such an emergency existed. Had such necessity arisen, we should have had banded on the side of the law and order every man in the country whose opinion or whose influence was worth having. Sir, the consequence of all this was that towards the close of the year those unmistakable signs of disquietude to which I have referred had to a great extent disappeared. The subscriptions which had been pouring in in considerable numbers in December, gradually became scanty, and, as far as we could judge, the whole thing by the middle of January was at a very low ebb. The non-appearance of the leaders, who had made protestations in America that they were going to create a rebellion in Ireland during 1866, induced considerable doubts in the minds of their supporters whether they intended to appear at all. I assure the House I never made an announcement with greater pleasure than I did when, before the meeting of Parliament, I told my Colleagues, with the full concurrence of every Member of the Irish Government, that we saw no reason why the extraordinary powers granted by Parliament should not be at once dispensed with, and why we might not rely for the preservation of the public peace on the ordinary powers of the law. Sir, soon after Parliament met there took place at Chester that mysterious and unaccountable occurrence. Whether it was the effect, or whether it was a mere coincidence, is difficult to say, but immediately the announcement of that movement got abroad, the old signs of disquietude re-appeared, and every sign of activity on the part of well-known members of the Fenian Brotherhood was again manifested. An unusual number of strangers appeared, activity was displayed among those known to be connected with Fenianism, and alarm was at once apparent. Then, Sir, followed that extraordinary occurrence in a remote part of the South of Ireland. It is not necessary for me to
  732
  describe to the House the details of what happened in the neighbourhood of Cahirciveen and Killarney, because they are already in full possession of them, and nothing that I could say would add to the extreme preciseness and accuracy of that information. A sudden outbreak took place, which was evidently got up and led by persons not known in the country, who succeeded in persuading a small number of deluded individuals to appear in arms for as long, I think, as upwards of three days, against the authority of the Queen. Sir, the first thing shown by these occurrences, is the case with which measures may successfully be taken by the Government for the repression of such disturbances. The second is that the most ample information is at the disposal of the Government, and that they are warned in sufficient time to allow them to take the fullest precautions for the preservation of the peace. The third is, that the loyal spirit of the population has displayed itself, and that there have been no signs of sympathy with the Fenian movement on the part of the great mass of the agricultural population of Kerry. To show with what case troops may be transported from one part of the country to the other, and how hopeless of success these movements arc, I may mention that the information of the late outrage did not reach Dublin until six or seven o'clock in the evening, at a time when most of the official gentlemen had gone home. Notwithstanding this, Sir Alfred Horsford received intelligence of what had occurred at eight in the evening, and by eight o'clock next morning he was 110 miles off with a small army of 1,000 men, ready to march anywhere. In the course of the day he received orders to go to Killarney, and arrived there the same day with ample means to suppress any attempt at insurrection. With regard to the information received by the Government two hours before anything occurred at Cahirciveen, the constabulary received information of the intended attack on the police barracks, and in ample time to put them on their guard. Before the insurgents arrived the authorities were ready to receive them, and to afford protection to the loyal and well-disposed. At Killarney the magistrates received information which enabled them to arrest the man who intended to be the leader of the movement. In Killorglin, again, the police were warned of the intentions of the rebels, so that every movement has been notified in time

  733
  to the authorities, so as to allow precautions to be taken and salutary measures to be adopted. I wish now to refer to the spirit of the agricultural population of the county. The insurgents, by threats and persuasions, endeavoured to induce the agricultural population to join them, but they signally failed in every instance. No sympathy was expressed in the movement, and although a certain amount of terror was, no doubt, caused by these armed bodies of men, they did not succeed, except in one or two instances of extreme compulsion, in getting food from the population of the district. A great deal has been said of the supposed sympathy of the agricultural population of the South of Ireland. Now, I do not wish to overstate the case; but it is my duty to say that, so far as my experience extends, I have not, since I have been in office, seen any evidence of that sympathy with the rebels, on the part of the population, which some people say so widely exists. I do not deny that a great deal of discontent exists in Ireland; but I do not believe that there is sympathy with the authors of these insurrectionary movements, among the rural population. There are some curious facts on this subject which I should like the House to consider. At the end of November, when, as I told the House, the movement was almost at an end, I had some statistics prepared of the occupations of those who had been connected with the Fenian conspiracy, and who had been imprisoned since the Habeas Corpus Act was first suspended. It shows that the men engaged in this movement have been confined very much to one class of the population. The total number of persons arrested up to the end of November, 1866, was 752. Of these, 314 were tradesmen, artizans, and millworkers. Many of these might be shopkeepers, but as they were entered merely as "tailor" and "shoemaker," they were classified among the tradesmen. There were fifty-two shopkeepers, twenty-five publicans, forty-five clerks and commercial assistants, and thirty shop assistants and shopkeepers' sons. There were only thirty-five farmers, and twenty farmers' sons (three of whom were students). The remainder consisted of national schoolmasters, persons who had been in the American army, labourers, &c. [An hon. MEMBER: How many national schoolmasters?] Not less than twenty-nine, and I am sorry for it. But of the 752 arrested up to November, under
  734
  the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, only thirty-five were persons in the occupation of land, I That is sufficient to show the House the particular class of persons who are engaged in this conspiracy, and the House will learn with satisfaction that the most important and numerous class of persons of these districts, who are in possession of almost all the wealth and industry of the country, have abstained from taking part in this movement. I should not perform my duty if I did not state here, in regard to recent events in the South and West of Ireland, how much the country is indebted to the exertions of the Roman Catholic clergy. Every one knows how great their influence is over their people, and I have great satisfaction in stating that I believe there is not a Roman Catholic clergyman who has not, either directly or indirectly, exercised the whole of his influence to prevent the people from taking a part in this conspiracy. Witness the occurrence at Rosbeg. The Rev. Mr. Maginn met a body of armed men in the middle of the night on their road to the police barracks, and addressed them. That was not a duty of a very agreeable nature. We know that those Irish-American colonels and generals are not men who have much respect for the sacred calling. But the idea of danger did not present itself to the mind of the rev. gentleman. He addressed them at considerable length. They were unknown to him, because they came from another parish, but he warned them of their danger, and implored them to desist from the attack upon the police barracks, which they meditated. In consequence of this appeal the men, to the number of sixty or seventy, desisted, and crossed the mountains in a different direction. There are many occasions in which the Roman Catholic clergy have addressed their flocks in the most impressive manner, and the House has probably seen some of these addresses in the newspapers. A Member of the Government would fail in his duty if he did not acknowledge the great obligations which this country is under to these clergymen, for their assistance in preserving the peace of the country. Last week there were ninety-seven persons in custody under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. I think every one must admit that after what has occurred in Ireland during the last week or ten days it would be impossible for the Government to avoid asking for the extraordinary powers which Parliament gave under similar circumstances on the previous occasion. It

  735
  is well known that large numbers of persons have arrived from America ostensibly to take part in the movement. These persons, if this Act be continued, will find that success will be impossible and their imprisonment speedy. I have, on the other hand, a strong conviction that if the House should deprive the Government of this power of sudden imprisonment, we should be deprived of the only power of dealing effectually with this particular class of men. To show, however, that the Government do r not demand these powers for a longer time than is necessary, and in order to give Parliament the opportunity of deciding for what space the continuance of these powers is necessary—above all, in order to show the I mass of the loyal and well-disposed people I of Ireland that we trust in them—we do I not propose that this Act should be continued for a longer period than three I months. That will give Parliament, during the present Session, an opportunity of again deciding on what course should be taken should the Government deem it necessary to ask for a further renewal of these powers. Sir, if these deluded men continue their operations, if they still remain in this country, if they go about spreading false and mischievous stories among the people, announcing their intention to make war upon the Queen, then Her Majesty's Government will not shrink from applying to Parliament for another prolongation of this Act. But, Sir, I would fain trust that the events of the last week may be sufficient to show these persons how hopeless are their designs; also that the willingness of Parliament to grant us a continuance of these powers may show them that this country is not to be trifled with. We have endeavoured, on every possible occasion, to have recourse to the ordinary course of the law. Accordingly, at the late Commission in Dublin the Government placed on their trial a number of persons for their participation in this conspiracy. The consequence is that thirteen or fourteen of them were convicted and are now under sentence, some of them having pleaded guilty. One of the most important convictions that have taken place was that of the man named Meany, who was indicted under the Treason Felony Act, for that, being a British subject, he was connected with, and had been engaged in, treasonable practices in a foreign country. The evidence against him was clear; and, under a clause of that Act, which was framed for this particular purpose, he was con-
  736
  victed of a treasonable offence. That ought to be sufficient to show that British subjects cannot go to France or America and engage in treasonable practices or conspire to levy war against the Queen of this country, without being responsible, if they come back, to the ordinary law of the realm—that they commit an offence against the law of England, and are liable to be most severely punished. I think, Sir, I have said enough to convince the House that an absolute necessity exists for renewing these powers for a limited time; and I ask for their renewal not only in the name of the Government but in the name of the large majority of the people of Ireland, who are desirous that it should be granted. I will read to the House a resolution, passed yesterday at a meeting of the magistrates of the county of Kerry, which was forwarded to me by telegraph. An hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert), was in the chair, and it was proposed by Mr. James O'Connell and seconded by Mr. D. C. Coltsman, and unanimously resolved—
  "That in the Opinion of this meeting the safety of life and property imperatively requires the renewal of the Act for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, and that the Government ought immediately to be apprised of this our opinion. Resolved,—That our chairman be requested to forward the foregoing resolutions to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, with an urgent request that no effort be omitted to ensure the renewal of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act."
  That meeting consisted both of Protestants and Roman Catholics, of gentlemen belonging to almost every shade of political party; and the resolution was moved by a near relative of Daniel O'Connell. That will show how completely unanimous is the opinion of the loyal population in Ireland that this House ought to continue these powers to the Government. We have received similar expressions of opinion from all parts of that country. Great alarm has been excited; and the general impression in people's minds in Ireland is that the renewal of this Act is the only mode by which the Executive can be armed to meet the peculiar danger with which the country is menaced. My Colleagues and I have been placed now for a considerable time face to face with this conspiracy; and I may say that the longer I live, and the more I see of it, the more am I convinced how mean and despicable a thing it is, and how sordid are the motives of the men engaged in it. The collection of money is

  737
  the principal object they have in view. In 1848 some men of high character and respectability—men of great talent, and I may almost say genius—were engaged in a treasonable movement, which yet only resulted in the wretched Ballingarry affair. But everything of that kind is absent in this case. These men keep almost entirely in the dark. The leaders are hardly ever seen. The reputed loader has ever since the 28th of October been in hiding. Even in the midst of the large population in the United States which is known to sympathize with this movement he has not dared to show his face. That is the movement against which this House is now called upon to legislate. That is the sort of men who place themselves beyond the ordinary powers of the law, and to deal with whom extraordinary powers are required. It has been called a military movement; but its military exploits have been confined to three cowardly and atrocious crimes committed in connection with it. An unhappy man, suspected of being an informer, was murdered on the bank of a canal near Dublin; one policeman lost his life, and another was wounded in the back while endeavouring to perform his duty carrying despatches in the county of Kerry. Yet many of these men, whose exploits are of that character, call themselves colonels, captains, and lieutenants of the Fenian army, and have been parading in full uniform the streets of New York announcing themselves as about to undertake the conquest of Ireland, and calling themselves "the regenerators of their country." But it would be well that they should know that what is burlesque in New York may be tragedy in Dublin, in Limerick, or in Galway. We might commiserate the poor illiterate men who have been seduced into joining this movement by representations that they are serving the interests of their country. No doubt punishment would have to be awarded according to law to these miserable dupes, but still to some extent they deserve pity. But, Sir, there can be no pity due to men like those evil-disposed strangers who return to vex and disturb their native land; and if they attempt to carry out the purposes they have formed in America they will find a swift and sudden destruction overtake them. They are but lawless "filibusters," and the punishment they will be called upon to undergo will be that which every civilized nation visits upon such heinous offenders. They inflict the direst injury on their country. By them the
  738
  peace of Ireland has been endangered, trade and commerce checked, industry stopped, and capital scared away. Before I sit down, I should like to read to the House a short extract from a remarkable address delivered last Sunday by the Roman Catholic Bishop Moriarty to a large assemblage of his flock at Killarney. I am sorry to say that even in that congregation there were sympathizers with this movement, and that a number of young men left the church while the Bishop was speaking. The Bishop said—
  "One word about the prime movers of all this mischief. If we must condemn the foolish youths who have joined in this conspiracy, how much must we not execrate the conduct of those designing villains who have been entrapping innocent youth and organizing this work of crime? Thank God! they are not our people, or, if they ever were, they have lost the Irish character in the cities of America; hut, beyond them, there are criminals of a deeper guilt—the men who, while they send their dupes into danger, are fattening on the spoil in Paris and New York. The execrable swindlers, who care not to endanger the necks of the men who trust them, who care not how many are murdered by the rebel or hanged by the strong arm of the law, provided they can get a supply of dollars either for their pleasures or for their wants! Oh, God's heaviest curse, His withering, blasting, blighting curse is on them!"
  Sir, I cannot add a single word to this. I believe that the right rev. gentleman was amply justified in every expression that fell from him; and it is, Sir, in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to get rid of these pests and drive them from the country that I now ask the House to continue to us these exceptional powers.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Naas.)
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I fully shared the satisfaction which I am sure was felt by every Member of this House at the announcement made in the Speech from the Throne that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the time had come when the exceptional legislation required for the security of life and property in Ireland might cease, and when the ordinary course of law might be safely restored in that country. It is therefore with deep regret that I find that the expectation thus held out to the House cannot be fulfilled. But I do not hesitate to say that, independently of the statement of the noble Lord, the facts which have lately taken place, and the occurrences which are notorious, justify the noble Lord in now coming forward to ask that Par-

  739
  liament should not deprive the Government of those powers which can alone enable them to deal with a conspiracy with which we are all, unfortunately, now too familiar. I think the Government would have failed in their duty if, on account of an opinion they had expressed before these recent occurrences, they had abstained from now asking at the hands of Parliament those powers which are essential for the maintenance of the security of life and property in Ireland; I must express my deep regret—which I am sure every Member of this House shares—that there are persons, whether in or out of Ireland, who, after the experience of the last twelve months, are still wicked or insane enough to keep up a treasonable movement which, while utterly hopeless in its success, is inflicting, as the noble Lord said, the greatest evil on Ireland; and which, small as are the numbers engaged in it, not only creates a feeling of insecurity and alarm, but roust impede every measure for the real improvement of that country. Good may, however, arise out of evil, and I hope that in this instance the feeling which has been generally manifested in Ireland, irrespective of class or creed, in opposition to these wicked and treasonable designs, will tend to lessen the bitterness of that political and religious animosity which has too frequently exhibited itself in that country; will lead men of different parties and denominations there to act more together for the common advantage of their native land, and will induce Parliament to legislate for Ireland in a spirit of impartiality and conciliation, and with an earnest desire to remove every just cause of complaint—if just cause of complaint there be—by taking those means which may best conduce to her true and permanent prosperity. The noble Lord has paid a well-merited tribute to the conduct of the Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy in Ireland, for it is impossible not to see that their influence has been strenuously exerted in doing that which, as loyal men and lovers of their country, they were bound to do, with a view to preventing the spread of this conspiracy. Looking to the arrests which have been recently made, I think everybody will admit that it is essential for the general security that those persons should not be allowed, by their immediate liberation, to prosecute their treasonable designs; and I was glad to observe that, in the short discussion yesterday on the introduction of this Bill, three Irish Mem-
  740
  bers—all entertaining Liberal opinions—sharing in the feeling of regret, and I may say of humiliation, to which the necessity of this measure is calculated to give rise, yet admitted that necessity, and concurred in the course taken by the Government. The noble Lord, in my opinion, does well in limiting the operation of the Bill to a period of three months; and I am sure we shall all rejoice if within that time the conviction shall force itself on the mind of these agitators that they have not the slightest chance of achieving even transient success, and if the noble Lord shall be able to announce to us, on the responsibility of the Government, that there is no further necessity for the continuance of this measure.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that though he should not oppose the passing of the Bill, he had to complain that many persons who were committed to Mountjoy Prison under the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act were placed in solitary confinement, and were treated, though not found guilty of any crime, as if they were convicted criminals. Unless he received a promise that those prisoners should be treated differently in future, he should move a clause in Committee on the Bill, with a view to remedy a state of things to which he strongly objected. He hoped they would receive from the Government an assurance that whenever it was found necessary to put the provisions of the Act into force it would be done with the utmost tenderness and caution. It was the foreign element that made this movement dangerous, and as a protection against the persons coming from America it was necessary to put the Act in force.
  MR. BLAKEdid not mean to oppose the measure if the Government considered it necessary for the suppression of the insurrectionary movement, as it was a mercy to those embarked in the hopeless attempt. He believed, however, that the law as it stood was sufficient for the purpose. There were numbers then in prison who would have been released in a few days only for the movement in Kerry. As they had not participated in it, he hoped Government would take a favourable view of their case, and release such as it would be safe to do so without imposing on them the heavy security which he was aware had been in some instances availed of by Government magistrates to throw petty obstacles in the way of the liberation of prisoners when the order for release came.

  741
  With the suppression of the movement in Kerry he believed for the present there would be an end of active rebellion in Ireland; but let not the House be deceived into thinking that as much disaffection did not prevail as ever. They might be sure it did, and only awaited a favourable opportunity to show itself. He could fully corroborate what the late Lord Lieutenant had said after he left office, "that the peasantry of the south and south-west of Ireland would join the movement if they thought it likely to succeed." They, as well as the great mass of the people of Ireland, despaired of their grievances as regarded the land question being redressed by constitutional means, and regarded a resort to arms as the only method by which they could right themselves; and they did not adopt that last resort only because they well knew that under present circumstances there was no use in contesting with the whole military power of England at a time when that country was at peace with other nations. But if she became engaged in a war with some powerful State, when the arm of Ireland would be most wanting to aid her, the chances were Ireland would be a sharp thorn in her side. The reckless folly the Fenians exhibited in their conspiracy in Ireland, their invasion of Canada, their meditated attack on Chester Castle, and the raid in Kerry—all went to prove that, if a good chance for rebellion offered, numbers might be expected to flock round the standard of any leader who presented himself in whom they had confidence. At that moment there were at the convict works of Portland, or in other places of penal servitude, fully fifty representative men of the Fenians, many of them soldiers and non-commissioned officers, who had served with distinction in the British army. How many thousands were there behind these men who sympathized with the movement? Stephens had been lauded as a very wonderful man on account of his organization and the numbers he had induced to join him. No doubt be was an able man; but the country offered such ready-made materials for rebellion that any zealous active man taking the trouble would get any amount of persons to undertake to join a rising that promised success. The noble Lord read a list of those arrested to show there were few farmers in the movement. But did it not occur to him that if the artizans, schoolmasters, and others he spoke of, did not feel certain that the peasantry would
  742
  join them if things looked promising that they would ever have entered into the enterprize. They knew right well that the farmers had great grievances to complain of, and would hail any change as one for the better. The noble Lord was rather inconsistent in his assertions about the state of feeling in Kerry, He said the Fenians met with no sympathy there, and gave credit to the Bishop and clergy for being the great cause of the coldness shown to the adventurers. The next moment he had to admit that some of the congregation walked out of the chapel when the rev. prelate denounced Fenianism; and he would like to ask the Chief Secretary if the insurgents received no assistance from the peasantry, how it was, with, a military force of probably some thousands hemming them in, and having no food with them, that the horse, foot, and artillery had not captured a single Fenian invader? The correspondent of The Standard, who, he believed, was an eye-witness of most of what he described, said that nearly all the male portion of the congregation quitted the chapel during the Bishop's exhortation. Now, if that did not look like sympathy, he was puzzled to know what it looked like. The noble Lord and others said that Fenianism was entirely of foreign growth, and had taken but little root in Ireland. If it had not, why were they making so much work about it?—and as to being of foreign growth, he might as well say that the Italian, Polish, Greek, and Hungarian revolutions were of foreign growth, because the people who fomented them met and conspired in London. The Italian and Greek revolutions were not a bit more of foreign growth, because the Italians and Greeks who took a leading part in them found it more convenient and safe to mature their plans in France and England. In the same way the Irish Americans, who wanted to revolutionize Ireland, concocted their plans at New York or Washington, but were ready to form a junction in Ireland with their countrymen at the right time. The Irishman who arrived in America had, if possible, stronger feelings against England than those he left behind. In proof of this he might mention that a person near Clonmel sent a friend some time since to O'Mahony, who was then treasurer to the Fenians, for a debt of twenty pounds he owed him. O'Mahony paid him in English half-crowns and shillings, which he had received from the im-

  743
  migrants just landed, whose first act on arriving in America was to contribute to the fund for carrying on the war against England. Whilst there was so much to complain of, the House might feel sure that, whether at home or abroad, the Irish peasant regarded England with hostility, as the cause of his own and his country's misfortunes. Coercive Acts like the one about being passed might quench the flame of rebellion, but the embers remained, ready to burst out anew, and undoubtedly they would unless Ireland was legislated for in a generous and statesmanlike spirit. He, as well as others, bad appealed to the late Administration, when they suspended the Habeas Corpus Act last Session, to introduce some measure which would tend to remove the causes of disaffection. They had responded to that appeal by bringing in a Land Bill which, if passed with some modification, would, he believed, whilst serving the landlord, have brought contentment and prosperity to the tenant, and, in a few years, have made Ireland as loyal as England or Scotland. Unfortunately, the Government were defeated before they could carry their good intentions into effect. When he heard the allusion to the land question from the Throne, he hoped the result would have been a measure of nearly equal value to the one introduced by the late Government. Had it been so, he would have felt it his duty to his country to support the Administration of the Earl of Derby, as he placed that vital question, involving, as it did, the very life of the people, and their existence on their native soil, before every other consideration. But he was grieved to say that the measure, as shadowed forth in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland a few nights ago, would not be worth the paper on which it was printed to the great mass of the tenant farmers. The present Administration had a glorious opportunity of raising Ireland from her depressed position. Let them, of course, suppress the revolt, such as it was; but if they had to strike with the mailed hand, why not, when the sad necessity ceased, raise up the prostrate form, and render Ireland a prosperous and contented sister of England? A grave responsibility before God and man would be incurred by the Ministry if they suffered, without an honest effort to prevent it, the fairest portion of the Empire to continue poverty stricken, discontented, and disaffected.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, he regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel calling upon the Government to treat these ruffians in a better way than prisoners for debt were treated in Ireland, and he trusted that the application would not be granted. His object, however, in rising was to call attention to the statement of his right hon. Friend, to the fact that he depended much upon the Roman Catholic clergy and Bishops. No doubt that was so; but it was only fair to say that the loyal men in the North of Ireland were ready and willing to support the Government under any circumstance. For his own part, he regretted that it was not proposed to extend the suspension of the Habeas Corpus for a year instead of three months, because all right-minded men in Ireland regarded it as a protection, and not as an interference with their liberties. He had heard that when the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) went to Ireland, he attended a meeting—he would not say of what—at which he proposed that the Government should buy up some of the estates and re-sell them on easy terms among the tenant farmers. He understood, however, that a number of people at the meeting objected to that proposal on the ground that they would rather get the estates for nothing. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be as well if he ceased to go roaming about Ireland, raising hopes which certainly could never be fulfilled, and which were not for the benefit of that country.
  MR. BRIGHT: I had no intention of saying a word in this discussion, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken—and he is, I presume, a Member from Ireland—that I shall say nothing to him as to any opinion he may entertain about me or about what I have said or done. I rise for the purpose of expressing my astonishment that there should be any Member in this House who defends the course which has been condemned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Blake), who defends the practice of arresting men under the Act now in force merely on suspicion, and merely as a precautionary measure, at a time when suspicion is very common, and when evidence is often very little to be depended on; and that men so arrested should be treated with, if not the harshness, I may say the severity which is often, and, indeed, commonly shown to criminals who are convicted. It appears to me that Parliament could never

  745
  have intended that such treatment should be shown to persons arrested under this Act. They are not punished, and the Act does not intend that they should be punished. They have not been tried. It is not the custom in England, and it is not to be defended under the English Constitution, that men who have never been tried, and therefore cannot have been convicted or sentenced, should suffer the severity which seems to recommend itself to the feelings and the sense of justice of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I am not surprised that a Member who could say that should complain of the noble Lord that he only recommended the House to pass this Bill for three months. If there be one thing more than another which has given satisfaction to-night on this sad occasion, it is that the noble Lord was able to say he thought it was better that the Act should remain in force for three months only, and that he hoped at the end of that time he should be able to assure the House that the Act was no longer necessary. The hon. Gentleman opposite comes from the country which has suffered all these misfortunes, and which during the lifetime, I suppose, of the oldest Member of this House has been periodically before the House in the position in which we find it to-night, complaining always—rightly or wrongly, but complaining always of the injustice of this House, and objecting always to the coercive measures of this House. I hoped that there had not been on that island, or from that island, any man who could have stood up before the Imperial Parliament of this country, and expressed—I was about to say, and if I were out of the House I would say—such atrocious sentiments.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he regretted that a measure of this kind should have been again called for. On a former occasion he seconded the Resolutions of the hon. Member for Cork, the object of which was rather to call the attention of the House to the necessity of listening to the oft-repeated applications for justice from that country, than to throw any obstacle in the way of the Government. Soon after the present Government came into office they spoke of sympathetic measures, but no step in the right direction had been taken. He gave the noble Lord credit for certain changes of opinion, and for the manner in which he proposed to work out these changes in regard to the land question, but considered the measure which
  746
  had been introduced nothing more than a delusion. He was glad to hear the manner in which the services of the Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy had been acknowledged, and hoped the noble Lord in return for those services would recommend his Colleagues to cancel the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which prevented them from taking the position to which they were entitled. If the Government would relieve the Catholic clergy in Ireland from the disabilities under which they laboured, if they would deal with the Irish Church, and look to the question of education in Ireland, then, indeed, they would be doing something towards relieving themselves from the degrading and humiliating necessity of asking again for a suspension of the Constitution of the country. If the noble Lord and his Colleagues carried out the promises they had made, and the remarks delivered by the Lord Lieutenant at the recent banquet of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, they would do the State a lasting service, and achieve for themselves the well-earned gratitude of a loyal people.
  MR. KENNEDYsaid, he regretted the continued renewal of the Act, the necessity for which arose from the unjust arrangement between the owners and occupiers of the soil. He believed the root of all the evils of Ireland to be centred in the land question and in the state of the Irish church, which was an insult to the whole of the Roman Catholic population.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL— [BILL 9.]
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Earle.)
METROPOLITAN POOR BILL— [BILL 9.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. G. Hardy.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that speaking on behalf of a large constituency which would be affected by its provisions, he fully justified the President of the Poor Law Board in dealing with the question. Referring to The Lancet Commissioner's Reports, he earnestly wished to see increased cubical space provided in workhouse infirmaries. In coming to the consideration of any changes in the administration of the Poor Law in the metropolitan district, the House had to deal with a very

  747
  strong impression on the public mind that some sweeping reform was required; whilst, on the other hand, they must remember that the parochial mind was very sensitive on the subject of local self-government. He gave credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the impartial Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and was fully convinced that the state of the workhouses required immediate attention, and that some additional buildings were requisite. He thought some further information was desirable as to the distinction between the cases of lunatics to be removed to county and separate asylums, The separate asylums had been recommended by the Lunacy Commissioners in 1859; but he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him how he proposed to distinguish between those cases which were now sent to the county asylums and those for which he proposed to provide separate asylums. With regard to cases of fever and small pox, there were only two institutions in the metropolis where these cases were treated. It was now proposed to establish two institutions on the north and two on the south side of the Thames; but he was afraid that the extraordinary prices demanded for laud around London would considerably increase the difficulties of carrying out the measure. With respect to the provision of separate asylums for various classes of the sick poor, he believed the Bill carried out the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1834. With regard to the removal of children from the workhouses to district schools, the District School Act of 1844 proposed that they should be so removed, and there was no part of any scheme for the improvement of workhouses more useful than that. He gathered from the Bill itself that the managers would be nominated by the existing Boards of Guardians, together with certain gentlemen who should be appointed by the Poor Law Board. He approved of the provision that the drugs and medicines should be provided by the districts. At present there were only five unions in the metropolis which provided expensive medicines at their own cost, and it was unreasonable to expect that the surgeons receiving small salaries should themselves provide those drugs and medicines. He now approached the financial part of the question. He was well aware of the extraordinary difficulties which hampered the subject, and of the pressure which had
  748
  been put on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for the equalization of the poor rates throughout the metropolis. He would not give full expression to his own views upon this important subject—it might be imprudent just now; but he would say that in going as far as the right hon. Gentleman had done, he had not gone one bit further than public opinion was ready to support him; and if at a future time he saw his way to further progress in the same direction, he would find that waste, bad management, and want of responsibility would vanish, and with them the bugbear of centralization. If the whole metropolis was obliged to pay for the expense of lunatics, fever and small pox patients, children's schools, fees for birth and death registration, vaccination, and other such matters, more than half the battle was already fought. So far as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to go, he gave him his most cordial and hearty support. He also approved of the arrangement by which the money was to be paid from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. A few years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works objected to be receivers of the fund raised for the support of the casual poor, and perhaps the plan contemplated by this Bill was the better. There was one portion of the Bill, however, which might meet with some opposition—namely, the repeal of the local Acts, which were, he believed, ten in number. Now, there must be something radically wrong in a system under which, year after year, unseemly contests arose between the Poor Law Board and the parishes under local Acts, which refused to recognise the authority of the Central Board, and were perhaps unable to carry into effect those improvements which the Central Board and public opinion pressed upon them. He was afraid that some opposition would be made to that part of the Bill which dealt with the parishes under those local Acts, but he would give it his support. In conclusion, he earnestly trusted that a measure of this paramount importance would be pressed forward, not with undue haste, but with all possible despatch. The question was too important to brook delay. Other triumphs might be won in this House, but the triumph of the right hon. Gentleman, if he carried this Bill, over poverty, disease, misery, and affliction would be one well worthy of the previous reputation he had won; and so far as his humble support was concerned, he promised

  749
  that he would give it most sincerely and cordially to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the metropolis was much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for introducing this Bill, and so far as it went he (Mr. Locke) would give it his most earnest support. There was one point, however, where the right hon. Gentleman might have gone a little farther, and that was with regard to building the extra asylums in certain portions of the metropolis called districts. It would very frequently, and must indeed generally happen, that those districts would be composed either of rich parishes or of extremely poor ones. If they were composed of rich parishes it was quite obvious that they would be very well able to erect them at their own expense, and feel it no great burden. But let them take another district—the one, for instance, in which he was principally interested on the other side of the water. He presumed that Lambeth and Southwark, or portions of those two boroughs, would be united together to form a district, which would be called upon to erect these new buildings at its own expense. He thought, and the opinion was entertained by the guardians and authorities in the poorer localities, that the expense of erecting these buildings should be borne by the common fund. The Bill, however, provided that the cost should be borne by the parishes forming the district, although it went on to say that after the asylums were built certain expenses might be borne by the common fund. The Bill further provided, by the 67th clause, that the expense of treating for small pox and fever in the hospitals should be borne by the common fund. He thought that provision should extend to all forms of disease, and he did not see why any distinction should be made between persons suffering from fever or small pox, and persons suffering from any other diseases. The same remark applied to the medicines; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take those points into his consideration. Objection had been taken to the proposal as to the introduction of guardians not elected by the ratepayers, he had received a deputation on that subject, and some gentlemen of great experience assured him that it would not be possible in many parishes to select persons, whether magistrates or otherwise, rated to the amount of £100. It was therefore suggested that a £50 rating would be sufficiently high. With
  750
  regard to magistrates, they were at present ex officio guardians, and it was suggested that where there might not be a sufficient number in the parish there might in the district, and that the district might be made available for their selection. As bad been well stated by the noble Lord, public opinion was favourable to a larger measure than the present, and he hoped the common fund would not be so restricted in its operation as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Taken as a whole, he approved of the Bill; but he was sure that if the measure were extended it would meet with the approval of the metropolis generally.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he had no desire to oppose the Bill, but he wished to point out one or two imperfections contained in it. He saw that the City of London Union would have to pay £27,000 to the common fund, which was nearly 4d. in the pound, and the City of London had a right to complain that while it had lately re-assessed its property to a very high amount, there where twenty-four parishes in the metropolis which had not been re-assessed for several years, and that, of course, involved a much larger payment from those unions and parishes which had been re-assessed very lately. In those twenty-four parishes the total rating amounted to £9,134,800, which represented three-fifths of the whole rating of the metropolis, which amounted to £14,730,200. The whole metropolis should be fairly assessed, so that every part should bear its own fair proportion, He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) on having framed a measure which would mitigate the pressure which now rested on the poorer districts, but predicted that the principle of a more equal apportionment of the poor rates would have to be carried further. Statistics showed that only 14 per cent of the pauperism of the country attached to the land, and that 36 per cent was traceable to domestic servants. It was in the West End where this class were most largely employed, yet the burden of their support, when they were obliged to resort to parochial relief, mainly fell on the poorer districts. When the new Poor Law passed, it was with the idea of crushing out poverty and pauperism throughout the country. It was found, however, that with increase of prosperity and all the appliances that administered to the comfort and luxury of a people,

  751
  there must always be poor, and he hoped that by the relaxations indicated in this measure, that class would be better cared for than they had hitherto been. The separation of the sick, who were only temporarily in the workhouse, from the other inmates, would be a great benefit to the masses of the poor of the metropolis.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who had brought this measure forward, although there were several objections to the measure itself. It destroyed in a great measure the principle of local self-government, and it might have the effect of inducing a great amount of carelessness on the part of those who had hitherto been careful in looking after the poor. There was also this danger to be apprehended in increasing the taxation, that the poorer ratepayers who were only just able now to keep their heads above water, and, by great exertion, to pay their rates, might be brought down to the level of paupers themselves. He believed it was the fact that there were a great number of ratepayers at this moment who were wholly unable to pay their rates. In the borough which he represented there was necessarily a considerable amount of pauperism, and though many of the residents were, no doubt, in affluent circumstances, there were many ratepayers who, if the rates were increased, though only to a slight extent, would be reduced to the condition of paupers. The Bill provided in one of its sections for the reception of the sick and infirm and other classes of the poor into the asylum. It struck him that that provision was exceedingly elastic, and that there was no reason why any of the poor, even the able-bodied, should not come in under the designation of "other classes." As to the gentlemen to be appointed to act with the guardians, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) that the proposal for nominee guardians was objectionable, and that the qualification might be reduced to £50 with greater likelihood of finding persons able and willing to undertake the duties of guardian. As a rule, the persons who were most likely to take an interest in the administration of the Poor Law did not live in houses rated at £100 a year. What he feared was, that if the Poor Law Board added one-third to the number of the guardians one of two things might happen: either that parties might be selected who would not attend at all; or, if they did so, they would create, by reason of their
  752
  being nominees of the Poor Law Board, so much jealousy as against themselves, that they might be induced to act as a compact body, and they would then rule things very much as they liked, and the guardians, who were elected by the ratepayers, would take very little trouble upon themselves. He feared that the expense of the measure would be considerable. He had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy to a deputation which waited upon him yesterday, and trusted that their representations would have his best attention.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that the House seemed so nearly agreed as to the merits of the Bill, that it would seem a work of supererogation to continue the discussion for any length of time. At the same time, having had the honour of being concerned with the Poor Law Board for some four or five years, it appeared to him the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done a great work in a very good manner. The Bill was one that was very much required. Were he disposed to enter into the details—which he was not, as the present did not appear to him to be the proper time to do so—he would allude for one moment to the multiplicity of Boards, and suggest whether there might riot be a greater simplicity of management. If the Boards were not quite so numerous—if, in fact, they were more of a Central Board—he would say that the Bill itself was, in the main, an admirable Bill. He did not take entirely the views of one or two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him in the discussion upon even some of the details, and he could only assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, as far as his influence went, he should have great pleasure in working with him the Bill through Committee, and doing all he could to support it.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that the parish with which he was connected—St. George's, Hanover Square—was one of the parishes under local Acts, but the local authorities did not intend to offer the slightest opposition to the Bill. The Board of that parish had, he thought, done their duty very well, but they could not expect exceptional legislation in their favour. The parish had set the example of adding to their burdens, having raised their assessment because it was not so high as it ought to be. He suggested that, under the existing system, sick casual poor were thrown on parish rates, who ought to be brought on to the common fund. He

  753
  thought that his right hon. Friend had decided on a very just medium, and he should give a hearty support to the measure. He feared, however, from the largo number of offices and buildings required, that the administration expenses would be larger than his right hon. Friend supposed.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would include all the sick and insane poor in the common fund. Pauperism only should be dealt with by local rates. As to fever cases, it would be well to remember that they were better treated separately in huts, isolated from hospitals and infirmaries, than where large numbers were congregated together. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that 850 cubic feet of space was necessary for each individual. If so, he imagined there would be only room for 14,000 instead of 20,000 in these London workhouses. One Board for the uniform management of the sick poor in London, just as the general drainage, &c, of London was placed under the Metropolitan Board of Works, would be preferable to the numerous local Boards provided by the Bill. That was the only plan for introducing economy and good management. He must unite in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman in undertaking a very difficult and important subject, and he trusted that in Committee they would make the Bill work satisfactorily.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the singular clearness and candour of the speech with which he had introduced the Bill, and he was glad to find that the Poor Law Board was so well represented on both sides of the House. He was, however, unable to give the measure his entire approval. He entirely approved of the proposal to separate from the mass of paupers those who were suffering from fever or small pox, or imbecility or insanity; but he could not give his support to that portion of the Bill which would subvert the whole of the present mode of conducting the Poor Law system in the metropolis. From the right hon. Gentleman's speech on introducing the Bill the inference might have been drawn that no such measure was required. The Commission of 1864 did not Report in favour of such a measure, but sanctioned the course followed during the last thirty years for the management of these affairs. Although the public mind had been naturally excited by the circumstances which had lately oc-
  754
  curred in four of these London unions, yet the right hon. Gentleman thought it highly creditable that only four cases could be cited which had called down, and very properly so, the public indignation. If a very few isolated cases of that kind in thirty years were to justify them in condemning the present system as administered by the local Boards of Guardians, as good grounds could easily be discovered for condemning the Central Board itself. For example, had not the Central Board reprimanded the guardians at Croydon for appointing nurses to attend the sick? He had never heard any argument adduced in favour of the proposal for empowering the Poor Law Board to nominate guardians of the poor who were to sit in conjunction with the elected guardians. The Bill would take the management of the poor out of the hands of the guardians for the purpose of intrusting it to a Central Board; but that, to say the least, would be a mere experiment, and many persons well acquainted with the subject doubted very much whether that experiment would prove successful. Those people believed that the introduction of nominated guardians would not work satisfactorily, and that cither those gentlemen would not attend, and then their appointment would be nugatory, or else they would only come when there was some special work to be performed; such, for instance, as the disposal of some piece of patronage, and then their presence would create irritation and jealousy. Moreover, if Boards of Guardians were to be put so entirely under the Central Board, they would become only ministerial officers without any discretion, and then they would not give their time and attention to the business. He had no personal experience of these matters, and was altogether at the mercy of those from whom he derived his information; but these persons said that no sufficient case had been made out against the guardians, and they complained of the unjust censure cast upon them. They objected also to the election of guardians being taken out of the hands of the vestries, and thought the Poor Law Board would be disappointed by the results of that change. Though approving the earlier part of the Bill, he was of opinion that the rest required very careful consideration in Committee.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that on the whole he approved of the Bill, but he thought that it might be improved in many

  755
  of its details. He doubted whether the inhabitants of the poorer districts would be able to construct asylums at their own expense, as was proposed in the 5th and the 6th clauses. He had, in the first instance, approved of the principle of the Bill; but some of the objections urged by those who were practically acquainted with the management of the poor were so strong as to strike him with great force. It was a laborious, anxious, and often thankless task which those men undertook in giving up so much of their time and taking so much trouble respecting the management of the poor. As a rule, they did not occupy the best houses in the world, and the clause requiring nominated guardians to occupy houses of £100 a year would exclude the most valuable of this class of men, whom it certainly ought to be their object to encourage. No end of Boards for schools, hospitals, and so forth, were to be created, so that the administration of the poor would be far from being simplified. By Clause 17 it was proposed that twenty years should be allowed for the repayment of any loans that might be raised; but, in his opinion, it would be desirable to allow twenty-five or thirty years for that purpose. On the whole, he thought this Bill would pass easily through the House, and he had called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one or two matters of detail which would render it more acceptable to the public.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that being connected by property with a part of London, where the pressure of the rates was heaviest, he wished to state that he approved generally of the Bill, but there were one or two points to which he wished to call attention. It was provided that one of the Commissioners of Lunacy should attend at the meetings of the Board for the management of pauper lunatics. He thought it would be of great advantage if the constitution of the Board of Lunacy itself were altered. Any business that required to be transacted with regard to pauper lunatics should be attended by some one more connected with that House than was the case at present. They all knew the expense that had been inflicted on counties in the matter of pauper lunatic asylums by the Lunacy Commissioners, while if anything went wrong a long and angry discussion ensued, which went through various Departments till it reached the Home Office, where, he must say, it generally received a courteous and amicable
  756
  settlement. There had been a meeting lately of no fewer than twenty chairmen of quarter sessions, and they were all of opinion that it would be a great improvement if the management of pauper lunatics were more immediately connected with some Board represented in that House.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, though he was not a metropolitan Member, he wished to make a remark or two on the Bill now before the House. He objected to, and protested against, the Poor Law Board being allowed to nominate members to act on the Boards of Guardians. If that were once admitted it would become a precedent for the same thing being done in the country. And wherever it was supposed that a guardian Board failed in its duty, the Poor Law Board would step in and claim the power to nominate members. He thought that was unnecessary, and if the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the present composition of Boards of Guardians it would be better to raise the qualification, so a to get a higher class of men to undertake the duty, or to allow the Poor Law Board to send a paid officer of their own to attend the different Boards of Guardians in the same way in which it was proposed that the Lunacy Commissioners should be represented. This, he thought, would be of further advantage as tending to introduce unity of action. He also objected to the salaries of the different parish officers being thrown into the common fund. The best course, he thought, to adopt was to establish a Central Board by which all those charges might he brought within one settled rule. If the amount in each case was left to be fixed by a Board of Guardians, the result would be that we should have one Board attempting to raise it to the sum which happened to be paid by another.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: Sir, I rise to express my concurrence in the sentiments which have fallen from those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour generally of this measure. I coincide entirely in their view as to its purpose and principle. It is a Bill, which, if I understand it properly, is meant to provide for the better treatment of the sick poor in the infirmaries of the metropolitan workhouses—an object greatly to be desired, inasmuch as it seems to be proved that the present system has failed in this respect. I look upon the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) proposes to proceed in that direction as a sound one,

  757
  as being in conformity with the principle of the Poor Law Act itself, and of that more recent legislation by which the area of charge was extended, and the burden of maintaining the poor distributed over a larger district than the mere locality supposed to be peculiarly liable. The principle of extending the area of charge touches, in my opinion, as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) stated the other night, the root of mismanagement, whether in town or country. By extending the area of charge you weaken the motive for that kind of local parsimony which is very frequently mistaken economy, and is attended with great mischief to the poor. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the view he has taken as to the mode in which the condition of the sick poor in the metropolis is to be improved, as well as upon the fact that after the experience of a few months he sees the wisdom of asking fresh powers from the Legislature not relying upon the imperfect authority under which he acts, or engaging in unseemly contests with Boards of Guardians. I felt sure that with his ability he would at once perceive the difference between the technical interpretation of the law from which his powers are derived, and its practical application under existing circumstances. I think, moreover, that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in losing no time in coming to this House for the additional powers which he requires. At the present moment that feeling of distrust and jealousy of the Central Board which has prevailed ever since the enactment of the Poor Law thirty-two years ago, seems to have subsided for a while. Perhaps this is the first time since the creation of the Board when a reproach that it docs not act with sufficient rigour would not be received with ridicule. It is the antagonism to that Board on the part of the public which has prevented the full development of the law, and the right hon. Gentleman must concur that it has in consequence been almost impossible to give effect, until very recently, to its provisions. To the same hostile feeling, he must also know, the appointment of the Committee to which he himself alluded, is to be attributed. That feeling was at its height in 1860, when an applicasion was made for the renewal of the Poor Law Commission. All that had ever been said against the Board was then urged by Members representing important constituencies; and, notwithstanding the appeal
  758
  which was made by Lord Palmerston, Sir George Lewis, and other distinguished persons, there was a majority against the renewal of the Commission for the usual period, and against the Government of no less than 3 to 1. The Commission was, however, renewed for a shorter period than was proposed, on the undertaking that a searching inquiry should be instituted into the administration of the Poor Law Board from the time of its existence. It was at that time, I think, that upwards of 100 memorials from as many unions I were presented to this House, praying that the Board might either be deprived of the powers which it possessed or discontinued altogether. Thus matters stood in 1860, and in the following year a Committee was appointed to investigate the subject. That Committee was not appointed by the Government, but was emphatically a Committee appointed by this House voluntarily. There was a most unusual number of Members placed upon that Committee for the purpose of making a searching investigation into the operation of the law, and so strong was my feeling upon that occasion that it was a question as to whether the Board should be continued or not, that I stated to the Committee that it would be improper for the President of the Poor Law Board to preside over that Committee, and, indeed, it was only in consequence of the great courtesy shown in the unanimously expressed wish that I should take the chair, that I consented to do so. I mention this to show what was at that time the general feeling towards the Central Board, which was censured because, as it was thought, it had not acted with sufficient energy and had not engaged in conflict and collision with the local authorities. For some weeks the Committee were engaged in investigating the charge, which was generally believed throughout the country, that owing to embarrassing and vexatious interference on the part of the Board with the local authorities, the guardians of unions and parishes in London had not been able to make effective arrangement for the relief of the poor during the season of 1861, when swarms of people were thrown out of employment, and were in the greatest distress. There was almost a panic in the metropolis, and the impression was that the guardians would have met the emergency but for the interference of the Poor Law Board. Perhaps the prejudice against the Board was at its height at the period to which I am referring. The Com-

  759
  mittee began its labours in 1861, and did not bring them to a close till 1864. After having examined witnesses of every class, the Committee, though it commenced the inquiry with some prejudice against the Board, came to the conclusion that the Board ought to be continued, and that the power which was especially objected to—namely, the power of issuing orders which were said to have the effect of law, and therefore to be unconstitutional, ought also to be continued. The Committee also expressed their opinion that these orders had been issued for the benefit of the poor, the persons whom they concerned. Looking at the spirit in which that inquiry was commenced, and the very hostile feeling manifested by the guardians, and, I may almost say, by the public, towards the Central Board, it would not have been prudent on the part of the Board if they had chosen that opportunity to proceed against the guardians in courts of justice, and to engage in what the right hon. Gentleman termed "unseemly collision" with the local authorities. And I think if the right hon. Gentleman shrunk from doing so in the past autumn that I cannot be blamed for not having commenced legal proceedings during the time that the Committee was sitting. I do not complain at all of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman; but when reflections are cast upon the Board for not having acted with more energy against the local authorities, I wish to remind the House of the state of feeling against the Central Board during that period. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to take action now it is because a better feeling exists towards the Central Board. The right hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of his speech the other night, referred to the opinion of the Committee, that the provision made for the medical relief of the poor was satisfactory, and that they saw no reason to recommend any change in it. I do not think the Committee can fairly be blamed for having come to that conclusion. They examined witnesses, called before them a number of medical men, and had besides a vast amount of documentary evidence on the subject. They also had before them the Reports of two Committees of this House, which were appointed for the distinct purpose of inquiring into that matter, and the recommendations of both those Committees had been faithfully carried out by the Poor Law Board. The Committee arrived at its conclusion in consequence of
  760
  its having seen what great improvements had taken place in the position of the medical officers, what additional facilities were given to the poor to gain access to medical relief, and that at the time this matter was being investigated, the poor were treated better than they ever had been before. I cannot say that that is an excuse for the system which exists now, for I cannot deny that the present system is very defective. But, in justification of that Committee, I must say that at the time they were pursuing their inquiry the arrangements in respect of medical relief were better than they had been at any previous period. The Committee of 1854 recommended that the medical officers should be made independent by being elected for life instead of annually, and that any suggestion of theirs respecting the poor should be complied with by the guardians. Now, that was a very important change in the position of the medical officers who became independent of the will and caprice of the guardians. The Committee of 1861 found likewise that the salaries of the medical officers had been increased, that their districts had been diminished, and that more officers had been appointed. They also looked to the regulations which the Poor Law Board had framed with a view to the guardians and medical officers attending the poor in the workhouses, and I believe that had much to do in leading the Committee to express their satisfaction with the arrangements made for the medical treatment of the poor. The regulations to which I am referring were drawn up by some of the wisest and ablest men who ever acted in connection with the Poor Law Board—namely, Sir George Nichol, Sir George Lewis, and Sir Edmund Head. They devoted much of their time to the subject, and drew up orders for the general relief of the poor, giving especial attention to the relief of the sick poor. In their orders they required that the medical officer should be a competent person—that is to say, that there should be no longer any competition by tender, as was formerly the practice, and that no person should be appointed who had not received a diploma, or certificate from some University or other competent institution, declaring that he was a fit person to practise medicine and surgery throughout the United Kingdom. They next decided that his salary should be fixed, and that he should be as much aware of the circumstances of his position as any clergyman or

  761
  curate should be before he accepted a preferment. They then empowered the medical officer to call upon the guardians to provide everything which could conduce to the comfort, health, and recovery of the patient. There was another thing which was directed by the Commissioners of that time. They made a regulation which was for the future to be binding upon every medical officer to prevent improper crowding, and they state in their Report that they felt it desirable to take such precautions as would render it difficult for any overcrowding of inmates to occur again. They made it a part of the duty of the medical officer to report in writing to the guardians any defect in diet, ventilation, warming, or any other arrangement of the workhouses, and any excess in the number of inmates which would be detrimental to the health of the inmates. That is one of the regulations which every medical officer is acquainted with when he accepts his office. But the Commissioners were not satisfied with this direction to the medical officers. They provided likewise that the guardians should appoint a certain number of their body for the purpose of forming a visiting committee, and the persons so named or told off by the guardians for this purpose were called upon to visit every sick ward, to see every sick patient, and to make an entry in writing of the condition in which they found each person. And not only were they called upon to make these entries in a book, but that book was to be printed and brought before the Board of Guardians every week, in order that its contents might be taken into consideration. Looking at the fact that the management of every workhouse is vested in the guardians by law, that they have complete control over every department, and that every person connected with these establishments is employed by them, it would appear that if these directions were attended to cases like those which have been lately made public could not occur. The Committee of 1861 undoubtedly expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which the Poor Law Board had carried out the recommendations of former Committees; but if the regulations of the Poor Law Board are not attended to by the guardians abuses and irregularities of every kind are certain to occur. It was only a few months after the Report of that Committee was published that the unfortunate case of the man Gibson, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the other night, occurred in the
  762
  Bloomsbury Workhouse. That is precisely a case in point, for the observance of the Poor Law regulations would have prevented the neglect and the abuses which are said to have occurred. At the coroner's inquest which took place in reference to this event the jury found that, although the unfortunate man must have died in any case from the effects of serum on the brain, yet that his death was accelerated by the neglect of all the officers of the workhouse, including the master, the doctor, the visiting committee, and the attendants upon the patients. This neglect occurred in a very wealthy and important district, and not only had these very guardians received a copy of the regulations, but proceedings had been instituted against them in the Court of Queen's Bench by the Poor Law Board. In these proceedings, however, the Poor Law Board had been unsuccessful, as the guardians were protected by a local Act, which gave them the entire and independent management of their poor. On that occasion I had an interview with the Board of Guardians of that district, and I declare I never saw a more highly-respectable body of gentlemen than those who were associated in that office, and one would have thought that it would have been impossible to select any persons to fulfil such an office who would have been more likely to be attentive to their duties. I do not doubt that no persons were more shocked at the disclosures that took place than those who formed that Board; but they knew nothing about the matter. Every regulation which had been made, every precaution which had been directed had been neglected. The doctor had not attended the man. The visiting committee had not examined the wards. There had been no report made as to the doctor's request for the improvement of the wards. There was no evidence of the mismanagement that was going on to be found in the books, or in the entries made by the direction of the Poor Law Board. No doubt the public were greatly shocked at the disclosures that were made. That case, however, had the effect of awakening the feelings of a great many intelligent and benevolent persons relative to the manner in which these infirmaries were conducted and how the sick poor were treated, and no doubt this unfortunate case has tended more than anything else to change public opinion with reference to the Poor Law Board, and to the necessity of giving additional powers to the Board rather than

  763
  to deprive them of any. After this case was brought before the public numerous communications were received by the Poor Law Board with regard to other unions, and a very general impression appeared to prevail that the unfortunate sick were greatly neglected in the workhouses. Among other communications which reached the Board was one from Miss Nightingale, who pressed upon them the great importance of training those who attended upon the sick in the workhouse infirmaries; and I believe that lady almost went so far as to say that the attendance of trained nurses upon these unfortunate people was of even more importance than the attendance of doctors or the administration of medicine. The case also gave rise to that very important and interesting inquiry which was conducted by three well-known medical gentlemen—Dr. Hart, Dr. Farre, and Dr. Anstie—who, after visiting every workhouse infirmary in London, came to the conclusion that these workhouse infirmaries, judging them by the standard of our public hospitals, were in every way unfit for the treatment of the sick poor. Their evidence was well supported by the very intelligent and able report drawn up by Dr. Smith and Mr. Farnall, and again by the gentleman appointed for the purpose by the right hon. Gentleman. These inquiries have produced a great effect on the country, and thus the matter has been brought to such a point as to be ripe for legislation. The question for the decision of the House is a very important one. A vast number of sick and destitute people have claims for relief upon the State, and from the benevolent feelings which have been manifested, both in and out of this House, it is evidently the universal desire that these people, numerous as they are, should be relieved and treated in a manner most conducive to their comfort and their recovery. Having this object in view, we have to judge of the measure which has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. In the face of our past experience no doubt can exist as to the principle that the sick poor must be treated distinctly and separately from other descriptions of paupers who have to be provided for in the workhouses. That I take to be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and of the public generally. The right hon. Gentleman has made certain admissions with regard to the treatment of these unfortunate persons which have excited great interest and, perhaps, appre
  764
  hension on the part of the public. He has made the admission clearly and distinctly that these persons form a charge upon the metropolis generally; that they should no longer constitute a local burden upon its various districts, inasmuch as their health and recovery are a matter of general and not of local concern; and that, therefore, the charge incurred in their behalf should be borne by the general property of the metropolis. This principle is one which has been contended for by individuals in this House for many years past. I have always considered it to be just, and that the time would come when it would be admitted. The right hon. Gentleman, however, goes somewhat further when he says that this is a class of expenditure connected with the Poor Law which may be regarded as ascertained and fixed—to use his own expression—as not liable to be jobbed. Expenses connected with the nursing of the sick are not likely to be increased by any want of judgment or want of principle on the part of the persons who have the control over them, and therefore it is perfectly fair to extend the limits of the area over which the charge is imposed. This is a very important principle, and the right hon. Gentleman believes himself to be supported in the course he has taken with regard to this point by the sanction of Sir Robert Peel, when he relieved the local property of the country from the charge of medical officers and placed it on the Consolidated Fund. I do not doubt that he is right in the view he takes of the matter, inasmuch as I believe that it is quite right to fix a charge of this kind, if possible, upon the whole property of the country. The charge for the poor is as much a national charge as the interest on the National Debt, and it is perfectly right when we can fix a charge on the whole property of the country to do so. The country has hitherto been reluctant to view it in this light; but, in my opinion, nothing can be more capricious or unfair than the charge of the poor rate. The State undertakes to support the destitute poor of this country, and it does seem—it always seems to me—that there is very considerable injustice and something like caprice in saying that persons only are liable to support the poor whose property is local and visible. That might be right when the Poor Law originated, because there was then little property that was not tangible and visible; but I do think it monstrously unjust that people possessed of such a variety of pro-

  765
  perty should not contribute in proportion to that property to this national charge. And it is very unfortunate indeed that a large class of that expenditure which cannot be increased by bad judgment, jobbery, or maladministration, cannot be fixed on the property of the country; for it seems to me that the same principle which casts these charges on the common fund of the metropolis points also to the Consolidated Fund. I do not complain of the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman—I hail it with some satisfaction, but that is the way of carrying out this very legitimate principle to its proper consequences. I do not express that opinion for the first time. I was acting on the original Committee appointed to inquire into the Poor Law, and I was struck in that inquiry by seeing the extraordinary unfairness in which the charge for the poor fell in different parts of the country, and on different persona, and the vast number who were totally exempt from a charge which is national, and ought to fall on every man with the means of contributing to it. This shows the importance that ought to be attached to the measure now before us. Certainly, I should be the last person, seeing what a fortunate and happy commencement of a better system this Bill offers to the country, to throw any impediment in its way. Though I certainly will not offer the smallest opposition to the principle of the Bill, and though I should hope it may be carried for the sake of the great consequences I see likely to flow from it, I think the right hon. Gentleman must expect to meet with some, I will not say opposition, but some questioning as to the manner in which he has applied his principle. It seems to me that application is hardly sufficient. Considering the admissions he has made, I hardly think his principles are fully carried out by the Bill he has introduced. So far as I understood him—I certainly was not present when he delivered it, but I have read his speech in the newspapers—I collected that he was going to cast the sick poor of the metropolis on the property of the metropolis. In looking at the Bill, I find there are exceptions to be made in that respect, and he will, I think, be required to state his reasons for drawing the line where he has as to the class of sick to be supported by the common fund and those still to be a local charge. As I understand, all the sick that are to be charged upon the general fund are those who are visited with scarlet fever,
  766
  with small pox, and madness. All other sick are to be supported by the local fund. Now, I cannot quite understand the reason of this. I think it a very fair thing to say that this class will not stimulate diseases in that category for the purpose of getting on the general fund. I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman intends to erect asylums for particular diseases. Acting on the principle of separating the sick from the other paupers, he intends to place them in asylums or infirmaries he is to build, and these are to be the receptacles of people afflicted with those painful maladies. Then, I want him to tell me why if persons with scarlet fever, small pox, and madness are to be placed in these infirmaries and thrown on the common fund—those with cancers, siphilis, and bronchitis are not to go on the general fund. Surely these diseases would not be simulated any more than fever or small pox. Indeed, I cannot understand why the sick in general in the workhouses should not be placed on the general fund. If they are maintained as sick in the infirmaries, why should they not be transferred to the general fund? Then, looking to the great conclusion we have come to from the inquiries we have made, I do not quite see that the guardians are exactly the persons to be placed at the head of medical establishments. The general belief that has hitherto existed is, that because guardians took one view and the doctors another as to what might be necessary for the treatment of their patients, the guardian, considering it to be their duty to their constituents to curtail the expenditure, the poor, in consequence of this difference of opinion, have not been properly treated, and the regulations of the Poor Law Board, which required harmonious action between the guardians and doctors, have not been successful. The doctors have called for more ventilation, more attendants, and some change in the structure of the house, but they have met with refusal from the guardians on the ground of expense—not because the guardians do not appreciate the present requirements for the treatment of the sick—not because they are chargeable with any want of humanity, but because they are persons whose previous experience and sense of duty lead them to look rather to expenditure than the importance of sanitary regulations, and object to what the doctors require on the score of increased expense. The doctors go on remonstrating, but the places remain ill-

  767
  ventilated, the attendance is insufficient, and the consequence is that disclosures take place. Under these circumstances, I cannot but draw the conclusion that these poor people should be treated as in hospitals, and superintended by persons whose interests may not be at variance with their proper treatment. Having seen so much as to the incompetence of the guardians superintending medical establishments, I do not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman, in providing these establishments, should place guardians at their head. Is not this tantamount to the continuance of the system which has already failed? It is true the right hon. Gentleman proposes to prevent them from repeating the mischief they have already done by associating nominees of his own with them in the proportion of one-third. Their qualification for the office is to be rateable value. That is certainly a questionable qualification for persons who are to have the superintendence of medical establishments, and I should rather have thought that the best persons to associate with the guardians would have been persons who would have lost something if they did not properly discharge their duties. What we want is competency in those appointed to this office—persons who feel themselves bound to fulfil the duties imposed on them, and for which they should be properly remunerated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to this point, because, as far as I have heard, some of the criticisms on his Bill are very much founded on the question of nominees. With respect to the provision for the better treatment of the sick poor, I must say that it will certainly be incomplete if we do not deal with that portion of the case which is not much mentioned in the Bill, but which, perhaps, is more important than any other—I mean the treatment of the outdoor poor. They exceed the indoor sick poor, and, of course, if their cases are not properly attended to, the spread of illness is much more likely to occur than in the case of the indoor sick. The outdoor cases of acute disease are more numerous than the chronic cases, and this again shows the necessity for dealing with this point, as these poor people are even more dangerous to the public health than those within the union. Consequently, one regards with interest the provisions of the Bill which proposes to establish dispensaries. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that he took the idea of estab
  768
  lishing them from the experience of similar institutions in Ireland, and certainly it meets to a certain extent the case of the outdoor poor. At present nobody knows how they are treated, or what becomes of them; whereas, in the case of deaths occurring among the indoor sick, very often a coroner's inquest is held, and great sensation is produced. As far as I understand, there will be with the establishment of these dispensaries more attention paid by the medical officers to the outdoor sick, care will be taken that proper medicines are administered, the prescriptions are to be written by the medical men, and, I presume, recorded. That is, no doubt, a great improvement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has, as far as necessary, inquired into the case of some dispensaries at present existing, because it is said that great frauds exist, and that a great number of persons not entitled to be relieved at the public expense, yet obtain medical relief at the cost of the country. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the assistance he received in providing for this system very strongly recommended it to me, because I have such confidence in the acuteness and industry of the gentleman whom he consulted, and who went to Ireland, that I am sure the whole matter has been carefully considered. All I can say is that I think this part of the Bill introduces a most substantial improvement in the present system. What is not so easy to understand at present is why the expense of those dispensaries, and of all the persons relieved by them, though they may be persons without any specific maladies, is to be cast on the common fund, while the general indoor sick are thrown upon the local fund. If a medical officer should think more nutritious diet was required by a patient, the expense would be cast upon the union; but if he thought medicine was necessary, then the charge would be borne by the general fund. Why should there be a difference in dealing with the relief given, in mutton or medicine? There seems something like capriciousness in this arrangement, and it appears to me that the charge for persons applying to the dispensaries might be thrown on the local fund. There will, however, be an opportunity of discussing these various matters in Committee, and I admit that nothing can be better than the purposes and principle of the Bill, if thoroughly carried out. In the last clause there is a provision which ought long since to have been established,

  769
  and which ought to be more extended, for I am favourable to the extension of the authority of the Poor Law Board. The clause I refer to provides that, in case of an asylum or dispensary, or Board of Guardians failing on the requisition of the Poor Law Board to appoint to a vacancy any officer whom they are by law required to appoint, the Poor Law Board may nominate a fit person to be such officer. I am sorry, however, since the right hon. Gentleman has looked to the practice of Ireland, that he has not gone further, and adopted another provision to the effect that, in case the local authorities refuse to carry out the regulations of the Poor Law Board, the latter shall have the power of superseding them, and of appointing an officer of their own to administer the law in the place of those local authorities. I am informed that it has very rarely happened that the guardians in Ireland, who know that such a power exists, have refused to carry out the regulations of the Central Commission. I think a similar power ought to be possessed by the Poor Law Board in this country. At present there is a divided jurisdiction. There is the power technically given by the Poor Law Act to the Poor Law Board, and yet there exist no practical means of enforcing it. The Poor Law Board is very apt to be blamed for matters in respect to which that Board has practically no authority over the local Boards. If there is to be a central authority with responsibility it should not be allowed to be trifled with by the local authorities. The Board ought to have larger powers, and be fixed with the responsibility which attends the exercise of them. This question ought now to be decided, for at present it is most difficult to know who is in some cases to blame. It is said the time had come when the Board should be made a permanent establishment, but that will not be sufficient unless it is invested with sufficient power. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to some extent to increase the power of the Board, and I shall certainly support that part of the Bill—the only question with me is whether he has gone far enough. The Board ought to be responsible for the manner in which the poor are treated, and I believe they are better treated where the regulations of the Board have been fully carried out. This is a point which I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider,
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that as the representative of a large and popu-
  770
  lous metropolitan district, he had to express his satisfaction at the improvement effected by the Bill in respect to the distribution of burdens connected with the relief of the poor, but he wished the improvement had been carried still further. He would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the propriety of making large public establishments, such as existed in Greenwich, Woolwich, and Deptford—in which parishes there was now great distress—contribute their fair proportion towards the expense for the relief of the poor.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he fully appreciated the labours of the right hon. Gentleman who recently addressed the House (Mr. C. P. Villicrs). He presided three years over the Committee which had brought out in evidence the full operations of Poor Law administration, and had passed the measure for union chargeability, which was in fact the foundation of this Bill, therefore the right hon. Gentleman need not defend his Poor Law administration against imaginary charges. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thought that the present Bill was likely to lead the House into entertaining a proposal for a national poor rate. Whatever principle of charge might be adopted for the relief of the poor, the metropolis would have to be made an exception; and the reason why the Report of the Committee was so general was that those who took an interest in the matter were not prepared, and did not desire, to submit a definite scheme for the metropolis. They thought it better that there should be a distinct recognition of the broad principle, and that it should be left to the Poor Law Board to develop the principle in details as time and circumstances would permit. The Committee, however, did recommend that the charge for casual poor should be thrown on the whole metropolis; but that decision was come to under the pressure of then recent circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had heard some criticisms upon his Bill, and he saw that there was a general concurrence of opinion upon two points—as to the charge for inmates of asylums upon the general fund, and the manner in which the common fund should be raised and administered. If it were right to impose on the common fund the charge for the maintenance of asylums, it would be equally right to put upon it the charge for their erection; and that view seemed so reasonable that on re-

  771
  consideration he believed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) would be disposed to adopt it. If any justification were needed for the introduction of a limited Bill, it was to be found in the speech just delivered, in the statement that there was an amount of antagonism to the Poor Law Board which rendered it difficult for the President to adopt a vigorous course. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had deferred to some extent to the traditions of the office; but traditions must give way, and the President must not be alarmed by the long words "centralization" and "equalization," abstract terms which were used with very different meanings. In raising a common fund the great point was to consider how it could be usefully, economically, and efficiently administered. When it was proposed that the casual poor should be a charge on the whole metropolis it was also proposed that, instead of being raised by a Metropolitan Board and administered by guardians, it should be raised and administered by one authority, so that there might be uniformity in the relief and treatment. But a traditional measure was passed, and the guardians had been allowed to trifle with the question of the relief of the casual poor, which was one of great practical importance, and which required to be dealt with on large considerations and general principles. Guided by the experience which had been gained, let the right hon. Gentleman consider the objections to the form of his Bill, and see if he could not simplify it and provide for a more efficient administration of the fund. The Bill dealt with a great question of justice between the different parts of the metropolis, and it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to hold the scales and to ask for the decision of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had gone far beyond his (Mr. Ayrton's) expectations, and with his assistance the President of the Poor Law Board could have no hesitation in dealing with the difficulties which surrounded this serious question.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I tender my best thanks to the hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion for the courteous, kind, and generous manner in which they have received the Bill. They have given me credit for laying down a principle which may lead to a satisfactory solution of a great difficulty, and I feel certain that with the assistance of the House we shall succeed in carrying a Bill which
  772
  I shall alter and materially improve the management of the workhouses of the metropolis. I make no complaint of any speech delivered in the course of this debate; but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had been here when I first addressed the House upon this subject; for from the report of my speech, or from something he may have heard from others, he seems to have misconceived its spirit and misinterpreted its intentions. I sedulously abstained from reflecting upon anything that had been done in past times by the Poor Law Board, or upon the conduct of the Committee who sat upon the subject of Poor Relief under his Presidency. On the contrary, I gave the highest credit to the Committee for the manner in which I it had conducted its investigations; and upon the result of its inquiries as laid down in its Resolutions, I founded some of the main provisions of my Bill. I therefore heard with surprise the answer which the right hon. Gentleman made to the supposed attack upon his administration and the Committee, because there was nothing like accusation in the language I used with reference to the one or the other. Sir, the question now before the House is a very simple one—it is whether or not you have come to the conclusion that the administration of the Poor Law in the metropolis—and I put the metropolis for this purpose separate from the rest of the country—is carried out in a manner which is just to those who find the funds, and merciful to those who receive relief, or whether I it has not been both indoors and out of doors, conducted on a system which has been almost the reverse. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), who spoke in a temperate and good-humoured manner, said he would speak a good word for the guardians. I think he will do me the justice to admit that I abstained from saying anything against them. I feel their difficulties—I sympathize with them. At the same time, when gentlemen have come to me, as some of them have, and expressed themselves in the highest terms of their own capacity, and of the ability with which they have administered the workhouses and infirmaries committed to their charge, and when at that very moment I had lying on my table reports which were directly the reverse, I am obliged to say that the system has failed under their management, and must be improved. It is all very well for

  773
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton to speak of the excellent rules and orders laid down by the Poor Law Board. I fully admit it. Upon turning my attention to the orders, and particularly the general consolidated orders, I must say they reflect the highest credit upon those who framed them. But it is not of the slightest use to make orders or lay down rules unless you are in a position to carry them out and enforce them if they are not complied with. It is of the utmost necessity that any Board, and above all the Poor Law Board, should have eyes and oars multiplied; so multiplied, that day by day and hour by hour it may see and hear what is going on in the workhouses of this metropolis. The present mode of inspection does not suffice for the necessities of the case. Unless inspection is carried out with a firmness, minuteness, and care which it is impossible for one inspector to exhibit—unless there be some means found by which inspection can be supplied constantly and minutely, you will fail, whatever regulations you pass, or rules or orders you lay down. When you come to the guardians, you find among them men of intelligence, kindness, and a desire to do well; but not understanding fully the business they have taken in hand, being engaged in business of another kind, and not having an appreciation of the difficulties with which they have to cope, they fail in what they have undertaken to carry out. I do not believe they are unmanageable bodies if sufficient power is given to those who have to rule and regulate them. I am bound to say that when treated with firmness, combined with conciliation and a desire to do them justice, they are in most cases ready to yield to the wishes of the Board. There are instances, however, not so much of steady resistance as of what is worse than resistance—of considering, of continually deferring, of putting off, of hoping that something will turn up which will save them from the necessity of complying. These are the Boards of Guardians which are most troublesome, because if they resisted you could coerce them, but while they are considering you can do nothing. These are the people most difficult to manage, and they are what I believe to be among the most recalcitrant bodies in the whole metropolis. And that brings me to the part that has been taken in this debate by the hon. Members for Marylebone. These hon. Gentlemen represent two great parishes governed by
  774
  guardians who are elected by vestries. But while I can speak well to a certain extent of one of those parishes, the other, as hon. Gentlemen may have seen from accounts in the public press, has not done well. In that parish there has been a failure. Their management has broken down, and their workhouse has not been carried on in the way they claim to have conducted it, because they have not been able to look minutely into the business which they have taken in hand. With respect to these local Boards, I was very glad to hear my gallant Friend (Colonel Hogg) state that his parish, St. George's, Hanover Square, would not oppose the clause which I propose directed against their local Acts. These local Acts have been among the greatest impediments with which the Poor Law Board have to contend. The Board has constantly been liable to be tripped up in Courts of Law, for if a notice were sent to the directors it was held that it ought to have been sent to the vestry, and vice versâ. Everything went wrong in consequence of this double government. I cannot, therefore, consent to the representations of the hon. Members for Marylebone on that point. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Villiers) spoke of something which had fallen from me on a former occasion with reference to my shrinking from collision with the guardians last autumn. The time was not then ripe for collision. The inspectors were working almost day and night in examining the entire management and discipline of workhouses, and the number of visits they had to make was very large. Hon. Members, indeed, are hardly aware what enormous establishments they are, some of them more like small towns than institutions which can he looked over in a cursory way. In St. Pancras Workhouse, for instance, there are more than 2,000 persons, and to make a minute investigation into the treatment of each class of inmates requires great acumen and intelligence—qualities which I am bound to say the inspectors have shown—in order to frame their reports so that the guardians might fully understand what improvements were required. That investigation was going on from the time I entered office. It would have been unwise if I had, at the moment when Parliament was about to meet, come into collision with the Boards of Guardians instead of coming to the House and saying, "I am willing to be responsible for the condition of the

  775
  workhouses, if I have, and only if I have, power to enforce obedience to any orders I may issue." Unless this be done the responsibility of the Poor Law Board must be a myth, and their interference with Boards of Guardians useless. I do not wish to detain the House after so long a discussion, which has not, however, been upon the principle of the Bill. I do not pretend that the measure is a perfect one, and in the interval between the second reading and the Committee I shall direct my attention to those points to which hon. Members have referred, and see to what extent I can meet their views and adopt their suggestions. There are, however, certain misapprehensions which I think it well at once to correct. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, speaking of the proposed dispensaries, and warning me of the frauds which have been committed in Ireland, has objected to a distinction which he thinks is proposed in the Bill between the indoor and outdoor sick, and he asks why the former as well as the latter should not be charged to the common fund. I propose to charge on the common fund the salaries of the medical officers of workhouses, as well as of nurses and other officials, and the cost of drugs, so that, as far as medical relief and management are concerned, no difference is made between the indoor and the outdoor sick. The right hon. Gentleman, however, asks why I do not charge all the sick on the common fund, instead of cases of fever, small pox, and lunacy only. I explained this point on a former occasion; but as the right hon. Gentleman and also the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) have adverted to it, the House will allow me to repeat what I then said. I am unable to distinguish in principle the outdoor sick from the indoor sick; those who are not necessarily transferred to the hospitals from those who are in the infirmaries. For that reason I thought it advisable to take only those classes of disease which could clearly be separated from the rest, and which affected the health of the whole metropolis—namely, fever and small pox. The hon. Baronet will, I am sure, admit that these classes ought to be treated separately from other patients, in order to prevent the spread of fever and small pox throughout the metropolis. I propose, therefore, to charge these upon the common fund, and to make the hospitals for their reception common to the whole metropolis. As to
  776
  lunatics the noble Lord (Viscount Enfield) has asked me what distinction there is between the asylums proposed in this Bill and the county asylums. The distinction is one with which the Commissioners in Lunacy are quite familiar. The lunatics detained in workhouses are perfectly inoffensive, and require none of the restraints nor the luxuries and advantages which are provided for the other and more dangerous class in county asylums. The asylums for lunatics and the hospitals for fever and small pox being placed upon the common fund, it will be necessary to have a Central Board to manage them. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) urged that the expenses of these buildings should be thrown on the whole metropolis, and I may tell him that this will be done, because it is for the public advantage that if a hospital in one part is full patients should be transferred to another. All these buildings, therefore, will be charged on the metropolitan rate. With respect to the number of different Boards which will be created under this Bill, and on which much remark has been made, I admit that this has been one of the difficulties that have dwelt in my own mind. What, however, does the fact of the existence of these several Boards amount to? Take the case of the dispensaries. There will be a dispensary committee composed of guardians, who in almost all instances will manage their affairs. Suppose that five parishes or unions are united for all purposes, though that is not at all a necessary thing, because under the Bill there may be districts for one purpose and not for another, just as is already the case with district schools. I may remark here that nothing has worked so well as the district school committees, the guardians having elected persons who take a deep interest in the schools, and who, being elected for three years, are able to give new members all the advantage of their information and experience. The guardians generally, indeed, take a great pride and interest in these schools, though in some points they are still open to improvement. But supposing, I say, a case where there are five workhouses; one of them, perhaps, may serve admirably for a hospital for the sick, another may be suited for the infirm, and another for able-bodied paupers, with every appliance for making it what the workhouse system was originally intended to be—namely, a deterrent system, so that able-bodied persons should

  777
  shrink from applying for admission unless they were really compelled to do so. You might also separate the sexes, and separate the moral from the immoral. What I desire by this arrangement is to utilize in every possible way existing materials, efficient than existing erections. This brings me to the question of expense, and I wish the House to bear in mind that, even if this Bill had not been introduced, a considerable outlay would still have been made, because certain workhouses required additional space, and many of them had already plans for enlargement in hand. They were called on to enlarge the buildings they at present have, and I thought that for me, or whoever might be in my place, it would be an object to economize as much as possible. This is a practical matter, and if with the guidance of the scientific gentlemen whom I have selected, and the assistance of the inspectors who have given me such valuable aid, I can arrive at the in all cases. Neither do I make this pro position with any intention that the Poor Law or the nominated guardians should come into collision with the general body of the guardians. The object is to make some persons responsible who might be volunteers, and who could be removed if they did not discharge the duty which they had undertaken. There are persons in the metropolis—an abundance of them—who would willingly volunteer for this duty. I have been blamed because I did not bring in a Bill to enforce the performance of the duties which would be undertaken by volunteers; but if I can secure
  778
  by this Bill men of influence and also of mind and heart—men who from their exertions in connection with Societies for the relief of destitution, I find taking the deepest interest in the poor, not only without payment, but guaranteeing the whole in the metropolis not rated at all who would do those duties most efficiently; and if this House should think fit to strike out them to do it we must be in a position to say to them, "You have a right to go in and see every poor person; no one can stand in your way; no Board of Guardians can say (as has been the case in some instances), 'You have given information we don't like, and we will have you in this workhouse no more.'" Let us have persons to whom no such thing as that can be said by any Board of Guardians—persons who will have responsibilities towards the Poor Law Board, persons who will enter into some undertaking to do the duties imposed on them by the Poor Law Board. With respect to the rate paying value I may observe that as far as my Department is concerned I do not care the right hon. Gentleman, that I have laid down a principle which tends towards a national rate, [Mr. C. P. VILLIERS: No!] I must say that I object very strongly to having a mere verbally logical view cast upon everything proposed in the House. A deputation of gentlemen waited on me yesterday. They declared that I was one of the most revolutionary persons who had appeared in public life for a long time. They said I was trying to subvert everything, including local government. What will they say when they read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman says that in

  779
  preserving so much of local government as I do I fail to secure the poor against the recurrence of evils now complained of. I submit that in this House we must legislate practically. I knew that if I had come to this House with the strongest possible opinions on the subject—and I confess I have not those strong opinions—if I had arrived at the conclusion that the rates of the whole of the metropolis should be equalized, I should have been met with an opposition which would have defeated any Bill which I might have brought in. I am certain of that from communications I have had with hon. Gentlemen within the House, and from others without. It has been said by many of them, "I should have opposed you if you had brought in a Bill for equalizing the rates over the whole metropolis; but you have only gone the extent of charging on the common fund expenditure in which there can be no jobbing, and thus a check is provided." Had the Bill been of a more wholesale character, instead of the few holes that have been picked in it, there would have been seventy-eight holes, the number of the clauses Great stress has been laid on the evils which will result from placing those charges on the common fund, owing to there being no system of uniform valuation in the metropolis. I feel that point, and consequently I have endeavoured to meet the difficulty by Clause 62—
  "The Poor Law Board shall from time to time assess on the several unions and parishes in the metropolis the amounts of their respective contributions to the Common Poor Fund in proportion to the annual rateable value of the property therein comprised, to be determined according to the valuation lists, or, where there are none, according to the latest poor rate for the time being for the union or parish, or otherwise, as the Poor Law Board from time to time direct."
  It is quite true that we do not always know on what system a union or parish is assessed for Poor Law purposes; but the assessments for the Metropolitan Board and for the police rate we know are on the best available basis; and the Poor Law Board, in making an assessment, will be able to do as is done in counties. Though the assessments in the various unions of a county may be on different systems, the counties levy a rate on their own assessment, which is made on a uniform system throughout the whole county. So far, therefore, as it can be done, we have endeavoured to meet that objection by a clause in the Bill; but I propose to do more. My hon. Friend the
  780
  Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) has brought in a Bill to provide a uniform scheme of assessment for the whole country, with the exception of the metropolis. I will wait to see what is done with that Bill; but I have sketched a Bill for the metropolis, which I propose to introduce if my hon. Friend's should receive the sanction of Parliament. By the Bill to which I refer I propose that for Imperial taxation and all rates the metropolis shall be uniformly assessed. I have now only to repeat my thanks to the House for the reception given to the measure under discussion. I ask them to examine it in no hostile spirit—indeed, I know they will not—but to regard it as what it purports to be, a Bill introduced for the better management of the indoor poor of the metropolis, and for affording assistance to the outdoor poor also. If they approach it in the spirit which they have shown on its introduction and during the debate on the second reading, I, for my part, will be ready to receive any suggestion which may be put forward for its amendment. Should I be so fortunate as to receive the assistance of the House in that spirit when we go into Committee on this day fortnight, I have little doubt that our united efforts will bring the matter to a successful issue.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 7th March.

DUTY ON DOGS BILL— [BILL 36.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
DUTY ON DOGS BILL— [BILL 36.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped it was intended to enforce in every case the payment of the Excise licence of 5s. Dogs in towns were, for the most part, a very great nuisance. In every town there were a number of people who could not keep themselves, yet who kept a dog, and who at present evaded the duty. Many cases had come before him as a magistrate in which the dogs of such persons had bitten poor children, and he only regretted that the owners belonged to a class who could not be made to give compensation. Only a little while ago the child of a poor widow had come before

  781
  him with a badly lacerated leg, the result of the bite of a dog. If the new duty of 5s. were rigidly enforced in every case, it would be a great protection to the poor.
  MR. BARROWhoped there would be no exemption in the case of puppies.
  MR. READsaid, he was gratified to elicit from the Secretary to the Treasury the other night that no exemption would be allowed. The farmers were quite willing to give up the exemption they at present enjoyed for shepherds' dogs. He was only sorrow that ladies' lap-dogs and sporting dogs were to be kept at the same rate as the more useful class of shepherds' dogs and rat-catchers' dogs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

RAILWAY DEBENTURE HOLDERS BILL.
(Mr. Watkin, Mr. Alderman Salomons, Mr. Laing.)
RAILWAY DEBENTURE HOLDERS BILL.

  [BILL 20.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WATKIN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, repeated the explanation of the circumstances which had rendered it necessary which he made when he introduced it; and stated that it was with his consent about to be referred to a Select Committee. The question was whether they ought not to remove the alarm and difficulty which now existed in regard to debentures, upon which the welfare of so important a branch of the carrying trade depended. It might be said that the proposed measure was bad for the shareholders. That while £450,000,000 were invested in railways, the debenture-debt only amounted to £120,000,000; therefore, it was unfair to legislate in favour of the debenture-holders as against the shareholders. They might, however, remember that the debentures were the core of the railway system, and whatever made the security of the debentures more perfect would enable the companies to borrow at a less amount of interest, and therefore leave a larger amount of money to divide among both the preference and ordinary shareholders. At present a mortgage was given to the debenture-holders on what was termed the general undertaking, and tolls, which meant the fixed property and the tolls. This Bill would also give them a lien on the engines, carriages, and plant movable and immovable, of the company. It
  782
  would not have any retrospective action, and would, therefore, not affect existing engagements, applying only to the debentures issued after its passing. It might be said that by passing the Bill they would prevent the railway companies who chose to do so from borrowing upon the present security, but he had no objection to insert a clause in Committee to enable the companies to do so. Thus the power would be optional, though he had no doubt it would be universally availed of. On the other hand, if any company wished to make its securities perfect, surely the House ought not to refuse facilities for such a purpose. With regard to the objection that they would deprive the trade creditor of his security, he denied that that was so; but even if it did affect his security he contended that inasmuch as the bulk of the revenue was received in cash, railway companies ought to pay cash for stores, materials, and labour, and not get into debt on their account. There was, however, in fact, a large amount of property left untouched by the Bill which could be seized for trade debts, such as surplus lands and a mass of floating property not absolutely required for the working of the line. There were three classes of claims specially excepted from the operation of the Bill—rates and taxes, compensation for personal injuries, and for loss and damage to property in transitu, and chief rents recoverable by distress. The measure had been submitted to and approved by the highest authorities of the London and North Western, the Midland, the South Eastern, and other railway companies, and also to a noble Lord in "another place" who had given railway questions his especial attention in Parliament, and who considered the measure well worthy the attention of the House, and that its principle was sound. He denied that he had introduced the Bill because he was connected with certain railways, and was anxious to get them out of their difficulties. In point of fact, the capital of the whole of the railway companies in difficulties did not amount to more than £24,000,000, and the debentures to £6,600,000, or about 4½ per cent of the whole capital so invested; and if they excepted the London, Chatham, and Dover, which had introduced a special Bill of its own, the proportion of the capital of railways in difficulty would be reduced to 1½ per cent of the whole. In reference to the complaint that the established railway companies had laid out more capital than,

  783
  they ought to have done, he would simply observe that the returns to the twelve principal railway companies on the increased capital laid out during six years past amounted to no less than 6¾ per cent per annum, which he contended was a perfect justification on their part. He thought that, considering the class of people who held railway debentures, and the alarm felt by them on the subject, the House ought to support a measure which would put this class of security, good as even at present in most cases it was, on a footing of undeniable and unchallengablc security and safety.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Watlkin.)
  MR. GOLDNEYpointed out that the third clause of the Bill gave debenture-holders an unwarrantable advantage over all other creditors of a railway company, with the single exception of the tax-gatherer. He could imagine the case of a contractor engaged in constructing a line and desiring payment when the line was finished, but if the railway company had issued debentures the contractor would be unable to put in an execution for payment. The contractor for casual repairs, too, would be in the same predicament under similar circumstances. Instead, then, of calling the measure a Railway Debenture Holders' Bill, he thought it would be more properly described by the title Railway Companies Creditors' Defiance Bill. Hitherto the Legislature had endeavoured to protect such of the public as were creditors against railway companies, but this Bill proposed to remove such protection and nullify all past legislation in this respect.
  MR. AYRTONpointed out that passing the Bill in its present state would be attended with several peculiar consequences. He regretted that the Law Officers of the Crown were not present to give the House the benefit of their experience in considering this complicated legal question. There was no misapprehension on the part of Parliament in its railway legislation. It was competent to make a permanent mortgage of landed estate, and a railway was landed estate earning money by tolls, which afforded the permanent security when a mortgage was made. But one could not well mortgage permanently a fluctuating property. The Bill proposed to add to the legal mortgage of the land estate all the
  784
  personal property that might happen to be upon it, but if the change were adopted a railway company would not be able to deal with property with a view of taking it off the land. The effect of this would be to place railways in a position of great embarrassment, for that would destroy their credit. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would consider this Bill on the part of the public, and that the Law Officers would take care that it should have a due regard to the protection of the public interests. He hoped it would be understood that the House in reading the Bill a second time did not thereby assent to the principle of the Bill, but only read it a second time as a matter of form, as they were not yet sufficiently advised as to the measure.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSadmitted that the Bill as it at present stood was crude, but in the interest of capitalists and others who had invested their money in railways as well as in the interests of the travelling public, he assented to the principle that the plant ought not to be removed. The credit of the company would be best maintained, and the convenience of the public insured, by keeping the rolling stock upon the line, and that was the best security for the debenture-holders, who were the first mortgagees.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) for introducing the Bill, and on the understanding that it was to go to a Select Committee, and that they were not pledged to any of its details, he hoped the House would pass the second reading. The hon. Member was not quite accurate, he thought, in some of his statements. It was true that at present a debenture-holder could only come in, as such, through a receiver, but, as a creditor of the company for the amount represented by his bond, he could get judgment and seize the rolling-stock. The general principle the hon. Member had laid down was a sound one—namely, that it was very much against the public convenience that the rolling-stock of the company should be liable, as now, to be taken in execution by individual creditors, whether for works, supplies, or debentures, thereby destroying the reasonable security of the debenture-holder, who was the first creditor. But the great cause of all the mischief about railway securities was the legislation of Parliament itself. We had merely copied the provisions of the old

  785
  Canal Bills, without noticing the difference between the securities they issued and those of railways; and without weighing the consequence of so large an amount of permanent works being provided by a floating instead of a fixed debt. Under Canal Hills the loans raised were precisely like mortgages of any other landed estates, and were usually for seven or fourteen years, and the total amount was small. Under Railway Bills altogether £120,000,000 hail been taken from the floating capital of the country under much shorter dated securities, which were not mortgages in the usual sense, and could not even be held by many trustees. The result of this had been that in times of pressure, and when doubts arose as to the security of debentures, largo claims were made upon the companies on account of those loans, and though they might be in a solvent condition, they were placed in considerable financial embarrassment. France had adopted a much wiser course in this respect, making the loan capital of its railways raised for very long terms, and redeemable by a sinking fund. He thought that the great mistake had been to prescribe in what way companies should raise their money. We had laid down rules derived from the obsolete legislation of last century; whereas, if our railway companies had been allowed to raise their capital as they chose under the provisions of the Joint Stock Acts much of the present difficulty might have been obviated; at least, no one would have been responsible for it but themselves. One great source of mischief was that railway companies which had found themselves in an unsatisfactory position in raising their capital had, as it was called, "financed" their income, and attempted to apply their current income to capital charges; and he would suggest whether it might not be desirable in some way to compel railway companies in future to keep their capital and income monies separate. In recent debates much had been said about the defective accounts of great national establishments, and he could not help now observing it might also be found that there were weak points in the accounts of great railway companies.
  MR. LAING,as the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, wished merely to confirm what had been said as to the extent to which Parliament was responsible for the state of things which had arisen with reference to railway debentures. The
  786
  present difficulty was mainly owing to a mistaken view taken by Parliament originally on the introduction of railways, as to the nature of railway property. It then thought that a railway, like a canal or a turnpike road, was to be open to all the world; that the company was not to have a monopoly of the carrying business, but that everybody might bring their own engines and carriages on to the line, and run them along it, on condition that they paid the company certain tolls for the privilege. The Legislature gave in that case on the tolls what it then considered to be as good security as a mortgage on a landed estate. That view had since, however, turned out to be entirely erroneous, and he had no hesitation in stating that, if the present state of things had been known to Parliament when it originally dealt with the subject, the mortgages in question would have been made to cover not only the line of railway and the tolls, but also the rolling-stock. The cardinal policy of Parliament, indeed, he thought, had been to make the debenture capital of railways a secure investment, because it went out of its way to impose restrictions on the amount of such capital which could be raised. He could also corroborate the statement that the other restrictions which had been imposed on railway companies in the issue of debentures furnished the main reason why the Continental system—which would have placed the debenture-debt on a much sounder footing—had not been adopted in this country. That system consisted in issuing debentures at long dates with a sinking fund to redeem them, and it was a mode of proceeding which was the safest for all the parties concerned. It was a mode of proceeding, however, which legislation in this country prevented, and we therefore stood in the position of having £120,000,000 of property which had been held out by Parliament as being a security in which trust funds might be invested, while it now, after the lapse of several years, appeared that the legal effect of that security was not what Parliament had contemplated. Such was the pass to which things had been brought by an unexpected legal decision, and it was, he thought, but a simple matter of good faith that all parties should be placed in the position in which they believed they stood when the money was advanced. To the fact that the recent decision, however good it might be in point of law, was totally

  787
  unexpected he could bear the strongest testimony, but the question was one in dealing with which the public interests must be looked to, and their interest, he maintained, clearly demanded that a railway should by no possibility be shut up by the severance from it of the rolling-stock. That principle the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had very properly laid down a few evenings before, and if the rolling-stock and the line were to go together it would be equally for the advantage of the public and the debenture-holders. The only question then would be how the comparatively small class of other creditors was to be provided for? Tradesmen's bills for current expenses ought never, he contended, to be allowed to exceed two or three months' earnings of a railway, and it would, he thought, be bad policy to declare that £120,000,000 of property should be kept in jeopardy because some persons, with due warning and with their eyes open, chose to go beyond the legitimate credit of a company for its current expenses. That, however, was a point which might be considered in Committee, and it would, no doubt, be deemed right that those creditors also should be duly protected. He looked upon it as impossible, he might add, to overrate the importance of such a Bill as that before the House, because when interest to the amount ½of or 1 per cent higher than ought to be paid according to the natural state of the money-market was charged on the large sum involved in debentures, it became of the utmost consequence to take care that railways which were now solvent might not fall into a position of insolvency. He hoped that the House would, under the circumstances, not hesitate to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and that it would without delay be referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the discussion in which the House was engaged a very useful one, and expressed himself as perfectly convinced that Members would act wisely in following the advice with respect to the passing of the Bill which had just been given. He should not, he might add, attempt to argue with his hon. Friend (Mr. Laing) as to how far everybody had been taken by surprise by the recent decision to which he had adverted. He might, however, state that he had heard in several quarters that persons who had paid attention to the subject were quite prepared for the
  788
  view of the law which was there laid down. There was little doubt, at the same time, that it was not in accordance with the popular impression, and he quite concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking that Parliament should support, as far as lay in its power, the credit of the great security which he mentioned. It was, in fact, impossible to overrate its importance, and he must express his sincere regret if he had said anything which would give rise to the impression that he held a contrary opinion. He could not, however, see that he had uttered a syllable or inserted a single provision in the Bill which was calculated to have that effect. He at the same time fully admitted that in a case like the present it was extremely difficult to control, or even to reason with, a feeling of panic, and that it was highly necessary that hon. Members should be very careful as to anything which might fall from them, or any course which they might take, affecting, or appearing to affect, the security of the debenture-holders. It was a sense of that responsibility which chiefly prompted him to agree to the course proposed of reading the Bill a second time and then referring it to a Select Committee. He thought it was of the utmost importance that the House should assert the principle laid down in the Bill—that rolling-stock should not be separated from the line—and he could not help feeling that in the present feverish state of the public mind in some quarters any attempt to oppose a measure of the kind might conduce to the spread of panic, and to create the impression that Parliament was not anxious to do everything it could to strengthen the position of debenture-holders. He thought, however, that they ought to legislate upon a subject of such delicacy with great care, and not to allow, a Bill dealing only with one point to pass, under the impression that so crude a measure dealt with the whole question. He felt that he ought to inform the House of the views of the Government upon the subject. From the end of last Session, when the question was mooted in various forms in both Houses of Parliament, it was evident that the time was coming when some legislation must take place on the subject, with a view to the proper ascertainment of priorities amongst different classes of people interested. The chief point was to prevent any one class of creditors from injuring the public, and others who were interested in the property, by seizing the

  789
  rolling-stock, and so stopping the working of the line. It was to prevent such an injury being committed that a noble Lord, who had already been referred to, introduced last year a Bill into the other House to prevent the seizure of rolling-stock. That Bill did not come down to this House. When the present Session opened, it appeared to the Government that it would be better to delay any proposals which they might think fit to make until they had seen the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railways, the more so as there seemed to be no immediate necessity for legislation, because, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) had said, the debentures upon which the payment of interest had been suspended were insignificantly small, and it appeared impossible that the failure of so small a proportion, especially as the causes of the failure were so manifest, should in any way affect the debenture-holders generally. With regard to another question—that of providing proper machinery for winding-up companies when in a state of insolvency—the Government thought that immediate legislation was requisite, and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had accordingly, a short time before, introduced a measure, the second reading of which had been postponed for a few days; but that measure had reference only to the case of railway companies which were unable to satisfy the holders of debentures. He was extremely sorry if, through any inadvertence on his part, he had done or said anything tending to alarm the holders of debentures. He could only assure the hon. Member that it was unintentional. He had postponed the second reading of the Bill in order that there might be the more time to consider the matter carefully, and to consult some Members who were interested in the management of railways, and he had every confident expectation that after the matters had been fully considered some arrangement might be arrived at by which that Bill or some other like it might be advantageously adopted. What we had to do was to prevent the stoppage of the traffic, and at the same time to secure the rights of all the creditors; for, though the debenture-holders formed a very important class, there were other classes of creditors whose claims had also to be considered. Upon such distinctions the Bill before the House did not, he thought, even attempt to touch. It might perhaps be decided in
  790
  the Committee that it would be better to pass a Bill dealing with one class first and another afterwards; but, at all events, the Government thought, when they came to look into the Bill laid upon the table by the hon. Member, that it was not one which in its present condition could be advantageously discussed by the House, and that it would be far better to refer it to a Select Committee, by whom all its details would be carefully considered. In answer to an observation made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), in reference to the absence of the Law Advisers of the Crown, he might mention that the Attorney General, who was unavoidably absent, thoroughly concurred in the proposal, and had, moreover, expressed his perfect willingness to servo on any Committee that might he appointed. He (the Attorney General) thought it better that the whole question should be calmly and quietly considered in a Committee, and under the circumstances it was not necessary to detain him in the House at great personal inconvenience. He would be ready to co-operate with the hon. Member in his main object—namely, the keeping the line in work, and giving as good a security as possible to the debenture-holders. They ought, too, as far as possible, to consider whether the debenture-holder could not be protected from the carelessness of the directors themselves, for the want of confidence felt by the debenture-holders at the present time might possibly be attributable to other causes than the recent judgment of Lord Justice Cairns, or the speech which he himself had been unfortunate enough to make. He thought it might be desirable to consider all these matters in Committee. Personally, he should like to have awaited the Report of the Royal Commission; but that Report would, no doubt, be soon issued, and it was possible that some Member of that Commission might be willing to serve on the Committee. Whether that were so or not, they would, no doubt, receive from the Members of that Commission every assistance in coming to a decision; and he could only say that the Government themselves were most anxious to co-operate in promoting any measure which would be likely to secure the desired effect.
  MR. WATKINwould only say, in explanation, that the reason why he did not include in the Bill some power of registration was because he did not wish to

  791
  interfere with any measure which was likely to be brought in by the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on February 25, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. LAING, Mr. THOMAS BARING, Mr. KIKKMAN D. HODGSON, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. COLERIDGE, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. SOOURFIELD, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Mr. WATKIN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  CHURCH RATES REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUBBARD, Bill for the Regulation of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for further continuing and appropriating the London Coal and Wine Duties.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

  LYON KING OF ARMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Bill to regulate the Court and Office of the Lyon King of Arms in Scotland, and the emoluments of the Officers of the same, ordered to be brought in by Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Private Bills appointed; on Mr. France's Pamphlet appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Masters and Operatives [H. L] * (3); Lis Pendens [H. L.]* (6); Sale of Land by Auction * [H. L.] (10).

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.
(The Lord St. Leonards.)
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

  (NO. 3.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS,having first presented Petitions signed by masters in the building trade, and every description of labour in that trade, from Birmingham, Manchester, Stockport, Blackburn, Coventry, and other large manufacturing towns, said, that the main object of the measure was to establish Councils of Conciliation to settle disputes between masters and their men. The Bill had been very carefully framed and considered, and was approved of by delegates from the various trades that would be affected by it, and he ventured to believe that its passing would be attended with good results. In any case, the measure could do no harm, because it was altogether of a voluntary nature, and no courts could be established under its authority without the consent of the Crown, It was supposed by some that its leading features had been borrowed from the French system, but the powers of the Crown in England and in France were very different. In France the Emperor has the power to appoint and to remove the President and Vice President. No such power would be submitted to or sought for in this country. But the Cours de Conciliation was borrowed from the French Code, and had been found to work admirably. Anything which legislation could do to increase and confirm the co-operation and friendly relations of labour and capital ought to be attempted; and he believed there now existed as strong a feeling on the part of the operatives for some conciliatory measure of this kind as had been avowed on the part of the masters. The details of the measure being already familiar to their Lordships, he would do no more than move the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2.a"—(Lord St. Leonards.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Bill, the object of which was admirable, proposed to extend the provisions of some thirty previous Acts to the enforcement of awards made by these new Councils. He wished to know how far the powers of enforcement were extended by this measure?
  LORD CRANWORTHdesired to call their Lordships' attention to the terms of a provision enabling the Councils, with the consent of both parties, to fix a rate of wages that should be binding on employers and employed for a period not exceeding twelve months from the date of the order. If the parties were not bound to remain with each other for twelve months, the order would be nugatory; and, if they were, such a regulation might be attended with injurious consequences.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Bill did not affect the provisions of the existing law on the subject referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). As regarded the rate of wages, it was a question which he himself approached with considerable hesitation. The Bill originally contained no such power. The men and also the masters wished future wages to be within the power of the Council, but he objected to it, as he did not think that if, by the action of supply and demand or other circumstances, it should appear that the rate fixed was below what the market would have supplied, the vast body of men spread throughout the country would submit to the award, and if litigation were resorted to, the benefits of the Act would no longer operate. But upon further reflection, which he had promised the delegates to him from 100,000 operatives, he thought such a power limited to a year might safely be given, and therefore he added it to the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed that the title of the Bill should be altered to "Masters and Workmen" instead of "Masters and Operatives," not that anything material depended on the title, but simply because "workmen" was a good old English word, more accurate, and was used throughout the Bill itself.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LIS PENDENS BILL—(No. 6.)
(The Lord St. Leonards.)
LIS PENDENS BILL—(No. 6.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which is to amend the Companies Act of 1862, and also an Act passed to simplify and amend the practice as to the entry of satisfaction on Crown debts and on judgments. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Companies Act contained a clause that petitions for winding up a limited company should be deemed a lis pendens within the Act, requiring every lis pendens intended to bind a purchaser to be registered. Now this was a simple mistake. To constitute a lis pendens, the litigation must be for the particular estate, and the proceeding under the Companies Act bound no portion of a shareholder's estates. The Registry Act did not create a lis pendens, but only required it to be registered in order to bind a purchaser. After the passing of the Companies Act, a lis pendens was registered against the company. This, of course, was inoperative. It bound no man's estate; and consequently such a registry was treated by the profession as of no validity. It then became usual to enter a lis pendens against every individual shareholder, whose estates it was desired to bind. This led to serious inconvenience and complaint, as it prevented the shareholders from dealing with their estates, although the registry was considered to be inoperative. His attention having been drawn to this difficulty, he had a draft of his Bill repealing the obnoxious clause on his table, when an application was made to one of our Courts of Equity by a shareholder who had had a lis pendens entered up against him under the Companies Act to vacate the registry, but this was refused; from this order an appeal was made to the Lords Justices, and they decided, and in his opinion rightly decided, that the registry was inoperative, and reversed the decision of the Court below. Still, the clause which has created so much difficulty and led to such adverse judgments remains in force, and therefore it is proposed by this Bill to repeal it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord St. Leonards.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the first clause in the Bill, repealing the 114th section of 25 & 26 Vict.

  699
  c. 89, would be unnecessary. In the Companies' Act of 1848 there was a clause which enacted that the registration of the winding-up petition of a company should constitute a lis pendens, and the creditors of companies had most absurdly, as it appeared to him, been in the habit of registering the winding-up petition against the shareholders, as if the petition constituted a lis pendens, as to the separate property of each of them. That question had been set at rest by the judgment of the Lords Justices in a recent case, in which an application was made by the official liquidator to register a winding-up petition against an individual shareholder. The Master of the Rolls, to whom the application was made, declined to interfere, but did not express any opinion at all on the effect of the registration. There was an appeal to the Lords Justices, who stated in the clearest and most distinct manner possible that it was absurd to imagine that the Legislature intended to allow registration of lis pendens against the estate of a shareholder so as to make persons dealing with him liable to all the penalties attending the dealing with property in litigation. With regard to the clause which made a registration of the petition for winding-up a lis pendens against the company, such a clause appeared to him to be of little value, because it did not seem likely that a person would deal with a bankrupt company whose books and other effects were all in the hands of an official liquidator; but, knowing the decision of the Lords Justices, it appeared to him to be unnecessary to repeal a clause which had been in existence since 1848.
  LORD ROMILLYdesired to remind the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that a lis pendens was never registered against a shareholder until an order of the Court had been made, which had the effect of a judgment for the payment of money; but the Lords Justices, though they would not allow a lis pendens to operate against the property of an individual shareholder, expressed an opinion that there might be some cases in which it might be necessary to do so. He thought that the second clause of the Bill would, in some respects, be beneficial in its operation.
  LORD ST. LEONARDShad already stated the original order by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Romilly) and the reversal of it by the Lords Justices, but still the difference of opinion re-
  700
  mains, and an appeal will lie to this House. The repeal of the clause will set everything right. His noble Friend opposite thinks it should be repealed, and the Lords Justices agree that the Act should be altered. He had been in communication with all these learned Judges. The remedy is the repeal of the clause.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL.
(The Lord St. Leonards.)
SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL.

  (NO. 10.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he had observed with satisfaction that since the Act passed this House last year, the auctioneers had in many instances announced in their conditions that a bidding was or biddings were reserved; and he himself was aware in several instances that this had led to no inconvenience. Now this was of the essence of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord St. Leonards.)
  LORD ROMILLYregretted that his noble and learned Friend had not, in the present Bill, as he suggested last year, extended the measure to all sales by auction. He had been informed that the sales of tea alone in the City of London amounted to a much larger sum than resulted from all the sales of land which took place in the metropolis. There were many evils arising in the sales of personal property, of which he would give their Lordships an instance. He had been informed that the sale of some private property of a nobleman, a Member of their Lordships' House, realized £120, and the same property was two hours afterwards sold for £1,200 by auction among the dealers. That was an abuse which ought to be put an end to; and there were other evils, such as the supply of liquor, which also ought no longer to be permitted. He regretted that the Bill dealt with the subject of sales by auction in a piecemeal manner; he should not, however, offer any opposition.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSbegged to assure his noble Friend that he had bestowed great attention upon the subject of what was termed knockouts, and the result was a conviction that no legislation was necessary. In regard to sales by auction,

  701
  generally of chattels, sellers had only to appoint respectable auctioneers with firmness enough to put a stop to any improper conduct in the auction-room by brokers or others. To stop one abuse it was not seldom that one of the conditions of sale gave a power to the auctioneer to refuse to take the bidding of any bidder, and any attempt to intimidate or to damage the sale by false statements in the room an energetic auctioneer can at once stop, and if need be have the offender turned out of the room. Still you will find that sales of common articles, according to the statements of auctioneers, would hardly fetch anything like their value without the biddings of brokers. In regard to articles of value to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, they required no legislation. Take, for example, a sale of articles of value, which in the ordinary course of sales would fetch a fair price, but there are one or two articles of great value for which few bidders would be found, and which by a combination of dealers might be knocked down at an almost nominal price, the owner has only to insert a condition that upon a few lots, or naming the lots, a bidding will be reserved, and the combination can do no mischief.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

REFORM—BOROUGH QUALIFICATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to move the Resolution—
  "That in the Opinion of this House, in any further Scheme to amend the Reform Act of 1832 and increase the Body of Electors, it is not desirable or necessary that all Boroughs should return Members by the same Qualification,"
  said, that a few words as to the moment at which we have now arrived would, he thought, suffice to explain the course he had pursued and recommend it to the leniency as well as judgment of their Lordships. A train of circumstances, too long to be recounted and too recent to be unknown, had forced upon the country the question whether power should be transferred from the middle class to the numerical majority. The question would be gravely influenced if not finally determined by the Bill the present Government initiated. After the 25th of February, so far as we can estimate the
  702
  future, their line of action would be settled; and not only they, but the country would have entered on a path they could not afterwards relinquish. In that case deliberation would be over. The present time was ours, and it would rapidly escape us. If it should turn out that our policy is not as yet to lodge the power of the State in the numerical majority, the Resolution he proposed would point out to them the single mode by which, as things stood, they could avoid that consummation. At least it was on that ground and in that sense he had proposed it. No doubt it might be said that a longer notice was desirable. But noble Lords will see at once why it was not given. The noble Earl the late Prime Minister was coming down on Monday to move for certain information on the franchise. A debate upon the question was anticipated, and up to that time no one else would feel at liberty to call attention to any portion of the subject. The notice disappeared on the very day when noble Lords had come there to discuss it. It was scarcely possible that any other should be given until Tuesday. Thursday was the only vacant day before the 25th of February, after which the line of reasoning he had to offer might be in vain submitted to their Lordships or the country. He felt the greater obligation to convey in language, however inexact, what, after months of toil, occurred to him upon the subject; because a Commission of Inquiry on the franchise which the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) and himself had urged upon the Government at the end of last Session might, perhaps, have been much more effectually advocated. It was now so clear that one great source of complication would arise from the want of an authoritative document to enlighten the world at large on certain new conditions of the franchise, that he could not quite defend the course which the noble Marquess and he together had adopted in forbearing to bring on a regular debate on that proposal. The want of a Commission, he feared, would render it impossible to resort to one method of adding to the body of electors and yet averting the supremacy of numbers. It was more essential, therefore, to recommend another to their Lordships if the supremacy of numbers was not the object of our policy. The question, whether it is or not, Governments have usually evaded; but without some reply to it, we cannot advance a step in representative Reform or

  703
  give any kind of counsel on the subject. No means can be adopted or proposed until the end has been determined. But on this great preliminary issue the verdict of the country does something to facilitate an answer. In 1848, when Europe was submerged under the wave of revolution, the Democratic party forced the question before Parliament. It agitated as it occupied society, and for a time, perhaps, there was a balance of opinion. But when the moment for decision came, in June, 1848, Parliament and the public ranged under the banner of the noble Earl, at that time Lord John Russell, and resolved that the proposals of Mr. Hume, by which numbers, or the largest class, were to be supreme over elections, should meet an unequivocal resistance. In 1849 the same battle opened, the same conclusion was arrived at. In 1850 the decision was renewed, and it cannot be said, as far as the country goes, to have been subsequently shaken. No General Election has disturbed it. The Ministerial engagement of February 20, 1851, cannot be said to have altered the position of the country. The series of Bills, which since that epoch have been withdrawn, repudiated, or defeated, can hardly be described as a reversal of the judgment on the broad question Mr. Hume so frequently submitted to the Legislature. Up to this moment the Empire seems to have pronounced that the supremacy of numbers is not the object of our policy. The question, whether it ought to become so, must open vast considerations unless one seemed at present to determine it. If it were not for that one consideration many feelings would incline me to concur with those who are demanding the change in the seat of power to which I have referred. The social welfare of the largest class appears to militate against it. The social welfare of that class must, in a great degree, depend upon the rate of wages. It is a long established truth that the rate of wages is determined by that relative amount of population, and of capital, of which the class receiving wages are themselves the arbiters. The State can do but little to promote the economic virtues which go to influence the labour market, as the effect of schools is rapidly obliterated. It has one other means at its disposal. The franchise may be so adjusted as to reward the industry and stimulate the prudence of the working man by making civil rights the goal of his exertion. But this process
  704
  is impossible when it requires no exertion upon his part to reach the body of electors, and where the franchise descends to him instead of his being drawn upwards to the limit. The political supremacy and social welfare of the working class appear irreconcilable. If the greatest happiness of the greatest number is pursued, it is not by giving them, in all boroughs, an electoral majority that we can ever hope for its attainment. On this ground alone, which it appears impossible to strengthen, however easy to support, the State could hardly feel entitled, unless an overpowering necessity was seen, to transfer the ruling power to the numerical majority. But if that transfer could be justified by some new considerations not yet established or explained, at least, what I would now suggest may be conceded by all parties. It is that such a mode of government ought not to be embraced without a resolution to embrace it, and that we ought not to reach a new and pregnant form of national existence without intending to arrive at it. When a noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon), whom I now see in his place, told your Lordships years ago that we were drifting into war, his language must have been full of meaning, or it would not have been so frequently referred to as it has been. What I understand the noble Earl to have implied is that the vessel of the State, with no effective pilot at the helm, at the mercy of the winds, the waves, and currents it encountered, by starts and bounds was moving onwards to a point to which volition and design had never previously impelled it. Since 1851, we have observed in the action of successive Governments the same kind of movement towards the rule of the numerical majority, although corrected by the sense, and baffled by the fortune of the Empire. It is now time that a condition so full of uncertainty, of danger and of weakness, should exhaust itself. It is time that, if we cannot resolve upon a transfer in the seat of power, we should resolve against the method which is certain to precipitate it.
  My Lords, that task appears to be a simple one; because one method only can precipitate the end I have referred to. No form of voting can precipitate it, since forms of voting do not change the body of electors. No measure on the county franchise can precipitate it, since the counties do not send the Parliamentary majority. The only scheme by which you can transfer power from the middle class to

  705
  the numerical majority is the direct downward vertical extension of the £10 suffrage in all boroughs indiscriminately, without security or balance. By this method only can you reach a system which consigns the greater number of elections, and thus the greater number of elected, to the largest class in the community. But, on the other hand, no doubt the method is infallible. An intermediate basis of £5, £6, or £7 qualification can never have stability. Men who do not see this should hardly be allowed to touch the lowest wheel of our political machinery. The Democratic party have repeatedly declared in Parliament and out of it that household suffrage, in the sense in which Mr. Hume explained it, is their object. Their present Leader has renewed that declaration. They stand pledged by a series of conspicuous and now historical proceedings, which had their origin in 1848, to agitate in favour of it. The intermediate suffrage would enhance their power, and would not take away their motive to demand it. The best authorities—I mean such persons as Sismondi and De Tocqueville—have agreed that the lower franchise is less easy to defend against ulterior encroachment than the higher one. The line of reasoning which guides them I do not now repeat, because last Session I endeavoured to submit it to your Lordships. Causes which are general and abstract would therefore blend themselves with causes which are personal and local; the law which governs Democratic movement in the world, the facts which bind the Democratic party in our country, would unite to hurry on your intermediate limit to the household suffrage which it points to. Household suffrage, if we mean by it a law that all rated houses should give votes to their occupiers, is shown by the statistics the late Government presented to involve an unmeasured transfer of power from the electors to the non-electors in nearly all the boroughs of the kingdom. That I might not rely too much on the impressions derived from the blue book, I have recently confirmed them by the best statistical inquirers. Such must be the issue of direct and vertical extension in all boroughs, uniformly given, without any kind of compensation to protect the less extensive class against the larger one. And the question I shall now venture to submit to your Lordships is—Are we committed by some irrevocable circumstances to a policy so weak, so fatal, and disastrous, if you
  706
  do not wish the State to be controlled by the numerical majority; so just, so deep, and so unerring, if that result is one the Empire pursues?
  My Lords, in consequence of that policy having been frequently attempted, the impulse of the House would be, perhaps, to say that although it cannot be defended it cannot be escaped. To probe this vital question some reference to the past is unavoidable, and will therefore be, I trust, forgiven by your Lordships. These difficulties all arose in the Parliament which first met in November 1847, and sat till 1852. In that Parliament there was not a vote of any kind to sustain, to indicate, or to encourage a simple and direct extension of the £10 suffrage in all boroughs; and the result to which that system, as I have shown, leads, was year after year repelled by overpowering majorities. In the whole Parliament there were but two divisions in favour of any change in the Reform Act; a majority in favour of the ballot in 1848, a majority to read the first time a Bill on the extension of the county franchise in 1851. Both of these majorities were known to be accidents; both of thorn were reversed; both of them were inoperative as regards the points they favoured; but they contain the sum total of the lessons on Reform that Parliament administered, and they did not in any way suggest the policy in question. It first appeared in the Bill of 1852, and ten days afterwards the Parliament withdrew its confidence from those who had presented it. The Parliament which sat from 1852 to 1857 in no way departed from the judgment of its predecessor. The policy was urged again in 1854; and it would be almost ironical to say it met with no decided sanction or conspicuous encouragement, the Bill having been set aside by general remonstrance from all the parties in the State, and all the journals which are thought to influence opinion. No vote for any change in the Reform Act ever happened in that Parliament. The Parliament, which sat from 1857 to 1859, no doubt passed a Resolution on the second reading of the Bill, introduced by the noble Earl over the way and Mr. Disraeli, to the effect that the borough franchise ought to be extended further than that Bill proposed. But it was not pointed out in what mode it ought to be extended, or that in all boroughs the extension should be uniform. The Resolution was ambiguous; and we all know

  707
  the real issue on which the Parliament pronounced was whether the Bill should be accepted or rejected. The Parliament which sat from 1859 to 1865 had very soon—in 1860—the opportunity to baffle and repel the policy I have referred to. The Bill of 1860, founded on it, was disposed of by a long series of Liberal attacks, and by the silence of Lord Palmerston. In 1865 the same judgment was pronounced by the same Parliament. In the Parliament which now exists, when the late proposal for a £7 limit in all boroughs was on the verge of being discussed, the project was swept away upon an issue raised by a near relative of the noble Marquess near me (the Marquess of Clanricarde). Up to this very moment the country stands unwedded to that policy. In 1852 it came from the Executive which it destroyed. Its importunity, indeed, has never been exhausted. It has marked and vitiated nearly every subsequent proposal. The fatal track has been adhered to. The wheels have never left the rut originally chosen. Reform has floundered where it fell. From the Bill of 1852 it passed, with variations of amount, to that of 1854, to that of 1860, to that of 1866. In the same way, my Lords, we hear from learned men that fabulous mistakes in history have been sometimes transmitted from the Middle Ages to our own, as each work became the stagnant copy of its predecessor. In spite of all its pertinacity the mistake in this transaction has not been endorsed by Parliament, or by the body of the Liberals. However lured by eloquence, however goaded by authority, however overawed by partizanship, of which we know the fascination and the terror, an instinct yet more powerful has guarded them against it. On every occasion they have seen further than the leaders who impelled them, and resolved to stand still before the danger in the path.
  My Lords, by the indulgence of the House, three propositions may now, I trust, appear sufficiently established—That we are not as yet prepared for measures, after which the supremacy of numbers over Parliament must be considered unavoidable; that indiscriminate and vertical extension of the £10 limit in all boroughs is the single, clear, and open way to that result; and that on that way we have not entered yet, and are not forced to enter. Very little further is required to support the Resolution I shall have the honour of submitting to your Lordships. And no-
  708
  thing shall come from me which does not bear directly and essentially upon it.
  By their Addresses to the Crown both Houses have declared a readiness to consider legislation on Reform. A necessity for legislation on the subject is acknowledged. In 1859 it was proposed to increase the number of electors by a large variety of methods which involved nowhere any change in the £10 qualification. It was said that 500,000 voters might be so created. Justly or unjustly an incredulity exists upon that subject. Such a mode of acting would scarcely meet the exigency of the moment. We must in some way disturb the present limit in the boroughs. There are two practicable methods by which you may approach it beyond the method I have dwelt upon so long, and which the country has so frequently repudiated. You may extend it in all boroughs with plurality of voting to guard the old electors from a virtual disfranchisement, or you may extend it in some boroughs to a low degree, retaining it substantially inviolate in others.
  My Lords, it is far from my intention to inveigh against plurality of voting. Great injustice has been done to it. It has been confounded with the system by which every elector would be permitted to heap all his votes upon one candidate so as to give a representative to the minority, and also with the system by which votes would be apportioned according to a sliding scale to income. Plurality of voting, I am bound to admit, involves no principle more startling than that, above a given limit, men shall have a greater voting power than beneath it. After some organic change, by which, in a single borough, 4,000 new electors had been added to 2,000 old ones, plurality which conferred two votes on all the old electors above the £10 limit would give them equal power with the new ones underneath it who must otherwise absorb, and not divide, the power of the borough. In point of fact, the principle exists already in our system—in a form more violent than that which I have just imagined. The principle is that of simple inequality, and it is now enforced by making householders above £10 electors—beneath that limit, non-electors in a borough. It would then be enforced by giving householders above a determined point a certain voting power, and householders beneath that point a lesser voting power. And in degree, the present inequality, so far from being ex-

  709
  tended, would be mitigated. The inequality of a positive and of a negative is greater than the inequality of a whole and of a fraction. The inequality of an elector and a non-elector is greater than the inequality of an elector with two votes in a class numerically weak, and an elector with one vote in a class numerically powerful.
  But, my Lords, although I have endeavoured to uphold the system of plurality against the obloquy and misconception which surround it, I cannot be blind to the fact that they are nearly fatal to its prospect. At this moment it is clear, if it was not before, that a Commission should have been appointed in the autumn to familiarize the public with a method which might have put an end to many dangers which exist. It would be far too sanguine now to count upon that method. No one understands, and every one in consequence denounces it. We are thus forced on the alternative the Resolution points to. It is, that in certain boroughs you should have a suffrage which avowedly and openly—not by hidden germ and shuffling descent—gives the working classes an ascendancy in voting. The principle is not in want of explanation. It has been known for centuries amongst us. In Preston, up to 1832, we learn from the well-known work of Oldfield that the right of voting fell to all the body of inhabitants. 100 Members so returned would give the working classes advocates and organs, although it would not give them a majority in Parliament. By this method you might add with case 1,000,000 of electors to the register, and yet not advance a step to the control of numbers over Government. It would not be an innovation cither in our system under the Reform Act. Diversity of franchise is still its strong characteristic. In Universities men vote on one qualification; in counties on another; in boroughs on a third; and it would be ridiculous to hold that, by establishing a fourth in cities, which form a class alone, a novel principle would be insinuated.
  My Lords, it would be too fatiguing to the House, and too exhausting to myself, to dwell on the collateral advantages to be obtained from such a measure. Able writers have explained them; but it is not swayed by thoughts like theirs that I have ventured to address you. We are in a grave political dilemma. The line of indiscriminate descent in all boroughs is exploded because we are not ready to confront the vital change which it eventually
  710
  involves. The policy of 1859 (or lateral Reform) is insufficient for the moment. Plurality of voting is discredited. No course remains but to deliver boroughs from the iron uniformity which began in 1832, and which makes a large addition to the number of electors either fatal or impossible. If I am asked to name the practical advantage which the Resolution, if adopted, would secure, I do not hesitate to answer that without it the hope of such a salutary line would be materially lessened. The Resolution, if adopted by your Lordships, must be canvassed and explored in every society and every journal of the kingdom. It could not be evaded or forgotten by the mind of the community, and planted there might find its way into the statute book. Publicity is all you want to give effect to truth, and this—beyond the reach of individuals—your Lordships have the power of conferring. At the same time, if it would add to the difficulties of the Government in the present situation of affairs, I should not even wish it to be carried. It is well known that the Opposition are, in some degree, divided into sections, of which one is anxious to delay a crisis, the other ready to precipitate it. On public grounds belonging to the first, and day by day rejoicing in the strength which it acquires, I could not lend myself to any course by which Her Majesty's Advisors would be weakened in their attempt to grapple with the difficulties they have not created but inherited. Until, however, I have reason to suppose that it would add to their embarrassment, believing it would guide their course towards the safety of the Empire, I move the Resolution—
  That in the Opinion of this House, in any further Scheme to amend the Reform Act of 1832 and increase the Body of Electors, it is not desirable or necessary that all Boroughs should return Members by the same Qualification.—(Lord Campbell.)
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot forbear from entreating my noble Friend not to ask the House to come to a vote upon the Resolution he has proposed. I am far from denying that the question it brings before us is one which, at a proper time, will be well deserving of our serious consideration; but it is only one of many questions which must arise with reference to Reform, and which will have to be considered when the whole subject is regularly brought before your Lordships, and, I submit, it would be extremely inconvenient on this occasion to select one only of these

  711
  questions for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon it. This is what we are asked to do by the Motion before us, and I would therefore strongly urge upon my noble Friend not to press this Resolution upon the House. I cannot, however, offer this advice without at the same time expressing a hope that the great question of Reform will be brought before your Lordships at such a period of the Session and in such a manner as to give this House a proper opportunity of considering it. If the Bill is to be proceeded with—as I understand it is—immediately upon the adoption of the Resolutions which have been submitted to the other House of Parliament, and is only, after it has been considered in all its details, sent up to this House for your Lordships' concurrence, then I would submit that we should not have an opportunity of considering to any useful purpose the detailed provisions of the measure. I would therefore suggest a different course. I would beg to remind your Lordships that when, in 1833, the great and difficult question of the abolition of slavery was brought before Parliament by the noble Earl now at the head of the Government, who was at that time Secretary for the Colonies, that measure was submitted to the House of Commons in the form of Resolutions; those Resolutions became the heads of the intended Bill; they were discussed at great length in the other House of Parliament, and after being materially altered, were brought up to this House for your Lordships' concurrence. Your Lordships then discussed the Resolutions to which you agreed; they were returned to the other House of Parliament; and a Bill founded on them was brought in which ultimately became law. That course was found to be extremely convenient upon that occasion; and I would venture to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government will follow the precedent then set, and adopt a similar course with the Reform Resolutions. It seems to me that great advantage would attend the adoption of such a course. By adopting it after the Resolutions had been agreed to in the House of Commons, and before a Bill was introduced, your Lordships would have an opportunity of fully considering the principles upon which that Bill is to be framed before it is submitted to Parliament, or its provisions finally decided upon. The Resolutions which we learn from the Votes of the other House are now before them will, I trust, be modified in the course of the discussion, and be sent
  712
  to us by the House of Commons in a form so clear and specific as to form the proper ground-work for a Bill, which can hardly be said of them at the present moment. Your Lordships would thus have an opportunity of discussing the principles of the measure at a time when the expression of your views might influence the ultimate decision on the Bill. On the other hand, it is quite clear that if we only receive the Bill very late in the Session, after all its details have been discussed and finally determined upon in the other House of Parliament, it will be very difficult for us to introduce any modifications, or express any opinions which would be likely to have their due weight in the House of Commons. It appears to me that this is a subject which may be very usefully discussed in this House, before the detailed provisions of the measure are settled and embodied in a Bill; and I would beg to point out that your Lordships seem to me to possess greater advantages in some respects for the due consideration of this important question than the other House; because we cannot conceal from ourselves that there are portions of any measure of Reform which must very materially affect the interests of individual Members of the other House, and the mere fact that they do affect their interests may seriously influence the decision to which the House of Commons may come. For instance, in considering the principle upon which re-distribution of seats shall be settled, it is impossible that many Members of the House of Commons should not be aware that the decision at which the House may arrive on this question will seriously affect their individual prospects of being returned to the reformed House of Commons, and their votes on that question may not unnaturally be somewhat biassed by that consideration. Now, your Lordships would be entirely free from that bias. In considering this question your Lordships could deal with it with greater freedom and greater impartiality than it could be dealt with in some cases by Members of the House of Commons; and therefore the prospects of the adoption of a measure suited to the wants of the country would be materially improved by having the principles upon which it is to be framed discussed in this House before the Bill is finally adopted by the House of Commons. If the contrary course is adopted the measure may come so late before your Lordships that however desirable it may be to settle the question during the present

  713
  Session, it may be impossible for us to do so—because I hold that it is the bounden duty of this House not to pass a measure of such transcendent importance unless we can give it a deliberate examination, and that careful consideration which the subject undoubtedly requires. If it comes before us without any preliminary examination at the very end of the Session, it may be very difficult indeed for your Lordships to pass the Bill this year. But more than this—it appears to me that a preliminary examination of the principles of the Bill is calculated to diminish the danger of a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. It is quite possible that your Lordships may take a different view from the House of Commons on some points of the measure. If so, a preliminary discussion of the Resolutions would greatly tend to prevent a serious disagreement between the two Houses on such points of difference, and to make it easier to come to a common understanding, so that a satisfactory Bill might be carried in the present Session. A good many of your Lordships can, like myself, remember the great struggle for Reform in the years 1831 and 1832. It is therefore unnecessary for me to say anything in order to convince your Lordships of the very serious nature of the evils which arise from a disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament on a great constitutional question, and it certainly would be a great misfortune if such a disagreement were to take place on the subject of Reform. I believe that the danger of this would be much diminished, if not entirely avoided, by the adoption of the course I propose; and that it would tend to prevent any disagreement between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons if your Lordships were to have a proper opportunity of discussing this all-important question. On this ground I consider it to be of great importance that the Resolutions should be sent to us from the other House before a Bill is introduced. I have taken this opportunity of throwing out the suggestion; but, at the same time, I have no desire to press the noble Earl at the head of the Government for an immediate answer. All I want is that the noble Earl and the Government should consider seriously what I have now said, and unless they have strong reasons for adopting a different course, I hope such Members of Her Majesty's Government as sit in the other House will ask that House to communicate the Reso-
  714
  lutions to which they may agree to your Lordships, and invite your Lordships to concur in them before a Bill is introduced. I will only add one word more. It seems to me that much of the advantage which is to be derived from the mode of proceeding by Resolution instead of by Bill would be lost if the Resolutions are not to come before the House before the Bill is framed; for if it is to be framed and discussed in the Commons before it comes before your Lordships, I am totally at a loss to see what useful purpose the Resolutions will answer, at least so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. On the other hand, if we con first discuss the Resolutions, I cannot but think that the probability of passing a sound measure of Reform will be greatly increased.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is not necessary for me, in the few words I have to say, to trespass long upon your Lordships' attention. It is very satisfactory to me, as it must be to the other Members of Her Majesty's Government, to see noble Lords in this House anticipating an early opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Reform Bill which is to be introduced into the other House of Parliament, It is also satisfactory to find that there is not that objection felt upon the part of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and other noble Lords to the mode of proceeding by preliminary Resolution, which has been so strongly expressed elsewhere. But, my Lords, the noble Baron who introduced this question must forgive me if I decline to enter into it and to follow him in the historical review of the steps which have been taken, and into an argument upon the principles of the proposed Bill. I must decline to discuss in any degree the character of the provisions of a Bill which is not yet submitted to the Legislature, or the basis of Resolutions which have not yet been discussed by the other House. My Lords, whatever advantages there may be in proceeding by Resolution, I do not think that any advantage could be derived from selecting a single portion of what may or may not be in the Bill, and passing an abstract Resolution upon the subject of that particular point. Moreover, my Lords, the noble Lord's Resolution, I must say, is one that does not appear to me very much to advance the solution of the question; because it is to the effect that it is not expedient in any future arrangement of the franchise that the suffrage in all boroughs should be based upon the same

  715
  qualification. This does not at all help us forward. The noble Lord only advances the simple abstract proposition—he does not tell us on what principle he would introduce a variety in the suffrage, or on what ground we should be justified in giving the inhabitants of one town a precise qualification which was to be withheld from the inhabitants of another, nor does he tell us why he would withhold the right of voting from any one town. I perfectly agree with the noble Lord that a mistake was made in 1832 by the abolition of a number of various franchises which had existed previous to that time. Many of them had become objectionable on some grounds, but as they had grown up during a length of time, and in the course of a vast number of years, they had the advantage of introducing various qualifications in different places, and enabling different boroughs to be represented by Members who were returned by different classes of electors. But that is a very different thing from attempting, after you had adopted the dead level of a uniform franchise in all boroughs, to introduce into them various descriptions of franchise—which have no authority to recommend them, and for the adoption of which in one borough no reason applies which does not also apply in the case of another borough. However, my Lords, without discussing the provisions of a Bill which is not yet introduced, I may perhaps be permitted to say that I do not at all agree with the noble Lord in his description of the Bill which he says it is intended to introduce. He describes it as a measure for the transfer of political power from the middle classes to a numerical majority—by which I suppose he means the most numerous class of society. Now, I do not think that that can be taken as the meaning of the portion of Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne which spoke of the extension of the suffrage without unduly disturbing the balance of political power. The noble Lord tells me that there are only one or two modes of extending the suffrage, and one of those modes is lowering it; which he says would have the effect of completely transferring political power to the numerical majority. I am not going to enter into the question of plurality of voting, or any of the other questions which the noble Lord has thought fit to describe as belonging to the measure; all I wish to say is, that the character given to the Bill which the noble Lord imagines we are about to introduce is very
  716
  different from the character of the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, and necessarily from that of any measure which it is intended, in accordance with that paragraph, to introduce and pass through Parliament. I trust that the noble Baron will see that it is impossible for me upon the present occasion to discuss any portion of the very large and difficult measure which is about to be submitted in its integrity to Parliament, and that your Lordships will see that no advantage can be gained by your Lordships adopting a Resolution upon a point which may or may not come on for consideration hereafter. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), to whom I always listen with that respect that they invariably deserve, the noble Earl was kind enough to say that he did not expect from me upon the present occasion any precise or positive answer to the question. The noble Earl very courteously sent me notice this morning that he intended to make the suggestion he has just made; but I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting other Members of the Cabinet upon the point, and I should be sorry to give any opinion upon it offhand. I am, however, quite of opinion that it is a question which deserves the serious consideration of the Government. I can assure him that my only object, or at ail events my chief desire in dealing with this question is that the Bill should pass through the two Houses as rapidly as possible, and that as much time as possible should be given to your Lordships' House to discuss its principles. I shall be willing to adopt any course that will be most likely to expedite the passing of the measure, but my only doubt is whether the course suggested by the noble Earl might not lead to considerable delay. If the Resolutions, after passing the House of Commons, are to be submitted to your Lordships' House, and a full discussion is to take place upon them in order to ascertain how far we agree with the House of Commons upon the principle of those Resolutions, it appears to me that all that time the Bill will be hung up, and wholly withdrawn from the consideration of Parliament. I do not wish to express any precise opinion upon the suggestion made by the noble Earl at the present moment—it is one that deserves to be considered; but my object is to accelerate as much as possible the safe settlement of a most important question:—and as far as opinions have as yet been indicated,

  717
  it has not met with any opposition of a character threatening to interfere with the consideration of the measure, and as far as the proceedings of the other House have hitherto gone we have no sign that any factious opposition will be resorted to. My Lords, it will be a most happy circumstance indeed if the two sides of the House, feeling the necessity for mutual agreement and confidence in reference to this question, meet in a spirit of calm and deliberate discussion, resolved to bring about an early and satisfactory settlement of this most important matter in which the happiness and prosperity of the country is concerned.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this question is, I think, not only very important, but very difficult; and it will be but right in this and the other House of Parliament to allow the Government to use their own discretion in respect to the mode in which the question should be proceeded with. It is true, however, that there are objections to dealing with the question by Resolutions; though it must also he admitted that such a method of procedure has its advantages; and the same may be said of the suggestion of the noble Earl. The discussion by your Lordships of the Resolutions come to by the other House might lead to a complete canvassing of the main principles of the measure before it assumed the shape of a Bill; but, on the other hand, it would lead to considerable delay, and, for my part, I am quite willing that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) should consider the matter and take that course which to him seems most likely to bring about the result he aims at. With regard to the Motion before your Lordships, I must say the noble Earl made a very valid objection to it when he said it was vague and indefinite. I quite agree with him, and I think it is fatal to the Resolution; but I have seen certain other Resolutions to which I think the same objection will apply.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I said it was a negative Resolution, and did not advance the matter.
  BAUL RUSSELL: You said the noble Lord was ready to affirm something and did not know what that something was; that seems to me to be an elaboration of the description "indefinite." I trust, however, that next week, before the noble Earl has made up his mind on the suggestion of my noble Friend (Earl Grey), we shall know what is actually to be proposed
  718
  to Parliament upon the subject; for at present, whether it be from my own want of sagacity or no, I am absolutely at a loss to know what the Resolutions on Reform, which are well known to the public, mean. I am indifferent as to the method of procedure, or the nature of the propositions; but I do want some definite propositions upon which this and the other House can say "Aye" or "No" with a clear understanding of the question decided on.
  EARL GREYsaid, that what he desired was to have a preliminary discussion on the proposals of the Government in the same way as was done with the Slavery Abolition Bill; and he could not but think time would be saved if the Resolutions were discussed by their Lordships before they assumed the shape of a Bill. The preliminary discussion in 1833 enabled the Bill to pass with very little trouble.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the form of procedure suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) concerned the other House as a question of privilege. He doubted whether the House of Commons should be asked to forward their Resolutions to their Lordships for discussion before the Bill was framed. It should, in his opinion, be left to the other House to take its own course in the matter, and if the suggestion were made at all it should be made not by a Member of the Government but by a private Member.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was surprised, considering that the question was one which affected the interests and the welfare of Englishmen of all classes, and one which might possibly change the governing authority of this great nation, to hear the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down give utterance to a doctrine which he certainly had thought would not have found expression in their Lordships' assembly.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if the question were a Railway Bill, or other matter of detail, the question of time might be a consideration; but when the measure was one of the greatest importance to the country—in fact, one essential to the Constitution and likely to settle that Constitution for a great number of years—he was sure their Lordships would think it entitled to the fullest discussion, no matter at what period of the Session it might be introduced.
  LORD REDESDALEdesired, in answer to the noble Earl (Earl Grey), to remark that though the question was one, as the

  719
  noble Earl had justly said, affecting the interests and welfare of the nation at large, it was one which also materially affected the constitution of the House of Commons. It would not, he thought, be right for their Lordships to initiate a measure by which the constitution of the other House would be affected, or to proceed to a discussion of such a measure without an express invitation from the assembly so greatly concerned.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as the noble Earl the First Minister had expressed an unwillingness to adopt the Resolution, after his former statement he should not feel at liberty to press it. The noble Earl was perfectly mistaken in supposing that he (Lord Campbell) had in any way denounced his coming measure as a transfer of power to the numerical majority. He had not indulged in any speculation, much less description, with regard to it; but had only ventured to remark that, before any kind of practical suggestion on Reform could be given to the country, the question—Were we ready to accelerate that transfer—ought to be encountered. So far from complaining of the reserve the noble Earl had exercised, he wished that reserve had been extended further, and that the noble Earl had not in any manner compromised his freedom with regard to the principle the Resolution had embodied. A noble Earl (Earl Grey) had thought fit to disparage the Resolution as a negative one. It might be negative in the form of words which happened to be used, but it was quite affirmative in character. It affirmed the intelligible policy of introducing into boroughs more than one qualification. That policy alone could meet the problem of the day; and either House of Parliament, in his opinion, "was justified in urging it upon Her Majesty's Advisers.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MR. FRANCE S PAMPHLET.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee; The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Half past Four o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chairman:—

  Ld. Steward

  L. Somerhill

  E. Spencer

  L. Taunton.

  E. Cathcart

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Order Committee on appointed: The Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee;—
  720

  Ld. President

  V. Eversley

  D. Somerset

  L. Camoys

  M. Winchester

  L. Saye and Sele

  M. Bath

  L. Colville of Culross

  M. Ailesbury

  L. Ponsonby

  E. Devon

  L. Sondes

  E. Airlie

  L. Foley

  E. Hardwicke

  L. Dinevor

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Sheffield

  E. Belmore

  L. Silchester

  E. Romney

  L. De Tabley

  E. Chichester

  L. Wynford

  E. Powis

  L. Portman

  E. Verulam

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Saint Germans

  L. Aveland

  E. De Grey

  L. Belper

  E. Stradbroke

  L. Ebury

  E. Amherst

  L. Churston

  E. Kimberley

  L. Egerton

  V. Sydney

  L. Penrhyn.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.