Sitting of 14 May 1868

MINUTES.
SUPPLY— considered in Committee —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class III.
PUBLIC BILLS— Ordered—Unclaimed Prize Money (India) *; Established Church (Ireland).
First Reading — Established Church (Ireland) [117].
Second Reading—Partition * [107]. Committee—Boundary Bill [165]—R.P.
Third Reading — Customs and Income Tax * [108]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000) * [112].

METROPOLIS—IRON GATES IN DEVONSHIRE PLACE AND WIMPOLE STREET.—QUESTION.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works is aware that Iron Gates are still continued at the end of Devonshire Place and Wimpole Street, being one of the principal thoroughfares between Oxford Street and the New Road, and that such Gates are refused to be opened to the public unless a gratuity is given to the Gatekeeper; and, if the Board are aware of it, whether they propose to take any steps with reference thereto; and, further, whether the road is repaired at the public expense or by any private individual?
MR. TITEsaid, this matter is but a portion of a large question which has been under the consideration of the Metropolitan Board since January last year. There are between 200 and 300 gates of a similar character in the metropolis, and thirty in the parish of St. Pancras alone. The Board first memorialized the House of Lords to refer the matter to the Committee inquiring into Municipal Regulations, but that was not attended to. They then applied to the Home Secretary, who, after considering the subject very carefully, replied that the case was surrounded with so many difficulties that he was unable to bring in a Bill on the subject. The particular cases referred to by the hon. Member for Chippenham are not peculiar. The Board know of no justification for charging anything in the shape of a toll, which would be illegal; but the gates bolong in many cases to the owners of the property on which the streets are built, and the Board have no power to interfere. They hope, however, to be able to bring in a Bill next Session. The expense of repairing the roads where such gates exist is, in many cases, borne by the parishes.

LIBRARY AND MUSEUM OF THE PATENT OFFICE.—QUESTION.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government intend to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Patent Office of 1864, and of the Commissioners of Patents made at various periods, with regard to the Library and Museum of the Patent Office, and to find proper accommodation for them; and, if not, why not?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that the result of the recommendations of the Committee was that a room, ninety feet long and fifty feet wide, had been provided for the purpose of a library, and no complaints had been received of want of accommodation; though if it were found to be insufficient there would be no difficulty in increasing it considerably. The recommendations of the Committee respecting the Museum of Patents were not very clear, and the Government, for various reasons, did not intend to submit any proposals on the subject to Parliament.

METROPOLIS—IMPROVEMENTS IN PARK LANE.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT HAMILTONsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Upon whom rests the responsibility of the present impeded state of the thoroughfare in Park Lane; why the works have continued so long unfinished; and, how many men a-day are employed upon them, and when there is a probability of the works being completed?
COLONEL HOGGsaid, perhaps the noble Lord would allow him to answer the Questions. The Metropolitan Board of Works were at present engaged in altering the thoroughfare in Park Lane. Towards the end of last year their attention was drawn by the St. George's Vestry to the state of Park Lane. A Committee was formed, and, after various conferences between the First Commissioner of Works, the Committees of the Metropolitan Board, and the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, it was agreed that a roadway should be formed of a minimum width of 40 feet, a footpath on the east side of a minimum width of 10 feet, and one on the west side of a uniform width of 8 feet. The deed was signed and deposited with the First Commissioner of Works on the 28th of January, 1868, and on the 31st the contractor was ordered to commence the work. He was allowed

245
twelve weeks to complete it, and, accordingly, it ought to have been completed on the 24th of April. A delay had, however, been occasioned by the necessity of altering the levels of the road in various places, which, though not originally contemplated, was found to be advantageous to both the thoroughfare and the Park. At present there were twenty men on the work, which were as many as could be conveniently employed. At times, during the progress of the job, there had been as many as 100 men on it. The portion of the road between Oxford Street and Mount Street was completely open, that from Mount Street to Stanhope Gate would be open this week, and the remainder would be open in about ten days from the present time.

LEGISLATION FOR SCOTLAND

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the following Bills: — Land Writs Registration (Scotland), Court of Justiciary (Scotland), Court of Session (Scotland), County General Assessment (Scotland, and Entail Amendment (Scotland); and, if so, on what day?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that he did intend to proceed with the Land Writs Registration, the Court of Justiciary, and the Entail Amendment Bills. The County General Assessment Bill stood for second reading that evening; and he proposed that it should be read a second time, in order that it might be reprinted with Amendments, which had been suggested at various county meetings held in April last. Recommendations from several legal corporations upon the subject of the Court of Session Bill were now under the consideration of the Government; and he would state next week what course he would take with reference to that measure.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—THE COMPOUND-HOUSE HOLDER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, What steps the Government propose to take to remedy the alleged evils and hardships which have resulted from the abolition of the Compound-Householder; whether it is intended to introduce home general scheme of uniformity of Poor Rate, or whether it is intended to await the
  246
  Report of the Select Committee on Poor Rates Assessment, &c.?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, in reply, that, when his attention was first drawn to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, it occurred to him, remembering the discussions and divisions of last, year with reference to the compound-householder, that it ought to have been addressed to some more responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government. The Bill introduced by the Poor Law Department in the present Session in no way affected the compound-householder. The hon. Member must be aware that on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) a Select Committee had been appointed to consider this and other questions. Now, if he might offer his private opinion, he thought that neither the House nor the Government would be likely to legislate on the subject without a full consideration of the Report of that Committee.

  THE CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES— EMPLOYMENT IN CIVIL DEPART MENTS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that in a Report of a Committee (composed of Mr. Goulburn, the Vice Controller of Customs, Mr. Farrar, and Mr. Williams, of the Board of Trade), presented to the Treasury in June 1865, a strong recommendation was made of the expediency of employing Commissionaires in the various Civil Departments of the United Kingdom, on the special grounds of "efficiency" and "economy;" and, if so, whether there will be any objection on the part of the Government to produce that part of the Report relating to the Corps of Commissionaires?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the Report to which he had alluded made no such recommendation as he appeared to suppose. The Committee confined their recommendation exclusively to the employment of two Commissionaires in the office of the Registrar General of Seamen. It was not their duty to report generally. The Report was a confidential one, addressed to the Board of Trade, and he therefore could not lay it on the table.

IRELAND—CUSTOMS' OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STOCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the First Clerk in the Customs at Dublin should have a salary of only £400 a-year, his Collector's salary being £1,000, when the First Clerk at Glasgow had a salary of £450, although his Collector's salary was only £800?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the hon. Member was misinformed as to the salaries of those officers. The establishment at Dublin and that at Glasgow were in precisely the same classification as regarded the salaries of the clerks. The Chief Clerk at each place had a salary of £350, rising by annual increments to £400. It was true that the Collector at Dublin had a higher salary than the Collector at Glasgow, because he was a sort of Surveyor General in Ireland.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he wished to ask an important Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. He regretted that he had only been able to give him private Notice after he entered the House. The question he wished to ask was, After what hour he will not take the Suspensory Bill; and, whether, as the right hon. Gentleman can bring the matter before Parliament without the least delay, and without interfering with the necessary business of the country, he will, if he still persists in his present intentions, introduce the Bill at such an hour as will permit a full discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have no difficulty in answering the question for want of Notice, because it appears to me to be simple in its character. The Motion which I have to make for the introduction of this Bill is a Motion which I believe, in conformity with the ordinary usages of the House, I should have been perfectly justified in making immediately after the Report of the Resolutions which passed through the Committee, and a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill under such circumstances, as far as my recollection goes, is uniformly acceded to as a matter of course. It was from motives which I explained on a former occasion that, in deference to the Crown, I did not bring in the Bill at that time, I trust I shall be allowed to put
  248
  myself in as good a position as I should have been in if I had been able to proceed in the usual course, at whatever hour I may have the opportunity.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: We shall feel it our duty in this case to give the right hon. Gentleman a precedent for future occasions in regard to the introduction of Bills of such a nature.

BOUNDARY BILL— [BILL 78.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.)
BOUNDARY BILL— [BILL 78.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is to be regretted, although I do not think it is matter of blame to anyone, that there was no discussion on the subject of this Bill when it was read a second time; because it involves consideration of a nature that can hardly be discussed in Committee, unless we consider broader questions than are raised by any clause on the Motion for postponing the Preamble. With regard to the principal provisions of this Bill, we are in a position of very considerable difficulty, and it is only by the disposition of the sections of the House to co-operate that we have any chance of getting out of that difficulty. I will endeavour to explain the difficulty. First, I may say, for myself and those with whom I have had the means of communicating, that no part of the difficulty arises from the conduct of the Boundary Commissioners. They had entrusted to them a difficult duty with regard to the alteration of the existing boundaries of boroughs, and with scanty guidance from the House. They were to inquire into the boundaries of all boroughs, subject to the condition that they were in no case to recommend the contraction of those boundaries; but the main object of their inquiry was to be to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged so as to include within the limits of boroughs—
  "All premises which ought, due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances, to be included therein for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise."
  We must all feel that the task imposed upon the Commissioners was a very arduous one; and there was no notification given to them on the part of Parliament of the principle on which they were to found their proceedings, beyond the general words, "All premises, due regard being had to situation and other local circumstances." With these disadvantages the

  249
  Commissioners have earned our obligations by the care, intelligence, and impartiality they have displayed. For my own part, I know of but one case in which there is, upon the face of circumstances, any appearance of a palpable departure from the intention of their Instructions, and that is Baying a great deal when the cases to be dealt with were so numerous, the Commissioners having recommended the extension of the boundaries of about two-fifths of the boroughs of England. The exceptional case I refer to is that of Leamington and Warwick. So far as I can learn there is not the slightest imputation upon the Commissioners of any indirect aiming at augmenting the influence of one party or another by the recommendations they have made; nor is there, as far as I know, any such character even unintentionally attaching to those recommendations. There are however, points which it is absolutely necessary that we should take info view, not only without any disrespect to the Commissioners, but, on the contrary, with a strong feeling of gratitude for the way in which they have discharged a very difficult duty. I own that I have a prejudice in favour of the identity of Parliamentary and municipal boundaries. Obviously where the Parliamentary boundary is within the municipal boundary and covers a less area, there can be no difficulty about the extension to the frontier, so to speak, afforded by the municipal boundary; but the difficulty in departing from the identity of boundaries arises in this way— When we wish a town to be represented we must ask ourselves what we mean by a town? Do we mean an associated community having a common government? While very unwilling to admit of a wholesale departure from that principle, I do not ask the House to adopt it and deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners upon it, because the time to have done that was twelve months ago when the Commission was appointed. The point which I wish to bring fully into view is, that there is an element in this case which, in the absence of a clear principle like that of the identity of the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries, is the most important element of all, but which was not within the Instructions of the Commissioners— I mean the disposition of the parties, the disposition of a town to be extended, the disposition of a district to be annexed. The Commissioners have not considered that, and they were not ap-
  250
  pointed to inquire into the wishes of the inhabitants; but it is impossible we can exclude that element from our view. I will not say that the wish of the inhabitants ought to be conclusive with the House, and that there should be no extension, unless in cases where the town is willing to be enlarged, and the district is willing to be included; but this is a propotion for which I cannot help anticipating general if not universal assent—that where there is an unwillingness on the part of the town to be enlarged, and of the district to be included, that intelligence demands from this House in principle a fair consideration, and the time and opportunity necessary for such a purpose. Therefore I feel the greatest difficulty—nay, an impossibility, in adopting wholesale the recommendation of the Commissioners with respect to new boundaries for old boroughs, on the face of the evidence we have of a disinclination existing in many cases to its being done. That disinclination of the parties is not the only consideration we must take into view. There are others of a very serious nature. One is the effect which is produced by the extension of boundaries upon proprietary franchises. It is a portion of the Act of last year which I regret exceedingly, and I think we acted with great shortsightedness, at a period when we were so greatly multiplying the merely numerical force of the constituencies, in allowing so much extinction of proprietary franchises. In some cases it might almost be asserted that the effect of an extension of boundary as proposed will be simple disfranchisement; because there are cases in which the district proposed to be included is inhabited wholly by the middle class. The persons who constitute the population are men of business, having their places of business in the town, and having, in virtue of those offices, a vote for the borough, while their residences, being beyond the limits of the town, give them a vote for the county. I do not say this is a general rule; but where it is the case the effect of the extension of the boundary would be simple disfranchisement, because all those persons would lose votes for the county and they possess votes for the towns already. I mention this only as a reason for proceeding with deliberation in this matter. Another great reason is the effect of the extension of these boundaries with reference to compound-householders. With the sense of hardship and grievance that appears to prevail in many of the boroughs

  251
  of the country in consequence of the provisions of the Act of last year, we ought to be very cautious about extending these provisions in cases where the inhabitants do not desire such extension. Further, I do not think that the Report of the Commissioners can be considered as final. I do not think we can conclude this from the Report of the Commissioners, because they themselves have brought into view the inconvenient effect of the regulation imposed on them, that in no case were they to recommend a contraction of the areas of existing boroughs. They refer to the case of Salisbury, and having some partial acquaintance with the borough, I can attest the truth of their remarks. Then I call the attention of the House to this fact, that the Commissioners, proceeding in this matter as they have done in all other matters, in a spirit of fairness and impartiality, report on the indisposition which they found in certain districts to be annexed to the neighbouring towns. I refer to the words of their Report—
  "We found, in some cases, a general indisposition on the part of persons residing in the neighbourhood of a borough to permit themselves to be included within the Parliamentary boundaries —an indisposition which, in almost every case, was attributed to the fear of an extended Parliamentary boundary being followed by a similar extension of the municipal area, and that they would then be liable for the borough rates."
  Now, the fact is one thing, and the reason is another. The fact is one that requires our gravest consideration, and as for the reason I must say there is a good deal in it. I will not say that the extension of Parliamentary boundaries at all leads, as a necessary consequence, to the extension of municipal boundaries; but I think the plain tendency is in that direction, and if those who live within the Parliamentary and without the municipal boundaries feel that they are more likely to be drawn into the municipal net, they naturally object to being brought within the Parliamentary boundaries. But this frank declaration of the Parliamentary Commissioners as to the indisposition, is only to be drawn out of their Report. They tell us they have received all the memorials addressed to them through the Assistant Commissioners; but those memorials are not before us, and we cannot tell whether they include the whole or nearly the whole of the boroughs where an extension is recommended. [Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman says not the whole, and I was quite prepared for
  252
  that statement, because I believe that in some cases there may be a great desire for annexation; but the other cases will require our serious consideration. As far as I am concerned, wherever there is a desire that the recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried into effect, or where there is a disposition to acquiesce in their recommendations, I think, in all such cases, we would do well at once to give effect to their recommendations. On the other hand, I own I, for one, am not prepared—I do not believe that this House is prepared—to over-ride, without any further examination the objections of the districts, where it may reasonably be presumed that there is a very divided state of opinion, or still more where there is positive aversion on the part of the inhabitants. Today we have had some remarkable evidence before the House, in the shape of the various petitions and memorials that have been presented. I especially refer to the petition from Aston, in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, where it appears that out of 6,000 ratepayers nearly 5,000 have petitioned against being included in the Parliamentary boundaries of Birmingham. Now, it is impossible, I think, to refuse these parties a fair hearing of their case. That will not be acting against the judgment of the Commissioners; for the Commissioners have not heard them, not thinking themselves allowed to do so. I believe they were right, and that it was not the intention of Parliament that they should have any jurisdiction in the matter. The House, however, is entitled—nay, more, is bound to hear them. I may mention a case. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) has put together, I have no doubt, with great dilligence, all the names, [Mr. M. T. BASS: No !]—well, nearly all the names which he can collect, in which there is a decided feeling on the part of the inhabitants, or in which there is the manifestations of a divided state of opinion; and I should require that all those cases shall be reserved for further consideration. Our general position with reference to this Bill is very much like that in which we were placed in a debate twenty-four hours ago, when a Member rose at 30 minutes past 5 to continue a debate which he well knew would, at 45 minutes past 5, by the rules of this House, settle itself. I do not say that position was at all unreasonable; I use it merely for the purpose of illustration. If there be elaborate discussion and examination of details, followed by divi-

  253
  sions, with reference to one by one of the towns the names of which are included in the Schedule, why the question will settle itself, for it will be totally impossible for the Bill to pass before the 10th of June, in which case I apprehend it will not, as the law stands, be available for the purpose of registration in the present year. Under these circumstances we find a very natural explanation of the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) to postpone the consideration of the Commissioners' recommendations to a time when we can view the whole matter deliberately, and can consider calmly upon what principle we shall proceed with respect to these very various and different cases. Undoubtedly, I for one, if I were driven, on the one hand, to postpone the consideration of the Report, or as the only other alternative, to; go into these debates in the face of a strong opposition, or of a divided and conflicting state of opinion on the part of the inhabitants, I own it appears to me that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham offers the only solution the House can possibly have. It remains for us, however, to consider whether it may be possible by the use of any means which are at the command of the House, or whether the Government can suggest any method on which we can act, by which we may proceed without delay to adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners in those cases where no serious difference of opinion exists, holding over the other cases for further and careful consideration. The difficulty of course is in finding a criterion, and my hon. Friend (Mr. M. T. Bass) must have experienced that difficulty. He has embodied it in a more modest form; but it is really the framing a schedule, or rather the dividing one schedule into two Now, there is a very difficult operation, though I do not believe is any hon. Member more qualified than himself to do it, and I am satisfied that he has succeeded, to a considerable extent, in pointing out the cases which are required for exception. My principal object in rising was to do what may really save time, by bringing the attention of the Government, of the House, and of the Commissioners who sit in this House, without delay to the consideration of whether we can adopt any, method by means of which we can at once with certainty and satisfaction act upon the recommendation of the Commissioners in regard to cases that are subject to no considerable doubt, leaving over for con-
  254
  sideration such cases as are open to doubt so far as the will of the parties to be affected is concerned, for undoubtedly their opinion is worthy of consideration. An hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Monk) has given notice of a Motion that the first Schedule be referred to a Select Committee. I do not wish to prejudge that or any proposition by means of which we can avoid great entanglement and embarrassment; but if a Select Committee be appointed, it must, I think, be subject to these limitations—It must be a small Committee; it must be selected with great care; its investigation must be carried on de die in diem, and it must confine itself to documentary evidence— namely, to the memorials that were brought before the Commissioners and the petitions that have been or may be addressed to this House. I do not undertake to make a Motion; but I think under the circumstances, we are fairly entitled to appeal, in no hostile spirit, to Her Majesty's Government, who are of course immediately responsible for the Bill, to relieve us from the difficulty in which we are placed. I think there is no general desire on this side of the House to increase their difficulties by throwing over these recommendations in the mass, provided they can point out to us some fair means—and as to the fairness we shall not be very critical—for drawing a line between the cases that are clear and the cases that are not. Otherwise I should certainly feel that I had no option except to support the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert). In a case like Aston—and there are many others approximating to it—I cannot think it possible the Government would ask the House to consent to throw these people who object to it into the borough Parliamentary community without giving them some opportunity of a hearing. The effect of this is that it separates them from the representatives for the county, who are their natural advocates in matters of taxation, and while they are separated from the county representation they will remain subjects for local taxation to the county authorities. I think it is not possible for us, in the face of an apparent indisposition on the part of the parties themselves, to adopt any such course. The only other explanation I need offer is this—I do not think it could be supposed to be the function of this Committee to decide finally upon any of these cases. I should not ask, after a Parliamentary Commission had been appointed, and after the manner in which

  255
  the duties of that Commission had been charged, that its recommendations should be finally disposed of by the Committee. The only function of the Committee would be to indicate what are the cases in which, in point of fairness and policy, it would be expedient to hold over, and not to attempt to dispose of by legislation during the present year.
  MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in pointing out a great many difficulties which we shall have to encounter in considering the Report of the Boundary Commissioners; and I apprehend that no Bill of this extent, scope, and dimensions can possibly be brought under the consideration of this House without such difficulties being experienced. But I am fain to believe that with patience and temper we shall encounter no difficulties that may not be settled in a manner satisfactory to the large majority of the House, and, I hope, entirely satisfactory to the country. I was very much pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman take up a sound position with regard to the labours of the Commission—a position, indeed, which we should all expect from one of his ability and experience. I am glad that he did not impugn those labours. If we were to sanction the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) we should be taking a course which we should afterwards regret, and which would injure the character of Parliament. If we interfered in such a manner with the recommendations of eminent men, statutory Commissioners unanimously appointed by Parliament, whose duties were defined by Parliament, and who had fulfilled those duties most laboriously and conscientiously, it would be difficult to get any Gentlemen again to labour under such circumstances for great purposes of State. I was glad, therefore, to find that on this point the right hon. Gentleman took a position which one would expect from a Member of his standing and experience in this House. Then, let me say one word upon the nature of the Bill before us. It is really not in spirit a Government measure — that is, it is not a measure which has even been submitted to the Cabinet, because there was no question of policy upon which the opinion of the Cabinet was required. The Government have acted simply as the trustees of Parliament. They have taken the Report of the Commissioners, and have been careful to bring it under the consideration of the House in a businesslike and effec-
  256
  tual manner. The House will recollect all the circumstances under which the Commission was appointed. It was a statutory Commission. I may say that virtually the chief Commissioners were named by this House. I certainly proposed some names, because it was well understood that unless some were proposed we should never arrive at any conclusion. But I said at the time that the feeling of the House was that which would influence the Government; and that there was nothing we more desired to avoid in a matter of such delicacy and importance than that the imputations should rest upon the Commissioners now that were freely thrown on the Commissioners of 1832. I believe that those imputations were unfounded; but we resolved to take such a course that there should be no ground for similar imputations in this case. I offered other names, some of which were not accepted, but they were names of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite Benches, and distinguished not only for their abilities, but for their extreme Liberal opinions. Ultimately the five Commissioners were appointed by the House, and to the entire satisfaction of the House. ["No!"] All I can say is that I am in the recollection of those who took part in the proceedings of last year, and I think they will admit that the statement I have made is perfectly well founded. No objection was made to the five Gentlemen who were ultimately appointed; and the objections made to other individuals were immediately submitted to without any inquiry into their justice, because there was a general feeling that the Commissioners should be unanimously appointed. Then, with regard to the Assistant Commissioners, Her Majesty's Government had no connection at all with their appointment. It was at once announced, to prevent any misconception on that head, that the Assistant Commissioners should be appointed by the Chief Commissioners; and I only learnt the names of the Assistant Commissioners by reading the Report. It was therefore quite impossible that to fulfil these duties a Commission could be appointed which was more completely accepted by the House as its representative in this matter. The results of the Commission are now before us. I cannot for a moment maintain that the House has lost its power of revising the decision of the Commissioners. I do not suppose for a moment that the Commissioners consider that they have submitted to us a Report which could not

  257
  be the subject of Parliamentary criticism and revision; and if, as we proceed, we find any case which merits our interference, I am sure that the good sense and the spirit of justice of the House will be applied to set right any matter requiring correction. All I can say is that I cannot consider this Bill as a party question under any circumstances. It is a measure with regard to which, so far as any influence I may possess, I shall consider that any Gentleman with whom I may be connected is perfectly at liberty to come to any decision which he thinks the justice of the case requires. I do not think that the interests of party are matters which ought to be introduced into these discussions; and I believe it would be very difficult to settle what political party will benefit by the recommendations of the Commissioners. The effect of the recommendations would be of a very mixed kind; but, at the same time, important principles may be involved, and therefore in that sense we should consider whether we believe the recommendations are just. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we are entering upon a subject of great difficulty, and that it will take a considerable time to arrive at a decision. No doubt, it is desirable that on an early day in June this Bill should pass; but if it is not then passed, we might by legislation still effect our purpose; and it is possible, if the course of business with regard to the supplemental Reform Bills requires it, I shall have to appeal to the House to support me in passing some Bill to shorten the time which, under the existing law, must intervene in the case of a dissolution. But having gone through this Bill with some pains in order to form some estimate of the time it would take to carry it through the Committee, I do not see that it is impossible to conclude it within the necessary time and without precipitate-ness. I may remind the House that there is an effective instrument in their own hands, which they may adopt, and which they did adopt last year—the practice of morning sittings; and I believe that if you resort to morning sittings upon the Boundary Bill you will avoid the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman says there may be cases which it may be desirable to refer to a Select Committee. If, as we go on, we find there are cases of that description, that is an instrument of which we ought to avail ourselves; but certainly on the condition that the Committee should
  258
  sit de die in diem, and give us the result of their deliberations without unnecessary delay. There is another mode by which we might facilitate our labours and obviate some of these difficulties; we might refer a controverted case and a memorial to the Commissioners themselves. The dignity of the Commissioners, if we enter fairly into the discussion of their labours, would not be in any way diminished or injured by our asking them to re consider any of the details. ["No !"] These are considerations for the House; they are not to be settled by any Gentleman giving an affirmative or a negative. If we determine on morning sittings, and if an impartial spirit pervades the House, I cannot doubt that, referring particular cases, if necessary, to a Select Committee or back to the Commissioners, we may get through this Bill in time to accomplish what we desire. All I can say is, that on the part of the Government there will be every effort to effect that object, and that so far as depends on them no spirit of party will be allowed to enter into any of the discussions.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped the House would allow him shortly to justify the course he had taken with respect to this Bill. There were three courses which any one might take who objected to the proposals of the Boundary Commissioners. One was the proposal of the counter-schedule against the schedule in the Bill; the second was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and the third was the course he had adopted in the Notice he had given. There were great objections to the proposal of a counter-schedule; for, as a private Member, it would have been very invidious indeed for him to undertake to say what places ought to be excluded and what included. He also felt that it might be imputed to him that he had prepared such a schedule for party purposes, leaving out places which were supposed to be favourable to his own party, and putting in others which were unfavourable. With regard to any reference to a Select Committee, he thought that there were great objections to any such course on account of time. One reason why he proposed to omit the clause altogether was that he saw a great difficulty in passing this Bill in time to be brought into operation for the purposes of the registration. The Registration Act required that on or before the 10th of June the clerks of the peace in counties and the town clerks in boroughs

  259
  should give certain precepts to the different overseers of the various parishes. If therefore the Members of that House were to fight in detail all the points which were now on the Notice Paper, it would be quite impossible for the Bill to pass in time for the Registration precepts to be given this year. But there was another strong motive for his proceeding, and it was that it would be quite impossible to get proper consideration for the Amendments on the Notice Paper if they were to be taken in detail. However strong each case might be it would have no chance, or but very little chance, of being successfully brought before a Committee of the House. He had therefore come to the conclusion that the only course open to him was to move that the 4th clause be omitted, in order to give further time for its consideration. But, in giving notice to that effect, he had no desire whatever to prevent the extension of the boundaries of those towns to which no objection was taken. In his opinion, it was a matter rather for the Government than any individual Member to propose a plan which would get over the difficulties. With regard to the Commissioners, he must say that, as far as he was concerned, he had no wish to impugn their decisions in any manner. He believed that they had fairly and impartially considered everything that was brought before them; but the House had given them very large, vague, and indefinite Instructions last year, and it was because of that vagueness that he held the House was justified in reviewing the proposals in the Bill. Those proposals, he felt, were not the proposals of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) bad very properly stated that this was the Bill of the House of Commons; and therefore he did not impute any motives to the Government in what they had done. The Bill re-produced the recommendations of the Commission, and he did not suppose they had been in any manner altered. He felt bound, however, in duty to his constituents, to ask the House to give a real consideration to the objections entertained. It was upon these grounds that he had placed his Notice upon the Paper. He certainly had no party object in view; he was not a party man at all, and when he should bring forward his Motion he would not deal with it in a party spirit. He did not think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was at all satisfactory. He hoped the right hon.
  260
  Gentleman and his Colleagues would see that there was a real necessity for considering the proposals which had been submitted to the House. He had looked into them, and he knew that the feeling of the people in many of the towns to which they referred was of the strongest nature. As they were about to legislate, he hoped not for a few years, but for many, he trusted they would not lay down boundaries which would give dissatisfaction for many years to come. Unless the Government proposed some plan for meeting the difficulty, he should feel compelled to proceed with the Notice which he had given.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, with regard to postponement, he wished to draw attention to what had occurred thirty-four years ago with respect to the Boundary Commission for municipal purposes. In that case the plans were prepared quite carefully for the enlargement of eighty-one boroughs, which was the exact number of boroughs which the Commissioners, in the present instance, recommended should be extended. The consideration of the Bill was postponed on the plea of want of time, and from that period to this no step whatever bad been taken to carry out the Report of the Commissioners. One of the objections raised to the measure now before the House was that hon. Gentlemen would like to have the area of the Parliamentary borough extended, so that its limits and those of the municipality might be the same. But, inasmuch as the recommendations of the Commission on Municipal Boundaries had never been carried out, it would be impossible to adopt that course. He had endeavoured to gather from the petitions which had been presented, and the Notices placed on the Orders of the House, what the objections to the recommendations of the Commissioners were. In the discussion on the 31st clause of the Reform Bill, the question of Instructions to the Commissioners was very fully debated, and the right hon. Member for South Lancashire himself said that the municipal boundary ought not to be taken for the Parliamentary borough. Any one who had read the Report of the Commissioners would see that the Instructions given to the Assistant Commissioners had been most carefully prepared. They were to give notice in every town by advertisement, and they were not only to hear all the evidence brought before them, but to inspect in person the proposed boundaries. The Members of the House would probably

  261
  be surprised to hear that out of eighty-four cases there were only four objections to the alterations proposed. With respect to the whole of the boroughs of Wales there were no objections at all; with regard to the whole of the now boroughs only two alterations had been suggested; and as for the counties no alteration of boundaries was proposed to be made. The only other objection was with regard to three boroughs which had been re-divided; so that the practical thing which the House had to grapple with was, four objections to alterations in the boundaries, which he looked upon as a question of simple detail, and the Notices of ten Gentlemen for the omission from the Bill of the additions proposed to be made to their boroughs. If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, and the objections laid before it, his opinion was that they would be all disposed of in a day; and if the House was willing to go into the matter properly, two nights would be sufficient for the purpose.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he desired to express complete satisfaction with all that had been done by the Commissioners. It appeared to him that while the Commissioners had examined the cases of 222 boroughs, 128 had not been touched at all, nine were new boroughs, and only eighty one were dealt with. It seemed to him, therefore, very undesirable that 128 boroughs which had not been touched, and that large proportion of eighty one which had been considered, should be deprived of the benefit of what the Commissioners had done, because there were some twelve or fifteen or twenty boroughs to the arrangements about which very strong objections had been taken in detail. He had been in hopes, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would have said something more satisfactory than he had done. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, provisionally, the force of many of the suggestions that had been made; but had declared himself in favour of none. He should be glad to know whether the Government would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, if such a proposal were made by any hon. Member, under such conditions as they might think fit? Considering the grave objections which had been raised, he would be glad, if he were not taking too great a liberty, to invite the Commissioners to tell the House
  262
  whether they had not met with some difficulties which they themselves thought entitled to re-consideration. He trusted that the Government would adopt the suggestion that had been thrown out of a small Select Committee to determine all the more important disputed questions.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass), have both stated that great difficulties are about to arise with regard to the Bill, and that the Government ought to meet them by some preliminary step. But, in the first place, the Government are not prepared to admit that great difficulties will arise. I believe that my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) has overstated the case. There are certain cases in which, I believe, the House will come to an unanimous decision, in conjunction with the Commissioners — that certain things which they have recommended, on account of the terms to which they were bound down, might be set aside with great advantage both to the borough and to the county. In addition to this, there may be many other cases which are open to consideration; but at this moment I believe there are not more than seven or eight cases which will require the careful attention of the House. And if the Committee of this House is not able to deal with seven cases, in a very short time it will be giving itself a character which it does not deserve. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says he does not object to go into Committee, Well, let us go into Committee, and see whether any of these very great difficulties which have been specified will arise. If they do, then will be the time to consider them; and the Government will be prepared to do so.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: If we go into Committee we shall soon come to the 4th clause; and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), unless he gets some assurance from the Government that due consideration will be given to a matter on which great local difference of opinion exists, must press his Motion. The object of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) is that some means should be taken, with the general consent of the House and with the concurrence of the Government, to make progress with this Bill without being involved in a general discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham on the one hand, and on the several places in schedules on the other. Now, we are quite incompetent to enter upon the merits of the

  263
  particular cases in which strong objections are entertained to the recommendations of the Commissioners. In the majority of the cases there would be no difficulty in adopting the recommendations of the Commissioners; but in regard to the others, the House is not in possession of the objections that have been locally made before the Assistant Commissioners. I know cases in which memorials of the strongest character having been adopted unanimously, have been presented against the recommendations of the Commissioners. But these memorials are not before the House; and we are called upon to decide these cases without any knowledge whatever of the circumstances. The suggestion thrown out by my right hon. Friend is, not that the schedules should be referred to a Select Committee with a view to take further evidence and over-ride the decision of the Commissioners, but merely to report those cases in which time for further consideration ought to be given. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) says that there are but seven of such cases; but, judging from the Notices on the Paper, I should imagine that there are from twenty to thirty. I know cases in which memorials have been presented to the Commissioners urging grounds which are entitled to consideration, and which the House ought to be aware of. And if a Select Committee of six were appointed by the Committee of Selection, and if they have the memorials before them, they will be able to report whether there are any cases, and, if so, which they are, in which further time for consideration is required. Except in these cases the schedules might be passed, and the Bill proceed through Committee. The House is entitled to ask the Government to assist them in promoting this object, and in avoiding unnecessary discussion. It is desirable we should not take what will practically be the irrevocable step of extending the boundaries of these boroughs without any consideration of the grounds on which strong objections are made to the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  MR. BRIGHT: I shall not, in any observations I may make, complain of what the Commissioners have done. But the House will recollect that last year I objected to the Commission—I mean to the names as they stood on the Commission. I did not say that they were not all very honourable men; but I thought I should have liked to see the Commission formed
  264
  in rather a different manner. And the right hon. Gentleman will recollect also that I moved an Amendment—at least I gave notice of it, and the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) proposed it to the House—that words should be inserted, calling upon the Commissioners to have regard in their proceedings to the local circumstances of the boundaries of municipal government. Well, unfortunately, as I think, that Amendment was not accepted by the Government: these words were not introduced. The House will see that at least I am free to discuss this case without being influenced in any way by the notion that the House was unanimous. I am quite sure it was not. But though there was no division on it, there was a feeling on this side of the House against the course which the Government proposed. The fact is, that the House did make a mistake, as we now pretty nearly all feel; because, although we gave the Commissioners powers to extend—apparently without limit—we gave them no power to contract, which they themselves now regret. We permitted them to extend, without any regard whatsoever to the opinions of the populations that were affected by the extension. Now, I venture to say that nothing could be more contrary to the practice of Parliament than that of bringing in a people from one constituency to another without consulting the persons affected—bringing people to the amount of 400,000 from the county constituency to the borough constituencies. That is a thing which Parliament has never placed in the hands of a Commission without regard to the opinions of the people affected. Because, when you propose to grant a charter of incorporation for a borough, you require that a majority of the ratepayers should present a petition in favour of the measure, and the Queen in Council thereupon sends down an Inspector who makes an inquiry, and unless a majority of the inhabitants are in favour of incorporation the charter is not issued; and I argue that the House of Commons would act very differently from its ordinary course if they brought 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 persons outside of the borough within its limits, contrary to the wishes of that population, and contrary also to the wishes of the inhabitants of the borough to which it was proposed that they should be annexed. Local circumstances surely should weigh something in a matter of this kind. The cases brought

  265
  before the House, such as Manchester and Birmingham, are really astounding. I know not how the candidates or committees for parties are to work the elections for these enormous constituencies. I know not, under the circumstances, who is to bear the expense that is to be incurred. [A laugh.] I see some Gentlemen smiling as if they thought I was interested in that matter; but I beg to assure them that through the kindness and generosity of my friends in Birmingham I have never yet paid, and in all probability never will be called upon to pay, a single sixpence for the cost of my election; but if I have not to pay in my own person, I am the more bound to see that nothing is done by Parliament in reference to the borough which is not required by the public interests, and which would involve it in grievous difficulty and cost. I believe that both sides of the House will admit that nothing could be more fair or reasonable than the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, and certainly there is no disposition on this side of the House to enter into any party wars on this matter. No doubt, out of the seventy or eighty boroughs dealt with, only a minority of them object to the recommendations of the Commissioners; but that minority comprises many of the largest boroughs in the kingdom. They comprise in the metropolis the boroughs of Lambeth, Maryle-bone, and Finsbury, as well as those of Lancashire and Warwickshire; and it affects, I think, very materially the county of Middlesex. In that minority we find Birmingham; and the recommendations of the Commissioners affect not only the town of Birmingham itself, but the county in which it is situated, and the adjoining county of Worcester. It comprises also the city of Manchester; and, if there had been no other boroughs in the county of Lancaster, the Commissioners, upon the principle they have acted upon there, might have taken in half the county. It affects also the city of Liverpool; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsfall) who sits opposite has given, I believe, some notice on that point. What, then, under the circumstances, are we to do? The main difficulty has arisen from the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Not from what he has said to-day, because that was very fair, but from what he had said in past discussions. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the right hon. Gentleman has not taught them in his
  266
  speeches for some years past that there was some vast secret underlying this boundary question; and whether he has not implied that if, in some manner, you could sweep into the boroughs what now forms a portion of the counties, great party results would ensue? I do not believe in the great party results; I rather believe in what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day. And I think anybody who has examined the Report of the Commission must perceive that the party results will be of the very smallest character, and really not worth considering in the least as bearing either upon this side of the House or that. I regard the question as it affects particular interests, and disturbs the Parliamentary attachments of a very large population, from whom you are about to take a franchise which they much regard, giving them a franchise which they regard very much less. I do not believe that the House, if it could divest itself of the notion that there was any party gain in the matter, would agree to the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to a certain number of boroughs—I am not sure of the number, but, as far as I have observed, I think it is between twelve and twenty — certainly more than the number stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Hardy). In what position do we now find ourselves? My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), who, of all men, dislikes Parliamentary fighting — he has been a great fighter in that county at Parliamentary elections—but now, I suppose, like myself, finding the fire of youth partly suppressed, he comes forward to propose, in point of fact, a mediation between my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Suppose we were to take the boroughs to which formidable objection is made, and refer them to a fair Committee of seven Members of this House, I believe that in the course of two or three days they would make a Report to the House, which the whole House would accept. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he fears to throw any discredit on the proceedings of the Commission. Well, I see one of the Commissioners (Mr. Russell Gurney) sitting opposite to me, and from his character and professional training, I believe there is no person who would be more likely to wish to do what was proper in a matter of this kind. But I think the right hon. and learned Gentle-

  267
  man would admit that the course which I am recommending would enable proper consideration to be given to points which were shut out from the view of the Commissioners. For the Commissioners were not allowed to entertain the local circumstances of a borough or the feelings of the persons affected by their recommendations. That is quite clear from the terms of their Reference; and it is also clear that when their Report comes before the House, the House may deal with it, as it does with Reports of Select Committees. How often are Select Committees appointed and their recommendations overruled, sometimes passed by altogether? We do not want to overrule the main objects of the Commission; but we find that there are certain boroughs to which, acting under their instructions, they were not permitted to do what we believe to be perfect justice. In the borough which I represent there are 350,000 persons at least, who ask that the boundaries of their borough shall not be increased. They say that there is land within the boundary of the borough, even now, which will contain 40,000 more houses, and they do not wish, with an existing constituency of 50,000, or, as it will be next year, of 60,000, to have 30,000 additional persons brought in, a large number of whom belong to another county, and about whom there is this further peculiarity—that, while the 350,000 within the borough are almost unanimous apparently in asking the others not to come in, the 30,000 proposed to be added are absolutely unanimous in wishing to remain out. The Commission were quite unable to take cognizance of the wishes of those persons; they were only to take account of the geographical circumstances of the locality, and they acted upon their instructions. It is, however, not only within the power, but it is the duty of this House to take into consideration the feeling of the district. And therefore the right hon. Gentleman, without feeling that he is doing any wrong or throwing any slur upon the Commission, might fairly refer this matter to a Committee of the House. I understand the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to refer the whole matter of the disputed boroughs back to the Commissioners; but I believe the Commissioners would not like to have it so referred, because, after the decision to which they came, they would find much more difficulty in going into the question with dispassionate minds, and in
  268
  recommending a different conclusion than a select and fairly appointed Committee of this House would have. Now, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, and I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether we, who differ from some of you in this matter, have not behaved fairly and honourably. You could have no fairer speech than that from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire—no more honest exposition of motives than that of the hon. Member for Oldham—no more rational or moderate proposition than that of the hon. Member for Derby; and you would find it difficult to have any more judicious advice than that which I venture to offer. [Laughter.] I should not have made that observation if I were not sure that it would meet with general acceptance. Having said this, I abstain from going into the particulars of these boroughs, because I am sanguine that after what has been said the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse to refer the case of these boroughs to investigation in some such manner as will be acceptable to the House. And I can promise him that if that be so, he will find upon our part a great disposition to forward the matter with the least possible delay.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as allusion had been made by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) to the case of Aston Manor, which the Commissioners proposed should be joined to the borough of Birmingham, and as the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had also expressed his views upon the subject, he was anxious to state some facts connected with it. It was impossible to consider this subject without a reference to the wider question, of which it formed a part. In 1854 Lord Russell's Government proposed to make a large addition to the county representation. That was a wise proposal, for it would have increased the general representation of the country. As Member for North Warwickshire, for instance, he shared in the representation of from 400,000 to 500,000 people through the freeholders. He shared in the representation of Coventry and of half Tamworth, while representing 2,000 freeholders in Birmingham. The extension of the county representation was the plan which he (Mr. Newdegate) had desired; he had supported the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wick burghs (Mr. Laing) last Session, by which ten additional seats had been given to the counties;

  269
  but Parliament unwisely, as he thought, refused to go further in that direction. In 1854 Earl Russell's Government had proposed to give an additional Member to North Warwickshire, with its population of from 400,000 to 500,000; but the House refused to assent to that proposal. Last year a proposal was made to give on additional representation to Birmingham, and he supported it on the clear understanding that the limits of the borough would be extended, and that the people of North Warwickshire would share the additional representation in that way. He afterwards supported the right hon. Member for Calne's (Mr. Lowe's) Motion, by which the minorities of large boroughs, Birmingham included, might obtain representation. The principle of this arrangement was not altogether the best, in his opinion, that might have been made, but it was that upon which the House had decided; and it was now law. It was true that some of the 20,000 inhabitants of the Manor of Aston wished not to be included in the borough of Birmingham; but that was because they thought that if the borough boundaries were extended the municipal boundaries would be extended also, and that the Manor of Aston would therefore become liable to the heavier rating incident to the borough of Birmingham. This dislike to increased rating was the real ground of the objection. A gross anomaly and some inconvenience had arisen from the fact that Aston was not included in Birmingham. He would give the House an illustration of this. Some years ago Her Majesty was graciously pleased to intimate her intention to visit Birmingham. The object of Her Majesty's visit was to open the park of Aston Manor for the recreation of the inhabitants of Birmingham. This Manor is beyond the municipal boundaries of the borough, and he (Mr. Newdegate) was called upon by the justices of the county to introduce a deputation to the Home Secretary, because it seemed unjust that the expense of the police regulations and other expenses of the Park, when made public, should fall upon the county ratepayers generally, while the benefit of the Park would be almost altogether derived by the inhabitants of Birmingham. The day for Her Majesty's visit was at hand, and there was no time for any extension of the municipal boundaries of the borough by law, though it was obvious that the Park ought to be included within them. The justices agreed, that come
  270
  what might as to expense to the county, Her Majesty's gracious intentions should not be frustrated, provided the arrangement, by which the county, exclusive of Birmingham, was to bear the expense, was considered temporary; the whole regulation of Aston Park, so far as police goes, continued up to the present time on a temporary conventional arrangement. between the justices of the county and the municipal authorities of Birmingham. The Park was opened for the recreation of the inhabitants of Birmingham, yet the whole of Warwickshire was liable to be taxed to maintain that Park. The influence of the then Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) had been invoked. Under his sanction it was decided that any arrangements made upon this subject should be only temporary, until the Park could be placed within the municipal boundaries of Birmingham. If the proposal for giving a third Member to North Warwickshire had been carried out, there need have been no question about extending the Parliamentary boundaries of Birmingham; but the proposal to increase the representation of Birmingham had been preferred and had been supported in the belief that the boundaries of the borough would be made to include the Manor and Park of Aston. The 20,000 inhabitants of the Manor were almost all employed in Birmingham, or derived their resources from the trade within the borough. He (Mr. Newdegate) respectfully submitted to the House that, under such circumstances, the decision of the Commissioners to include the Manor of Aston within the borough of Birmingham was perfectly sound.
  MR. MONKsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper for referring the first schedule of the Bill to a Select Committee. He could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) for the omission of the 4th clause, because he thought it would be unfair towards the people in the suburbs of great towns who had been led to expect by the Bill of last year that they would have a share in the representation of the boroughs to which they must ultimately be attached. The omission of that clause would be tantamount to the postponement for some five or six years of the right of those persons to a voice in the choice of representatives. If, however, the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee were adopted he thought the result would be satisfactory, and that it would really occasion no delay.
  MR. ROEBUCK: What I want to do is to appeal to the Government, and ask them what possible mischief can arise from acceding to the request made to them from this side of the House. What we all want to do is to make a satisfactory settlement of this question, and to do it rapidly. Can we have an inquiry in this House? I think that is impossible, there is such a multitude of little places; but in respect of this matter, which will affect our representation, for, perhaps, centuries, I do not think there can be so much party spirit among us that we cannot find a satisfactory Committee. If we have a Committee a certain result will follow. We can do what we want by means of a Select Committee more rapidly than in any other way, and without casting a slur on the Commissioners. They were appointed to perform certain duties; they discharged those duties, and did not step beyond them, therefore no possible slur can be cast on them. I hope that the Government, in the large and generous spirit which ought to actuate the Government of this country on such an occasion, will accede to the fair, honest, plain, and simple proposition now made to them.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY: Sir, as a Member of the Boundary Commission, I think it is due to the House and to my brother Commissioners that I should say a few words as to the principles upon which we acted in doing our work, and on the proposition now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire has called attention to the instructions which we received from the House. It was from Parliament, and Parliament alone, that we received instructions. It gave us distinct instructions as to the course we were to pursue; and I believe we have acted faithfully up to them. I think I should bring under the notice of the Mouse what were our instructions, not only in reference to the boroughs, the subject of discussion to-night, but also in reference to the boroughs to be created under the Reform Act. There is a remarkable difference in the language as regards those two different classes of boroughs. As regards the boroughs to be created, this is the language—
  "They shall, immediately, after the passing of this Act, proceed, by themselves, or by Assistant Commissioners appointed by them, to inquire into the temporary boundaries of every borough constituted by this Act, with power to suggest such alterations therein as they may deem expedient."
  272
  There was then no limitation of our powers whatever, either in regard to contracting or extending the temporary boundaries proposed by the Act. We were left to act perfectly as we thought right in the matter —to exercise our own discretion. But when we come to the other class of boroughs you will find that the instructions were very specific. The language is as follows:—
  "They shall also inquire into the boundaries of every other borough in England and Wales, except such boroughs as are wholly disfranchised by this Act, with a view to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged, so as to include within the limits of the borough all premises which ought, due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances, to be included therein for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such borough."
  We viewed this—and I believe we viewed it rightly—as an enfranchising provision. We looked outside the present boundaries of existing boroughs to see whether there were premises so situated that the occupiers ought to have a vote in the borough. We are told that is merely the transfer of a constituency from a county to a borough; but it is really a different matter. A large number of these persons would have no votes at all unless the borough boundaries were extended. What was the meaning of all we heard last year about the figures £6, £10, and £12, and what was the special charm found in the words "household franchise," if it is a matter of no importance whether a large number of the people outside the boundaries are included in the assessment, whether they have a £15 house or a mere cottage? We did not look to the matter merely as a transfer from county to borough. What we looked to was whether there was not in places now without the boundaries of boroughs a large number of people who would be altogether excluded from the franchise unless they were included in boroughs. That was the principle on which we thought we ought to act; that was the principle on which we did act; and I rather collected from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire that he thought it the correct principle to apply in respect of these boroughs, limited as we were by the instructions we received from the House itself, It is perfectly true that the matter being now before the House, the House is at liberty to take other matters into consideration which the terms of our instructions did not allow us to consider. It may take cognizance

  273
  of matters which had not perhaps been brought under its attention at the time our instructions were framed. Means of inquiry have been proposed which, it has been suggested, might be deemed disrespectful to the Commission. I have had an opportunity of consulting with some of my brother Commissioners on this point, and they have the same feeling on the subject as I have myself. They entertain no such opinion. We are anxious that the House should adopt any mode which to its own judgment may seem best calculated for enabling Parliament to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. There is just one course suggested which I think we should disapprove. We should object to have the question sent back to us. I know that suggestion had its origin in a feeling of kindness and respect for us; but after our very arduous labours, and after having given up a considerable portion of the vacation which we all so much covet, it may easily be imagined that we cannot have any wish to enter into this business again. I think it would be more satisfactory to the House and the country to have another tribunal. I would suggest, however, that the House ought not to order the Committee to enter into a general inquiry respecting all the boroughs. The Report of the Commission has been laid on the table of the House, and has been circulated about the country during the last three months, and there has been ample opportunity afforded for raising objections to any of the propositions it contains. Members have had time to communicate with their constituents, and constituencies to make their views known to their representatives. Therefore, instead of having a general inquiry into the eighty-one boroughs, I think it should be limited to those in respect of which petitions have been presented or Notices of Motion have been given. If, after this discussion, agitation should be got up in this House or out of it, by means of the Press or in any other way, and if complaints should be urged in respect of other boroughs, I think we may presume that there is no great force in objections taken after such a lapse of time and under such circumstances. Without the opportunity of referring to the Assistant Commissioners and obtaining information from them the effect of embarking in a general inquiry would be to preclude legislation.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEY, as one of the Commissioners, wished to express
  274
  his thanks for the kind manner in which the labours and the Report of the Commission had been referred to, and to testify that he was never associated with Gentlemen more devoted to their duty and move desirous of serving their country without being influenced by party feeling. The Commissioners did not recommend the extension of boundaries in cases where a road stretched out from a borough with houses on one or both sides only; but if there were diverging streets on each side, making in the aggregate a town population, then the Commissioners did not see how they could carry out their instructions without including such a district in a borough. It should be remembered that thirty-six years had elapsed since the passing of the former Boundary Bill, and in a country like England, where there was so much progress, it was only natural that in that time boundaries should require enlargement so as to embrace town populations. Birmingham comprised an area of 8,400 acres, to which it was proposed to add 1,309 acres, containing a population of between 31 and 32 per acre. It was said, on undoubted authority, that the greater part of Birmingham proposed to be included was as much town as that within the Parliamentary boundary now. Complaint had been made that the larger provincial boroughs were getting unwieldy; and it might be very true, but still they were not so un-wieldly and large as the metropolitan boroughs. They could overcome the difficulty by dividing the boroughs and letting each Member represent his own constituency. However well a man served his constituents, when he had two or three Colleagues and one did not satisfy them he had to bear the expense of a contested election without any fault of his own. It would be well to divide these large boroughs, and let every Member answer for his own conduct. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had said that his constituents would not allow him to be put to any expense for his election, and now that boroughs were to be so greatly enlarged this example ought to be generally followed. It was quite enough for Members to give their time and services to their constituencies, and it would be well if the choice of the constituencies was not restricted to men who could afford to pay large sums for the honour of sitting in Parliament. He had no objection, as a member of the Commission, to offer to the suggestion that those boroughs which had

  275
  sent petitions to the House, and which were very few in number—they had on the preceding evening amounted, he believed, to only thirteen, and not more than seven of these were important — should have their cases investigated by a Select Committee.
  MR. DISRAELI: I believe it will be for the convenience of the House that I should again address them, and I hope that they will favour me with their indulgence during a few moments for that purpose. The obligations of the House and of the country to the Commissioners appear to me to be so considerable and so incontestable that I refrained from responding to the invitation of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I should express the views of the Government upon this subject until the Commissioners had favoured us with their opinions with respect to it. A considerable majority of the Commissioners who could be communicated with have expressed opinions similar to those we have heard from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Russell Gurney), and from the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Crossley), and I have therefore no hesitation in saying, on the part of the Government, we shall be most happy to meet the wishes expressed. I have noted some points of detail as the discussion proceeded; and what we propose is that there shall be a Committee of five, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection; that it shall sit from day to day; that its investigations shall be limited to places that have already petitioned; that it shall have power to confer with the Commissioners, and that the evidence shall be purely documentary. These five points embrace all that I believe the House seeks. On the understanding that we take early steps to carry this arrangement into effect, I conclude the House will have no objection to go into Committee.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he objected to the arrangement if it would exclude Portsmouth, which had not petitioned, although Gosport had, the public meeting of Portsmouth being held that very night.
  MR. STONEalso stated how Portsmouth and Gosport would be affected by the understanding come to.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that although the inhabitants of Reading had not presented a petition, they had held a meeting, and objected to the proposal by which they were to be affected, and he thought their case ought to undergo further investigation.
  MR. OSBORNE: The Boundary Bill is, with the exception of the Reform Act, the most important measure that has for many years come under the consideration of Parliament, and yet we have not, down to this moment, had any discussion of its principles. My constituents have not addressed any memorial to the House, and I will not say anything about my individual seat. To the instructions which were given to the Commission, and to the principle on which it has reported, I altogether object. Before the House, in its haste for co-operation and legislation, consents to shuffle off this question, let us consider whether it is better not to pass any Bill at all than to pass a bad Bill, which will not give satisfaction, and which it will be one of the first Acts of the next Parliament to repeal. I want to know what we are going to refer to a Select Committee, and whether we are going to refer merely the petitions and memorials from large towns, or whether we are going to give it power to do what the Commissioners were debarred from doing — namely, to contract the areas of boroughs. They say that in some cases there are anomalies which cannot be rectified without reducing the areas of boroughs. I want to know whether the Select Committee is to have the power to reduce the area of boroughs, and to correct these anomalies. It is very material that that should be stated. If the Select Committee is merely to rectify the boundaries of Nottingham, Portsmouth, and other boroughs, it will be of no use whatever. I will say one word with regard to the constitution of the Commission. We have heard a statement this evening from the hon. Baronet the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir Francis Crossley). I regard that hon. Member as a most excellent man; but I objected altogether to his being put upon the Commission, for reasons which I do not choose to give now. I cannot fall in with the excessive compliments which have been paid to that Commission. So far from its Report having given general satisfaction in the country, it has given great dissatisfaction. The Commission was appointed in a House of thirty Members at the fag end of a Session, completely worn out with passing the Reform Act; and I will venture to say that not thirty Members have gone through the voluminous Report of the Commission and the maps illustrating it. Before we appoint a Select Committee we ought to know exactly what

  277
  that Select Committee is about to do. The whole tendency of the Report is to make constituencies which are already unwieldy more unwieldy still. Look at what the Commissioners have done in such places as Birmingham and Manchester, and look also at the metropolitan boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) will now be sent to canvass at the extremity of Highgate. The same remark applies to Lambeth and Finsbury. It will only come to this—that you will have a Reform Bill of a Reform Bill, and a reform of this Boundary Bill. Now, I wish to co-operate with hon. Gentlemen opposite in making an end of this Parliament, because I am aware that, like a second Guy Faux, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has in his pockets materials with which he can blow us to the winds. I have no objection to that process, and, indeed, the sooner it is done the better. But I say, before a Select Committee is appointed, let us know what it is about to do, and, among other things, whether it has power to contract the boundaries of boroughs as well as to enlarge them.
  MR. PEASEasked, whether the reference to the Select Committee would include the new boroughs mentioned in Schedule 5, and would also include the Notices of Motion as well as petitions lodged at the Home Office against the boundaries proposed?
  MR. W. P. PRICEsaid, he hoped that the inquiry of the Select Committee would not be limited to cases of boroughs respecting which petitions had been presented, but would include cases in respect of which Notices of Amendment had been given.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he was anxious to say a few words with respect to the proposal that the Select Committee should be appointed by the Committee of Selection. He was one of those the habits of whose life had been not to shirk duties properly placed upon them, and he had performed the duties devolving upon him as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and Committee of Selection to the best of his ability. It was not therefore to avoid any trouble in that capacity that he now asked the House not to cast upon the Committee of Selection the duty of choosing the members of the Committee now to be appointed. Such a task was quite foreign to its duties and its habits. The duty of the Committee of Selection was to choose Members to serve on Private Bills who should be, as far as possible, unconnected, directly or indirectly, with
  278
  the subjects of these Bills, and not liable to the imputation of bias. In the case of Hybrid Bills the Committee of Selection chose a certain number of Members to serve, the rest being appointed by the House. But the Committee on the Boundary Bill would be essentially a public Committee, and he suggested that it should be appointed by the House in the usual way.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERalso thought that to cast this duty upon the Committee of Selection and Standing Orders Committee would be to place these Committees in a very invidious position. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) would take the ordinary course with respect to the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. DISRAELI: My only reason for naming the Committee of Selection was in consequence of a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), which seemed to be accepted by the House. But I have no particular predilection for that mode of appointment, and, indeed, would rather follow the usual course, and leave it to the House to appoint the Committee.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he hoped that the case of Marylebone would be referred to the Committee. The inhabitants of Marylebone had not complained of the arrangement proposed for their borough; but the inhabitants of Hampstead — the district to be annexed to Marylebone—had made a complaint upon the subject.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that upon the appointment of the Committee they would examine into the cases of boroughs where petitions and memorials had been presented. ["No, no !"] That was what he had understood, at all events. He was sorry if he had been mistaken, because he had thought that the House would certainly agree that the cases of those boroughs which had presented memorials to the Boundary Commissioners ought to be considered, as well as the cases of those boroughs which had not thought it necessary to send petitions to that House, in consequence of their believing that their Members would take steps to bring their cases forward. The fact should not be lost sight of that many boroughs which were affected by the Report had not petitioned, simply because they had relied upon their Members taking their cases up. He did not make this observation with the idea that the House should hold out any inducement to the

  279
  boroughs which were affected by the Report to send up petitions, but because he thought that their cases should not be determined without their being heard upon the subject. He presumed he was correct in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to consent that all boroughs which sent up petitions up to the day of the appointment of the Committee should be heard. [Mr. DISRAELI: No !] He could not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman intended to steal a march upon those boroughs which bad not sent up petitions by deciding that night that they should be excluded.
  SIR JAMES SIMEONasked, whether the Committee would have the power of considering questions such as limiting boundaries, on the application of petitioning boroughs, which the Commissioners had?
  MR. DISRAELI: They will have that power; but I may state that if the House would allow us to go into Committee I should not be forced constantly to break our rules by answering questions, because I could then answer every question put to me.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should prefer that we should wind-up this conversation at once, rather than that we should commence another debate. ["Order, order !"] If the House would indulge me for a few moments, perhaps the discussion might be shortened. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to consult the House as to the order of our proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a speech in which he introduced a proposal of an entirely new character— namely, the question of referring the matter to a Select Committee. It may be the opinion of the House that the right hon. Gentleman, having already had an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon that question, other hon. Gentlemen who feel an interest in it shall also have the opportunity of speaking upon it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am anxious that we should arrive at a clear understanding upon this subject as soon as possible. My distinct opinion is that there is so great a disposition in all quarters of the House to come to an agreement upon this matter, that nothing but a little time and consideration are necessary to enable us to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to it; but, at the same time, we must not come to a premature decision upon it. The general sense of the House appears to be
  280
  in favour of the appointment of a Committee. I do not quite understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends that that Committee shall decide what cases shall be reserved for further inquiry, or whether the Committee shall finally dispose of all the cases which may come before them. My own opinion is that the Committee should report what cases should be reserved for further consideration. ["No, no!"] I do not make this proposition as one by which I should wish to be finally bound; but my object is to prevent the Committee being deluged with endless details, while at the same time I think an inquiry should be made in bonâ fide cases. In the first place, I think that all petitions which have been already laid before the House should be referred to the Committee, and it appears to me quite necessary, in the interest of all parties, that those boroughs which have presented memorials to the Commissioners should likewise go before the Committee. In point of fact, the memorials would be far more likely to represent the general diversity of opinion than the petitions to Parliament, and there can be no difficulty in receiving them as long as we keep to documentary evidence. Another point to which I desire to draw attention is this:—Some communities, instead of exercising their right of petitioning, have relied upon their Members to bring their cases before Parliament, and in several instances Notices of Motion have been given with that object. I think it is impossible to exclude such cases from consideration, even although neither petition nor memorial has been presented. In such cases a Member ought surely to be allowed to present such documentary evidence to the Committee as might have been laid before the Commission.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I admit that it is very desirable that we should arrive at a fair understanding as to what has been settled. As I understand, the majority of the House has agreed that a Committee shall be appointed, and that that Committee shall be chosen by the Committee of Selection. ["No, no!"] Then, I will only say that it has been agreed that a Committee consisting of a small number of Members—say, of five —shall be appointed, which shall have referred to it all cases in which petitions have been presented to the House and are now on the table. It must be remembered that the memorials have not been presented to the House, but to the Commissioners,

  281
  who have reported on those documents, and their Report has been on the table of the House for nearly three months, during which period there has been ample opportunity for Members to move that it should be amended. Several memorials have, in fact, been sent to the Home Office; but I have in variably informed those who sent them that the proper mode of proceeding was to petition the House. With respect to other cases, the Committee will have to take into consideration all those cases in respect of which Notices have been given, including those given to-night. I do not think that the House can go further than that, for if' it did it is obvious that questions would be raised day by day for the purpose of referring them to the Committee. I must also remind hon. Members that a Committee of this House will not be bound by the instructions given to the Commissioners, but will report on the merits of each case submitted to them, whether the claim be for contraction or extension. If the Committee commence at once to sit day by day, it will not be long before the inquiry is brought to a conclusion.
  MR. CARDWELL: I am anxious to promote the end which appears almost to be attained—namely, the satisfactory and friendly settlement of this question. In general I agree with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I am quite sure he would be as sorry as we should be if any substantial case should be excluded from consideration in consequence of a technical rule, I wish, therefore, to be at liberty, when the Motion is made for the appointment of the Committee, to move; that the Committee be free to entertain any memorial from the inhabitants of a borough which it could have presented to the Commissioners had it not been determined to leave the matter in the hands of their Members.
  MR. BRIGHT: I presume there will be some notice given before the Committee is appointed; but I wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it right that the Committee should consist of so small a number as five Members, instead of the number being extended to seven. Upon another point I may add that in many boroughs by which no petitions have been presented an idea prevailed that there would be an appeal from the Report of the Boundary Commission to that House, and, except for the course which has been taken to-night, they would not have been altogether mistaken. I wish to say that there
  282
  are several places which would like to have their cases come before the Committee. ["Oh!"] Every Member must be conscious of that. I say this, that we ought to be very careful that the discussion tonight and the appointment of the Select Committee should not prejudice any case which, not being able to come before that Committee, should afterwards be brought before the Committee of the Whole House. I presume that we cannot go into that long schedule to-night. There may be twenty or thirty or any number of those boroughs which will come before the Select Committee, while others may not do so; and therefore I say that the Committee of the Whole House ought to give the latter as fair an opportunity of having their claims discussed before it as if the Select Committee had never been appointed.
  MR. LOWE: I wish to add one word by way of supplement to what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham. What he said was, I think, perfectly true, when he laid it down that if you shut out any persons who are anxious to appear before this Committee, it will be impossible for you to object to hear them before the Committee of the Whole House. I would take the opportunity to remind the House that the reason for appointing this Committee is to save the time of the full House; and if you make any strict technical rule by which to exclude persons who are really and bonâ fide anxious to bring their cases before the House, because they have not petitioned, or because Notices have not been given, you will, in fact, save the time of the Committee, but waste the time of the full House; because the effect of such a rule must necessarily be that hon. Members will be pressed on by their constituents to move the House to refer their cases specially to the Committee, and the points will be argued on their merits, not with a view to their final settlement, but as to whether they shall or shall not be referred, I do not ask the House to come to any decision upon this point to-night; but between this time and the time when the Committee is appointed hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter, and take steps which will enable persons to be heard before this Committee, although they may have taken none of the steps mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought it would be unfair to refer one borough in the Isle of Wight which had

  283
  applied for restriction of its boundaries without referring others which had not made similar applications, in the belief that the Boundary Commissioners had refused to consider them.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYsaid, that inasmuch as the evidence before the Select Committee was to be of a documentary character only, it would be only fair that Members representing a borough that considered itself aggrieved by the Bill should have the opportunity of making a statement in writing to the Committee, for it was quite possible that the matter could be brought forward more clearly and fully in that way than by memorials and petitions, and the Committee enabled to decide in a more satisfactory manner.
  Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Upon consideration, inasmuch as there are a great many questions which will arise and must be discussed, which will have to be discussed again after the Report of the Select Committee, I believe that the best course for the Committee would be immediately to report Progress. I do not think it would save any time if we were to attempt to go on at present. I only wish to say that the proposal we shall make to the House will be this, that in naming the Select Committee we shall also name the places we propose for their consideration. We shall put the names on the Paper, and if any hon. Member should wish to add to the his he will have an opportunity of stating his case to the House. [Cries of "What time?"] I hope to give Notice to-morrow, and to move on Monday.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: If we had before us the memorials presented to the Commissioners it might be of advantage in guiding us as to the cases to be sent to the Committee. The Commissioners state in their Report that those memorials were in their hands.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My right hon. Friend must understand that we object to go into all the cases upon which memorials were presented. But we will go into cases as to which petitions have been presented to the House, and it will be in the option of any hon. Member who thinks any borough improperly excluded to move that it should also be referred to the Select Committee. The memorials to the Commissioners are of the most bulky character, and it would be an extravagant use of public money to print them,
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman's list would include the boroughs the petitions of which had been presented that evening?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: What I propose is that all boroughs from which petitions were presented before the discussion began to-night should be put on the same footing as those from which petitions were previously received.
  MR. PEASEasked, whether the Notices of Motion already made will be included in the same category?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. POWELLsaid, that memorials and petitions presented up to this time would probably contain ex parte statements, and to make the documentary evidence complete there ought to be an opportunity for the boroughs affected to put in counter memorials.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true. Memorials have been presented on one side, and unless memorials be received on the other the Committee will have but an ex parte statement before them. But if the memorials from both sides are presented, then the views of those who assent as well as of those who dissent will be known.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would like to present a point of some weight. Is the Report of the Committee to be final on the question of boundary, or only on the question of postponement? If the Report is to be final with respect to boundary, then its task will be much more formidable than if it was to report only on postponement. A serious difference of opinion will often justify postponement, but not a final decision.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My proposition is that the Committee should report to the House the final decision, and that the House should take such course upon it as it may deem expedient. If they thought proper the Committee might receive documentary evidence on both sides, but not call witnesses.
  MR. ROEBUCKsuggested that the Committee should report to the House on what evidence it arrived at its conclusions.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he did not see how the Committee could have the full materials for forming a proper judgment before it. It should be clearly understood what would be the means at the service of the Committee to enable them to decide

  285
  these questions if they were not to hear arguments on both sides. He was afraid, unless the Committee were furnished with sufficient information, that when they had concluded their labours, Member after Member would complain that in certain cases they decided in the absence of material evidence.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERrecognized the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). It was extremely difficult to say how the Committee could come, upon merely documentary evidence, to a final decision, which should have the effect of annexing one district to another for an indefinite period; but what was proposed was that, in order to save the time of the House, cases which were very doubtful and required further inquiry, should be referred to a Select Committee. But the Committee might report that they could not decide in particular cases upon mere documentary evidence, and that those cases ought to stand over for further consideration. When they came to discuss the terms of the appointment of the Committee, he thought it would be more convenient and more consonant with the general wish of the House that the Committee should be directed to report cases which, in their opinion, required further consideration, and which the House was not in a condition to deal with during the present Session.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not understand precisely what was meant by documentary evidence, because the petitions and memorials were more in the nature of pleadings than evidence. Supposing the statements of a petition were impugned, how could the Committee decide as to the matters of fact unless they were empowered to call witnesses? It was not possible to postpone questions with regard to boundaries until next Session, because if they did so the wrong man might be returned at the next General Election, and it would be necessary for Members returned for boroughs the boundaries of which had not been decided to go back to their constituents as soon as the decision had been given.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) that it is absolutely necessary to settle the boundaries in the present Session, for it would scarcely be proper after a General Election to consider what a constituency ought to have been. To obviate the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), I would suggest that
  286
  the Committee should have the power of calling before them the Assistant Commissioners, in order to inquire into particular boroughs. They would be able to furnish all the evidence that was given before them, and to offer useful suggestions. I say this the more freely because, having seen a great deal of the Assistant Commissioners, I can speak in the highest terms of the fairness with which they conducted their inquiries, and of the general intelligence which they displayed. They would be able to supply the Committee with all the necessary information.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to mention a case which showed the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). The inhabitants of Chiswick had petitioned against being united with Kensington and Chelsea, preferring to remain in the county; but if the Committee were only to look into the matter with that petition before them, they would not be able to see the force of the case, because there was a compact entered into last year that Fulham should be added to Kensington and Chelsea, and that in that case Chiswick should be left out. There should be some supplementary evidence given to the Committee in addition to the petitions, which did not enter into the merits of the case.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHrecalled the attention of the Committee to the fact that one of the conditions on which the Commissioners were appointed was, that they should not have power to contract boundaries; and suggested that if certain boroughs were allowed to come forward with claims to have their limits restricted the same liberty should be given to all.
  MR. MORRISONinquired, whether it was intended to give any instructions to the Committee as to the principle on which they would make the selection of cases to be investigated? He could not see how such instructions could be given, because that was the very point at issue which the House was going to refer to the Committee to decide.
  MR. HORSMANreminded hon. Members that the proper time to discuss the matter was when they had the terms of the Reference before them, and when the Motion was made for the appointment of the Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SEA FISHERIES BILL.—QUESTION.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, or the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, in regard to this Bill. The Bill was very much objected to in Ireland, because it would leave the oyster fisheries on the Arklow coast, beyond three miles from the shore, exposed to the incursions and depredations of French and other fishermen during close time. Something ought to be done; and he wished to know what was proposed to alleviate the grievance, which was felt very strongly, upon this subject? He hoped he should receive a satisfactory answer.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, the subject had occasioned very considerable discussion in the course of the evening in the other House of Parliament, where the Bill was in Committee. The result had been that the Chairman reported Progress, and the Department of the Government responsible for the conduct of the Bill having had their attention called to the subject, he would state their determination on a future occasion.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEobserved that an Estimate had been given of the amount of money required for the purchase of the site and other expenses for the new Courts of Law; and he wished to call attention, in connection with this subject, to the importance of providing suitable and convenient approaches to the New Palace of Justice. The Estimate for the site was £1,000,000, and for the buildings £2,000,000. Here was an outlay of £3,000,000; but what provision had been made for the approaches? None. The Courts of Law at Westminster and in the City of London would eventually be concentrated on this spot; and the amount of traffic when the new Courts were in action would be immense. It was therefore the duty of the Government, who had the management of this affair, to see that, if these magnificent buildings were placed in the centre of London, sufficient approaches were provided. There was a sort of Middle Row in the
288
Strand between the two churches east of Somerset House. That block of buildings ought to be removed. Again, from the north and north-east the whole traffic must come through Chancery Lane. The gentlemen of the law had drawn a sort of cordon across London which much impeded the traffic of the metropolis; for the Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn, occupied nearly the whole space from the River Thames to the King's Road, the only openings for traffic east and west being Holborn and Fleet Street. No doubt it was said it would be time enough to make suitable approaches when the Courts were completed; but the buildings required to be pulled down would be trebled in value by that time. The House could not too soon admit the fact that it would be necessary to make large and wide approaches to these Courts. The only approach to the building that would be adequate would be from the Strand; but even this approach could not be reached from the west without passing through the narrow portion of the street caused by the encroachment of Holywell Street. A wide street ought to be made on the west side of the new Courts from the Strand to Lincoln's Inn Fields, and continued to Holborn through Gate Street and Little Turnstile; and another street formed into Holborn through Great Turnstile. He trusted that the Government would not leave these approaches to be considered at the last moment. A comparatively small expenditure now would save a large outlay hereafter; for the public would not be satisfied that the new Courts of Justice, erected at an outlay of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, should be surrounded with narrow lanes and impassable streets.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for London. In compensation cases for improvements where railways or new streets had been made, the owners of houses always expected three, four, or five times as much as they would previously have been glad to accept. He thought at first that the site of the new Courts of Justice was admirably chosen; but this advantage was now likely to be more than counter-balanced by the difficulty of access to the Courts. When it was proposed to put these Courts in a given position, one of the first questions should have been — How are you to get at them? Parliament should not only have provided for the con-

289
struction of the Courts, but should also have given powers to purchase houses and land so as to make streets by which they would have been approachable. But when anything in the nature of a national improvement was proposed the Legislature of this country had never yet perceived the wisdom of doing the thing all at once. A truly honest Report had been drawn up by two well-known and eminent surveyors— Mr. Pownall and Mr. Shaw — who showed that they were determined to do their duty—and in that Report it was stated that there was not one plan for the New Courts which they could approve. From what he had heard from competent authorities he should say that the site was decidedly ill-chosen. As all the competing architects also were invited to send in plans combining a handsome external appearance with proper internal accommodation, it seemed to be an unfair proceeding towards the unsuccessful competitors to club together two plans — one selected on account of its external appearance, and the other for its internal arrangements. He was further informed that, in order to provide sufficient accommodation, light, and air on the site which had been chosen, it would be necessary to take down one side of Chancery Lane. He wished, before any further expense was incurred, that a full inquiry should be made into these matters; and he believed it would be found that the increased expenditure would as much exceed the Estimate as that for the new Houses of Parliament, unless in the first instance they grappled fairly with the question. The completion of the building without proper approaches would remind every one of the story of an amateur gentleman who built a fine house, but forgot to make a staircase in it; and he would suggest whether it might not be advisable to reconsider the project originally entertained in that House, of having a magnificent Palace of Justice erected on the side of the Thames Embankment, to which there would be easy access both by land and water. In making this suggestion, he did not propose anything which would put the country to great expense, for he was told that the site at present selected had been purchased at a comparatively small price, and might be sold at a profit. The Government ought to ascertain from the Metropolitan Board of Works upon what terms they would accommodate the community with, space for the erection of the Law
290
Courts facing the river. He had reason for surmising that, if the Government communicated with that Board, they might, within a short period, obtain a most admirable site for that purpose; and, in that case, he trusted that English architects would be found capable of producing a building which, both in respect to its interior arrangements and its external appearance would be worthy of this great nation.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was not quite sure that it was so very desirable to facilitate access to the Courts of Law, as, generally speaking, the less people had to do with them the better. He urged on the Government the necessity of their endeavouring to keep some faith with the public as to the expense of the proposed Palace of Justice, and for that purpose care should be taken that the estimates were not exceeded.
Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
(1.) £106,000, Site and other Expenses of New Courts of Justice and Offices.
MR. BENTINCKregarded the discussion that had just occurred very much in the light of one for locking the stable door after the animal had been abstracted. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), he thought the expenditure of money already contemplated for the new Courts was so large that it would not be fair towards the public to increase it to any great extent. The Committee appointed last year had come to the conclusion that no one of the competing architects had produced a design that was fit to be executed. In answer to an inquiry that he had made in the House on the subject, he had been informed that the question had been remitted to the Law Officers of the Crown to ascertain whether it was competent for the Committee to appoint two architects or only one. He wished now to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before requiring them to agree to the present Vote, he would not explain to them the position in which that question now stood; whether the dead-lock that had existed still continued; and whether there was any prospect of their being called on to decide upon the design which

291
he had understood was to be submitted to the House before its final adoption?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not made any explanation in moving the Vote, because it was really almost a matter of form after the Act that was passed in 1865. That Act provided that certain sums of money, which should ultimately come out of the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery, should be temporarily advanced from the Exchequer, and be re-paid from the interest of that Fund. Authority had also been given by the Act to purchase what was known as the Carey Street site; accordingly, the properties there were being gradually bought up; and each Session a Vote was proposed to enable the Treasury to advance the money, which was to be re-paid in the manner be had described. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had correctly stated what had previously occurred in the House on that subject. In answer to a question put to him, he had said that the Treasury having great doubts whether the decision of the Judges of the Designs could be held to be an award in any sense, the matter had been referred to the Attorney General. All the parties had received notice of that fact, and had an opportunity of representing their case to the Attorney General. He understood from the Attorney General that he had given his opinion on the point within the last day or two; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not aware that it had yet reached the Treasury. As soon as they became acquainted with his hon. and learned Colleague's opinion, it would be the duty of the Government to consider what course should be taken in the matter, and then the House should be duly informed on the subject. In reference to the subject named by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) before the House went into Committee, he begged to say that the importance of it was recognized by the Government, and it should receive every consideration.
MR. PEASEsaid, that in August last he put to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works, without receiving any very satisfactory reply, the question, whether the Judges of Designs bad made a Report to the Treasury without waiting for the Report of the gentleman to whom a fee of 500 guineas had been paid for investigating the estimates? He afterwards heard that this gentleman's Report, with reference to the two designs most highly
292
thought of, showed that in one case the architect had under-estimated the probable cost of his building by £400,000, and in the other that the discrepancy amounted to £300,000. Under these circumstances, the whole thing was now at a dead-lock— not a very creditable position for all parties concerned.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £3,000,000, Abyssinian Expedition (beyond ordinary Grants of 1868–9).
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £102,905, tie granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENobserved that there was in the Vote an item of £1,470 for the erection of a house for the Professor of Theology in King's College, Aberdeen, and for the rent of a house during the erection of the new house. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun), and of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Lamont), who bad lately expressed so much hostility to the granting of money out of the public funds for theological purposes. He certainly thought they would have watched this Vote, and saved him from the necessity of asking for any explanation with regard to it. He wished the Government to inform him, whether it was the fact that the Committee were now asked to grant money out of the public purse for the support of a Professor of Theology in the University of Aberdeen, and for the building of a house for that professor, and for the rent of a house until the new house was built?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that a sum of £1,885 was granted last year for the same purpose, and the present Vote was required to complete the undertaking, to which the sanction of the House had already been given.
MR. POWELL, remembering what had been said in the course of Wednesday's debate (upon the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill) about Jewish, Parsee, and Roman Catholic theology, said it would be interesting to ascertain what kind of theology was taught by the Professor at the University of Aberdeen. It was the

293
common boast that was thrown at the heads of the friends of the old Universities that those in Scotland were altogether un-sectarian.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the Department which he represented had no thing to do with theology, but was concerned in maintaining in a proper and decent state the fabrics of the Scotch Universities.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had asked what kind of theology was taught in the University of Aberdeen. He believed he could tell the hon. Gentleman. A distinguished foreigner described the Church of England during the last century thus:—It had an Arminian clergy, a Popish liturgy, and Calvinistic Articles. Well the Calvinistic Articles of the Church of England were the theology taught in the Universities of Scotland; but the other part of the description did not apply. Objection had been made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Column O'Loghlen) to spending public money for any theological purposes. In that he entirely agreed, and if the hon. Baronet chose to divide the Committee he would cordially vote with him.
MR. BAXTERsaid, when he attempted to put an end to Votes for Professors of Theology he received no support from either side of the House. The whole Conservative party strongly opposed him eight or ten years ago, when be objected to a further endowment of this Theological Professorship. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would choose to divide on this Vote he certainly should have the greatest pleasure in voting with him. He was glad that hon. Gentlemen had their attention directed to these Votes more than they had formerly. He hoped the day would come when no Grant would be made by the House for religious purposes, especially for the Theological Chairs.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that this Vote had increased by £6,352, and he should like to know how it was occasioned. There was an item of £1,900 for a Jewel House for the Tower. Last year £3,200 had been granted for the same purpose; but he objected to the system of dividing Votes in this way, and obtaining the sanction of the House to a scheme in fragments, which would be sure to be rejected if it was proposed in toto. There were also many items in the Vote which had no connection with its proper object, and the classification of subjects ought to be amended.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that encouraged by the observations of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), as to the sum sought for the erection of a house for the Professor of Theology in the Aberdeen University, he should move the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £1,470.
MR. M. CHAMBERSseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £1,470, for the erection of a House for the Professor of Theology of King's College, Aberdeen, and for Rent of House during such erection, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. Candlish.)
MR. CRAWFORDasked what would be the consequence if this Vote were refused? Would the Professor's House then become one of the interesting ruins of Scotland?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) had just suggested the real question which the Committee had to consider. In consequence of a Vote agreed to last year a contract had been taken for the house, and the work had made some progress. As, however, it had not been finished before the termination of the financial year, he was obliged to ask the Committee to re-Vote a certain amount of the money. If the Committee refused to do this it would be adopting a course for which, he believed, there was no precedent.
MR. BENTINCKopposed the Motion, on the ground that he was not friendly to disendowment either in England or Ireland, in Scotland or Wales.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not conceive himself voting for the endowment of any Professor of Theology; but in this case the house had been begun, and therefore he did not see how the Committee could refuse to agree to the Motion.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M. CHAMBERSdrew attention to the inconveniences that arose from the way in which the different offices of one Department were scattered about London, instead of being concentrated in one quarter. He wanted some information recently about the Greenwich pensioners, and he went to Somerset House, but he was told by a gentleman there that he must go to the War Office; and he had never since been able to get the information here-

295
quired. The separation of these Offices was not only productive of inconvenience to Members, but of great expense to the public. He knew these complaints had often been made before, but they did not appear to produce any effect.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that this matter had engaged the earnest attention of the present Government, as well as that of their immediate predecessors. The late Government appointed a Treasury Commission to consider how all the great public Offices might best be concentrated in the neighbourhood of Whitehall and the Houses of Parliament; and since the present Government came into power its investigations had been continued. Three or four days ago his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury laid that Report on the table; and when it was printed—which it would be in a few days—the Committee would see that it had entered most fully and minutely into the question. The House of Commons had yet to consider whether it would sanction the recommendations of the Commission for the concentration, in the most convenient manner, of all the public Departments and their subordinate Offices. In answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), he stated that £1,500 of the increase arose from the necessity of providing increased accommodation for the Poor Law Board; two other items, formerly placed under another head, amounted to over,£1,000; and the charge for Westminster Bridge was this year increased by £2,500 to provide for its being re-painted and gilded. These sums would account for the excess referred to by the hon. Member.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsuggested to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works, that Glasgow Cathedral should be thrown open to the public; the last year's fees for admission amounting only to £106 17 s. 10 d., as against £256 1s. for the staff of attendants.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £13,000, to complete the sum for Furniture in Public Departments.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that the Vote had increased £1,500. He contended that the head of each Department should make his own expenditure on this account, and be responsible for it; if a Minister could not undertake the duty he was not fit for the place.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that past experience had shown that it was
296
better to place the furnishing of the public Offices under a responsible Minister, rather than leave it to the heads of the various Departments. The increase in this year's Vote, he added, was occasioned by the contemplated removal of the Board of Trade to the temporary Foreign Office, which would be vacated in a few days.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £122,524, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked if steps had been taken, as proposed last year, to throw open Constitution Hill to the public, especially when the Queen was absent from town?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in the absence of the Home Secretary, said he was not aware that any change had been made in that way.
MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that there was a sum of £49.000 included in this Vote for St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park. Now, there was a good deal of discussion last year about the Parks, and it was then stated that these Parks belonged exclusively to the Sovereign and not to the nation. If that were so, he should like to know why the nation was called upon to pay £49,000 for them. There were a great many items in the Vote referring to money expended on Hyde Park. Though they talked a good deal about liberty in this country, it was almost the only country, he believed, in which cabs were not allowed to enter the public Parks. If they went to Vienna or Paris they found that the inhabitants of those cities were permitted to drive in cabs in the Parks there. The noble Lord might say that the roads in Hyde Park were not wide enough to admit of cabs and carriages together travelling upon them. But the Champs Elysées was not so large as Hyde Park, and yet the road was made sufficiently wide to admit cabs as well as carriages to travel upon it. They were advancing, be would not say in democratic views, but in independent views and in common sense—as the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had just said— both in that House and the country; and it was time that a person who had not a carriage should be allowed to go into Hyde Park in a cab. To prevent persons driving in the Park who could not ride in their own carriages was to restrict its use to some 10,000 persons. He had received a good many representations on this subject from

297
his constituents, who lived in the neighbourhood of London, and who, when they came up to London, were often anxious to enjoy, with their wives and daughters, a drive round Hyde Park, but who were unable to do so in consequence of the exclusive system which now prevailed. He himself would often take a drive in the Park if only he were allowed to go in a cab. It was an injustice to tax people for the maintenance of the Park, and to allow them only to walk in it unless they could ride in their own carriages.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKreminded the House that on a former occasion a Vote of £9,000 was taken for Hampton Court, because it was said it was for the benefit of the public. It turned out, however, to be no such thing, but for the stables, vineries, and the Hampton stud, of which the people know little, and in which they had no interest. He did not find fault with the charge of £3,700 in this Vote for keeping in order the grounds of Hampton Court, because it was for the benefit of the public. He complained that the First Commissioner of Works did not do his duty so well on the West side of Hyde Park as he did on the East side. On the East he had planted a large quantity of beautiful flowers; but on the other side, near Kensington Gardens, the only place near London to remind one of Paradise, and a place where quiet thinking men and philosophers could walk, there were only a few common flowers, such as candytuft. [An hon. MEMBER: And pennyroyal.] Yes; and pennyroyal and Virginia stock. He thought it was too bad that in the part to which quiet pedestrians resorted there were few floral decorations.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENinquired, whether it was intended that the large sum—£4,800 odd — which appeared in the Vote for the maintenance of Batter-sea Park, should be continuous? They were told some years ago that that Park would eventually be self-supporting, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect, through the realization of sales of land in that neighbourhood, that the country would not be called upon to vote year after year the large sum that now appeared in the Estimates for the maintenance of Battersea Park.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked, why the receipt for grazing-rents in Hyde Park was not to be found in the Estimate, and why there were two charges for police in the Parks—one to the Ranger and the
298
other to the Commissioner of Works? He also asked why facility was given to the owner of private property outside Roehampton Gate, Richmond Park, to enter the Park by that gate, whilst he refused to allow the public either to enter or leave the Park by that gate over his private road? He would suggest to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works the desirability of closing the Roehampton Gate.
MR. PEASEwould like to know whether there was any reason why the present temporary road from the North end of Exhibition Road into the Queen's Drive, could not be made a permanent road?
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, if the proprietors of the property outside the Roehampton Gate had the privilege of using the Gate, they ought to be asked to let the public use their road as an equivalent.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that although Hyde Park was Royal property, Her Majesty graciously permitted the public to use it, and hence the public paid for its maintenance and improvement. With reference to the questions put as to permission being given for cabs to use the parks, one reason why it might be thought impolitic to grant such permission would be that the owners of omnibuses and other vehicles would make the same demand; and if these were admitted the roads would be inconveniently crowded, and drivers might experience the blocks that were too common in the City. He did not doubt that if, in any particular instance, a strong case were made out in favour of such a course, cabs might be admitted. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Omnibuses also?] Not omnibuses. At the time the traffic in St. James's Park was under consideration, when the convenient access between St. James's Palace and Buckingham Palace was thrown open to the public cabs, it was at the same time decided that it would not be advisable to extend the privilege further. Cabs were also permitted in Hyde Park in the road between Bayswater to Kensington. These facts were sufficient to show that there was no disposition to ignore the interests of the public; but be trusted that the Committee would hesitate before they sanctioned such general proposals as those which had been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) bad complained of the increase in the Estimates; but there were in the proposed expenditure of the year several items which would probably never appear again,

299
In Regent's Park, for instance, there was an expenditure of £8,000 or £9,000, which was to be incurred in consequence of the deplorable accident that took place there the year before last. Those works were now being pushed forward with great rapidity, and would, of course, be made once for all. He might congratulate the Committee that this would be the last year that a Vote would be proposed for the Chelsea Hospital. The charge for the maintenance and watching the Hospital grounds would be transferred to the Hospital, whose estate had lately sufficiently improved to allow of the transfer being made. £700 was to be spent in connection with the old wall in Kensington Gardens, which had to be removed to prevent its falling down, and that, together with £300 for painting, might be regarded as exceptional. An expenditure of £700 had resulted from placing the watching of Hyde Park under the direction of the police, and though the change had resulted in a larger expenditure, it had, he believed, given general satisfaction. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) had expressed a hope that the temporary road in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert's Memorial would be converted into a permanent road. It would be seen from the Estimates that the formation of a carriage road was proposed, and if the Vote were sanctioned by the Committee, it would be at once commenced. His attention had been directed to the subject of the road at the Roehampton Gate, and he had been in communication with the joint-stock Company to whom the road belonged. He had every reason to believe that, either by some such suggestion as had been made that evening, or by some other plan, a result might be attained which would he satisfactory to those who desired an alteration in the present condition of those roads. As to the grazing in Hyde Park, he did not see any reference to a particular item of that nature; and, with respect to Battersea Park, he might say that property in the neighbourhood was increasing in value, and there was reason to believe that the original Estimate would be borne out.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKwanted to know if the Estimates were to go on increasing from year to year; because, if so, where are we to stop? Since 1866 there had been an increase of £40,000; and last year, as now, the Committee were told that many of the items were exceptional, and would never occur again.
LORD JOHN MANNERSremarked that there was always a tendency to increase in the sums required for the parks. Claims for additional public accommodation, and additional public enjoyment, were continually being made, and such claims could not be met without increased expenditure. The hon. Member, while complaining of the increase in the expenditure, had at the same time appealed to him for more attention to the flowers—a matter that would, of course, involve the outlay of more money. The mere fact of placing Hyde Park under the control of the police had led to a considerable increase; but a far greater expense had been incurred in connection with the railings which had been torn down.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERexpressed a hope that the gates of the Marble Arch at the end of Oxford Street would be thrown open, instead of being kept closed, as they were now.
MR. M. CHAMBERStrusted the noble Lord would not sacrifice, by hasty leasing or sale, the surplus lands of Battersea Park.
In reply to Mr. SANDFORD,
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the public were not allowed to have access to Richmond Park, through the private road alluded to, it would be for the Department to consider whether they would not recommend the closing the gate altogether.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £47,936, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the original Estimate for building the Houses of Parliament was £750,000; and up to this time they had voted £2,250,000, and after all this expenditure there was not, in the entire building, one good room. As a Member of the Refreshment Committee, he called attention to the narrow, low, ill-ventilated dining-room, and to the necessity of providing better accommodation. A common dining-room for Lords and Commons had been proposed, and some Peers to whom he spoke rather approved the project, but it was not acceded to. The average number of those who dined in the House of Commons in the course of a Ses-

301
sion was 8,000. At the time the union of the two dining-rooms was talked of there had been 4,000 dinners in the Commons, and not one in the Lords; but, notwithstanding this, two kitchens and two establishments were to be kept up. It was now proposed that the dining-room should be brought down to the level of the Thames, and the kitchen was to be in the damp vaults below. He did not think that such an arrangement could possibly be submitted to; nor did he think there was much chance at present of getting the money for the extensive changes that were suggested in the House. Under these circumstances, he asked the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) to consider whether it would not be well to increase the height and width of the present dining-room?
MR. OSBORNEsaid, the view he took of this Vote was that, after the Vote for Fortifications, it was the most objectionable —indeed in some respects it resembled the Fortifications Vote. The hon. and gallant Member below him (Colonel French) who so well represented the kitchen Department, and to whom they all owed a debt of gratitude for his great exertions, had properly called attention to the bad accommodation of the Commons dining-room. One reason given, indeed, for the longer life of the Lords was that they so seldom dined in the House; and to condemn Members to what was ironically called the refreshment-room was exacting from them a severe penalty indeed. But he had not risen for the purpose of going into the kitchen Department. The sum originally voted for the building of that House was £750,000, and the country had expended on it, not £2.250,000, but upwards of £3,000,000. And what had they got? He wondered why Sir Charles Barry's and Mr. Pugin's descendants, intead of quarrelling as to who was the architect of the building, had not endeavoured to push the question altogether aside. Why, there was no country in the world with a Constitutional Assembly that had it housed in so uncomfortable and unhealthy a place. Here was a Vote for completing the Clock Tower, and for works in New Palace Yard and its approaches, including the erection of an arcade and the formation of a subway, upwards of £13,600. What he wanted to know was by whose orders was this arcade, which was ruining the façade of the building, erected? It was not in the original Estimate, and the effect of it was to dwarf the building, already placed in a hole, and to darken
302
the rooms of the officers who lived in that part of it. Here also was a small item for pedestals for statues in Westminster Hall, and for a drinking fountain in Palace Yard, £330. Now, if it were competent for him to move that those statues, which disfigured Westminster Hall altogether, should be taken away he would move it. He could little have foreseen that a man with a taste for Gothic architecture like his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) would have consented to have those statues placed in a Gothic hall like that; and yet they were to have a Gentleman coming forward with an Amendment to-night to stick up Oliver Cromwell among them also. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) had as great a respect as any man for the memory of Oliver Cromwell, but he thought his statue should he in its proper place, He was of opinion that all these statues, not only of Oliver Cromwell; but those of the House of Brunswick, and that even of "the glorious, pious, and immortal" William III. should be deposed and turned out, for it was a prostitution of art to place those statues in Westminster Hall. There was another item of £4,000, for warming, lighting, and ventilating the House, He would ask any Gentleman was there ever such warming and ventilation as they had to undergo in that House. That evening, when they came into the House, though an important debate was coming on, there was not a single window open, and it was owing to the courtesy which distinguished the Serjeant-at-Arms who, when applied to, took it upon himself to order the windows to be opened that some air at last was admitted. Why, the ventilation of that House was simply disgraceful. Here was also a Vote for Works of Art for the decoration of the Palace of Westminster, for which he should like some explanation. There was a considerable sum in that Vote for frescoes, and he would like to know the state of the account with Mr. Maclise, who, he believed, had been very ill-used in the Votes of that House. Mr. Herbert, for his great work of art in the Council Chamber, had had an addition made to the sum he was to receive; but Mr. Maclise, who had no one to bring forward his case, and who bad not only proved his greatness as an artist but his disinterested conduct as a man, had been most unfairly treated, and had never any additional sum given him. He should like to receive some explanation upon that point, and also some information with re-

303
gard to what was put down in the Estimates as "the balance of the contract for one statue for the chronological series of statues of British Sovereigns now in course of execution."
MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) was not quite correct as to the case of Mr. Maclise, for he (Mr. Layard) had the honour of bringing his claims before the Committee on a previous occasion. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that Mr. Maclise had not been fairly treated. Mr. Maclise, with a delicate sense of honour, made no application, but left his case in the hands of the Commissioners; but that was not the way that others bad acted. Other artists had not completed their work, and a recommendation was made that they should get an increased sum, and it was voted to them; but it was not voted to Mr. Maclise, on the ground that he had completed his work, which was as much as to say that because he had done his duty he should get nothing additional, while others who had not done their duty should have additional pay. He regretted that Mr. Maclise had never been authorized to carry out the series of frescoes for which he had been directed to make designs. Now, he affirmed that there were no frescoes so remarkable, so important, and so likely to be interesting to future generations as those of Mr. Maclise; they had been executed with the greatest possible care, and they were a faithful record of two great events in English history. Therefore they were far more important and interesting than mere works of imagination. Mr. Maclise, however, did receive some extra sum; but he (Mr. Layard) would cordially support a farther grant to him in order to continue his frescoes.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) in what he bad said about the statues in Westminster Hall. He would venture to say that anything more incongruous than to put into a hall of the reign of Richard II. statues which were in the worst style of art of George III. could not be imagined. He was sure the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would not allow them to remain there; but he should like to hear him say so. As a matter of art he should be sorry to see the statue of Oliver Cromwell placed there, though irrespective of that he should have a word to say against such a proposal. So also would the Irish Members, for if ever there was a tyrant and op-
304
pressor in regard to Ireland it was Oliver Cromwell. With respect to the House itself he did not think they could find in Europe a building worse adapted to the purposes for which it was required. There was at the back of the House of Lords a space about four times the size of that House, which was entirely wasted. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) as to what he had said about Mr. Maclise's frescoes. They were too crowded. He did not believe that when Wellington and Blucher met they had to walk their horses over dead bodies. [Mr. OSBORNE: They never met at Waterloo at all.] Then that disposed altogether of the remark of the hon. Member for Southwark as to the value of the frescoes in an historical point of view. The Speaker's house was most inconvenient, all the rooms being too small, while there were no rooms attached to the House of Lords for consultation, for counsel, or for witnesses in attendance upon a great Court of Appeal. Then, again, where was there another Assembly in the world the Members of which were unable to properly perform their duties because they were not provided with seats in their Chamber? What was the use of electing Members of Parliament if sufficient accommodation was not afforded them for the performance of their duties? It was absolutely necessary that the House of Commons should be enlarged. Then there was that miserable "cage" in which the ladies were placed. The accommodation afforded them was most discreditable to that House. The ladies should have a decent refreshment-room provided for them; the place now placed at their disposal would not hold more than two persons at a time. It was most disgraceful that the ladies should be cooped up behind a grating which ought to be removed. A grating was not found to be necessary in the House of Lords, and why should it be required in that House? The question of the enlargement of the sitting accommodation of that House was a most serious one. It was probable that when they were returned by the reformed constituencies hon. Members would be more regular in their attendance and more zealous in the discharge of their duties, and then it would be impossible to attempt to squeeze 658 Members into a room that was only calculated to hold about 350. Even now it was frequently impossible for Members to hear a debate or even the question put, and they had to run from the smoking,

305
the tea, or the dining-rooms when the bell rang for a division, and had to ask every-body which way they were to vote.
MR. BENTINCKwished to make one or two observations upon the statues in Westminster Hall. In the first place, he wanted to know why they had been placed there? [Mr. OSBORNE: Where do they come from?] He believed they were originally intended for the Royal Gallery; but that place not being adapted to receive them they had been wandering about under the guidance of the First Commissioner of; Works. When the subject was discussed last year, nothing was said as to where the statues were to be placed, and it was therefore rather a surprise to hon. Members, when they returned after the Recess this year, to find in Westminster Hall five of these statues in marble placed upon permanent pedestals, and one of Charles II., with his favourite spaniel, in plaster on a temporary pedestal. No doubt the transporting of those statues to Westminster Hall must have been attended with considerable expense. It was not right that the First Commissioner of Works should have the power of moving these statues about without previously asking permission to do so from the Committee. He wished to have some information about the drinking fountains in Palace Yard. Was the extraordinary erection at the corner of Great George Street one of them? [A VOICE: It's Buxton's.] It resembled a Chinese extinguisher, and was copied, no doubt, from something taken in the Chinese war. As to Mr. Maclise's frescoes he believed that the Fine Arts Committee of 1864 heard the evidence, and that three or four years afterwards they were called upon to vote an additional sum of money to that gentleman, and it was a matter of doubt whether they should now embark in any fresh expenditure. The water glass pictures were fading away, and would soon present an appearance equally deplorable with that of Mr. Dyce's pictures.
MR. CLAYthought that whatever the opinion might be as to the expense of moving the statues into Westminster Hall, he hoped that no one would object to the expense of taking them away.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped that as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer) had so strong an objection to the present House of Commons, he would give his assent to the plan that was about to be introduced, by which ample
306
accommodation would be afforded to every Member, and more especially to the ladies. COLONEL SYKES said, the House was sufficiently large for the ordinary attendances of Members. ["No, no!"] He said, "Yes!" Only sixteen Members were present the other day when the question of the fortifications was being discussed, involving an outlay of millions of money. He had been a pretty constant attendant in the House, and he knew that, except on party occasions, not only was the House large enough for the Members, but scores of seats were always vacant. £3,000,000 had been already expended on the House, and he protested against the building of another House. He wished the noble Lord to state whether the operation for the preservation of the exterior of the House from decay was successful and was continued from year to year. He observed there was an item of £4,500 for furniture and the repair of furniture in the House. He had been a good deal about the House, and had not seen any new furniture. Then there was an item of £1,150 for sweeping the House. That amount seemed to be extravagant.
MR. GORE LANGTONprotested against the erection of a new House. The sums that had been wasted on the House were perfectly scandalous. The inconvenience of the House had been very much exaggerated. Moreover, the ablest architect having been employed, there was no guarantee that an untried man would furnish better accommodation.
SIR ANDREW AGNEWasked for definite information whether a new building was in contemplation?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained of the accommodation provided for this House when summoned to the House of Lords, Members being penned in, and the Speaker having to stand like a prisoner in a dock. He did not care for himself, but proper respect should be paid to the Head of this House — the Speaker. Why should he not have a seat and be treated like a gentleman, for he was one?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, as to the dining-room accommodation, that last year a proposal was made by him which found favour in the eyes of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French), and the other Members of his Committee, that there should be joint Dining-rooms for the Members of both Houses, and that the Tea-room, the Conference-room, and the adjoining House of Lords' Committee-room should be

307
appropriated to that object. Mr. Barry was requested to draw out a plan, and the Kitchen Committee approved of the plan; but the corresponding Committee of the Lords objected they could not afford to lose the Committee accommodation which it would entail. The Lords having thus put their veto upon the scheme, it fell through. The right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) proposed, about that time, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the entire arrangement of the House of Commons. That Committee, after sitting the whole of last Session, were re-appointed early this Session, and had just concluded their labours—their Report, he believed, being now on the table. It was therefore inexpedient to go into the question raised by them until the Chairman of that Committee had had an opportunity of calling attention to their recommendations. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), in one of those facetious speeches with which he often amused, and perhaps instructed, the House, had asked what was the history of the arcade which was about being completed in Palace Yard. Now, he believed it originated in the desire of a considerable number of Members that when the railway works had been completed they should be able to get to the station and to the Thames Embankment without crossing Westminster Bridge Road. The Vote for that purpose had been sanctioned in former years, he himself having no responsibility for the work. It was now nearly completed; and, when the difficulties which had impeded the railway company were removed, he had no doubt the arcade and subway would be found a great convenience. The hon. Gentleman had also criticized the Vote of £4,000 for warming and ventilation, and had complained that the result was not at all satisfactory. He, however, could not see how it could have been more satisfactory had the £4,000 not been expended. [Mr. OSBORNE: The thing was badly done.] He did not agree that this was the case. One of the most eminent men connected with this class of subjects had given his unremitting attention to this extremely difficult duty, and as a more frequent attendant than the hon. Gentleman, he was bound to say that he did not think the ventilation and warming of the House, or of its rooms and corridors, was such as had been described. With regard to Mr. Maclise's claims, they had been considered by the Treasury Commission appointed by
308
the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) two or three years ago, and if they had not been fairly dealt with he was very sorry for it; but this was the first coin-plaint he had heard on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had also referred to the experimental position of the statues in Westminster Hall, and the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) had urged that it was quite incongruous to place in a Gothic hall, erected in the time of Richard II., statues which would disgrace the reign of George III. Now, the discussion of statues or pictures always led to unlimited controversy; but, if it were true that these statues represented the worst style of art in the reign of George III., the artistic taste of the present reign must be in a very melancholy condition, for they had been committed to the most distinguished sculptors of the day. He, however, did not concur in the criticisms which had been levelled at them. Whether they were properly placed in Westminster Hall or no was a different question. The fact was this — When some of the statues were placed in the Royal Gallery, it struck everybody who saw them that they were too large for the site for which they were intended. His right hon. Predecessor entered into communication with the architect of the Palace upon the subject, and called on him to suggest some site where they would not be out of proportion. The architect suggested, as an experiment, that some should be placed in Westminster Hall, in order that the public and the House of Commons might be enabled to form some opinion respecting them. Temporary pedestals were therefore prepared, and the statues were placed in the Hall. He believed public opinion was extremely divided on the subject; but he was bound to say that if those statues, which were the property of the public and had been paid for, were to be removed, he, for one, should be sorry to see them re-placed in the Royal Gallery, for they would certainly have to be moved away again. This was a question on which the fullest expression of opinion should be given; and he hoped no hasty decision would be arrived at respecting them. With respect to the erection of a drinking-fountain in Palace Yard, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) had referred, he had only to state that, as a considerable number of cabmen frequented that spot, it was considered advisable that they should have ready access to the most

309
natural and most healthy of drinks; and accordingly it was proposed that a Vote should he taken for that purpose. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had put a Question with respect to the state of the exterior wails of the Houses of Parliament; and he (Lord John Manners) was happy to be able to state in reply that he had every reason to believe that the application made use of a few years ago for the preservation of the stone had answered its purpose, and that the fears expressed by the hon. and gallant Member upon the subject would not be realized.
MR. STACPOOLEasked, if there would be any objection to establish a communication by speaking-tubes between the doorkeepers and the various apartments about the House to which Members retired, so that they might learn with facility what was going on in the House?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: That question had better be postponed to see whether we are in future to meet permanently in this House or in another place.
MR. OSBORNEsaid, he did not think the explanations given by the noble Lord with respect to the mode in which the public money was expended were at all satisfactory. The noble Lord had told them that certain Members of the House had suggested the erection of the arcade; but why should the noble Lord listen to suggestions of private Members which incurred an outlay of not less than £14,000? He should like the noble Lord to inform them whether it was proposed that any more of those statutes should be placed in Westminster Hall? For his part he believed that they were entirely unfitted for such a site. Westminster Hall was, in fact, used as a lumber-room for those statutes, and if the noble Lord did not know where else to put them, he (Mr. Osborne) would recommend that they should be sent to that refuge of the destitute the Kensington Museum. With regard to the ventilation of the House, he would observe that he ought to be qualified to give an opinion upon the subject, for he had sat in that House as much as the noble Lord, and he hoped to relieve the noble Lord of the duty of occupying a place upon that Bench. He was surprised to hear his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) making any objection to the enlargement of the House, because they all knew that his hon. and gallant Friend was constantly
310
in the habit of taking the seats of other Members.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERexplained that he had not said the statues were a disgrace to the reign of George III., nor did he say anything to be painful to the artists. What he said was that, being costumed in the style of the reign of George III., the statues were out of place in a hall built by Richard II.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he must in justice insist on his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) recalling his statement that he (Colonel Sykes) was in the habit of occupying the seats of other Members. During the eleven years he had been in Parliament no question had arisen between him and another Member, except on one occasion in the present Session, and then his usual seat had been taken by another Member; and he had always occupied the same seat, or a corresponding seat on the opposite side of the House.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) about the statues, which were quite as great an ornament to Westminster Hall as the doorways on the opposite side. There were two things in the Hall to attract attention, the statues and the apple stall, and the attention of the public was divided between them. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had told them that it was a monstrous thing to put up statues dressed in the costume of the reign of George III. in a hall built by William Rufus. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Richard II.] He took issue with the hon. Baronet, for he believed the hall was built by William Rufus. But at all events, it was a Gothic hall, and they were then sitting in a Gothic building; so that if the doctrine of the hon. Baronet were to prevail, they could place no statue in that building unless they covered it in a Gothic costume, and they ought themselves to dress in the same style. They could not alter the building according to the people who sat in it, and if they wished to erect statues of great men they must represent them in the dress they were in their time. All these objections were futile, and as the statues had been shown to be too big for any other place, they could not do better than leave them in Westminster Hall, for which they could not be too big. He hoped the public at large would express their opinion upon the subject instead of the decision being

311
left to dillettante Members of that House who did not know what they liked.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYchallenged the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) to take a division on the item, for he believed that a very large majority of the Committee would be in favour of leaving the statues where they now stood. Though they might not be so fine as the statues in the corridor leading to the House of Lords, they were extremely well placed, and the public received pleasure from viewing them.
MR. OSBORNEaccepted the challenge of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Hankey), and moved the omission of the item of £330 for pedestals for statues in Westminster Hall, for iron gates to the Royal Court, and for a drinking fountain in New Palace Yard.
COLONEL W. STUARTasked the hon. Member for Nottingham whether he objected to the drinking fountain?
MR. OSBORNE: I leave the drinking to you.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Item of £330 for Pedestals to Statues in Westminster Hall, for Iron Gates to Royal Court, and for a Drinking Fountain in New Palace Yard, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. Osborne.)
The Committee divided: —Ayes 76; Noes 234: Majority 158.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he understood that there was an intention to place the statue of Lord Palmerston at the back of the statue of Sir Robert Feel in New Palace Yard, so that the two statues would be back to back. He wished to know whether there was any such intention. With regard to the statue of Sir Robert Peel he would venture to say that any statue so discreditable to the art of this country had never been raised, and that something ought to be done either to improve the statue or remove it.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would find on the Votes of tomorrow night a Motion for the removal of the statue of Sir Robert Peel.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that business of great importance remained to be transacted, especially the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) for the introduction of a Bill on the subject of the Irish Church. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there were several Votes which would be agreed to without discussion, and after they were gone through there would be no objection to report Progress.
MR. OSBORNEsaid, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw his Motion, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was not in the House to move for the introduction of his Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,135, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad."
MR. LABOUCHEREobjected to the Vote, and asked, whether it was intended to re-furnish the Embassy House at Paris, on which a very considerable sum had been expended?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when Lord Lyons went to Paris there were some necessary changes in the furniture at the Embassy which had occasioned some expenditure.
MR. LABOUCHEREunderstood that when Lord Lyons went to Paris he received a sum of £2,000, a portion of which was to be devoted to the re-placing of furniture at the Embassy. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £135, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that the Embassy House at Paris was the property of the Crown. The furniture was very dilapidated and absolutely required replacing. Lord Lyons received no such sum as that stated by the hon. Member for any such purpose.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he could confirm that statement?
LORD STANLEYsaid, an Ambassador on going to his post received an allowance for personal outfit; but this was apart

313
from the cost of maintenance and repair of Embassies.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEthought it high time these Royal palaces should be diminished. They must begin by cutting down these Votes, or they would leave nothing for the new Parliament to do.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought it would be useless in the present state of the House to press his Amendment. He begged to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) £19,512, New Foreign Office.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, they were asked to pay last year £40,000, this year £22,000, making £62,000 for fittings and furniture for the Foreign Office, and thought it was time to inquire when that expenditure would end?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed no further Vote would be required for the internal fittings and furniture of the new Foreign Office; but if the external elevation was to be carried out as originally intended by the architect, so as to harmonize with the India Office, a further sum would probably be necessary for statues.
COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT moved that the Chairman report Progress.
LOUD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the only Votes which would now be asked for were those to complete Votes already sanctioned by Parliament.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not wish to interfere with the Motion which the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was about to bring forward; but before Progress was reported he wished to ask the Committee to consider the principle on which Votes should be taken.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEappealed to the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was not out of order?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the Committee was that he should report Progress; and on that Motion it was not competent for an hon. Member to discuss the Votes.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not propose to discuss the Votes, but to raise a question as to the principle on which the Votes should proceed. The hon. Member was about to explain this principle, when—
MR. CLAYappealed to the Chairman, whether he was not persisting, in spite of the intimation which had been given from
314
the Chair, in discussing a general principle which was applicable to a Vote not before the Committee.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, his hon. Friend desired to raise a question of some public importance. He had privately explained to him the position he was about to take, and it was one which deserved the serious attention of the House. At that late hour it was not likely that such attention could be secured for it; and therefore he asked his hon. Friend to postpone raising the question until the House next went into Committee.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow;

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent, for a limited time, new appointments in the Church of Ireland, and to restrain, for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent, for a limited time, new appointments in the Church of Ireland, and to restrain, for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  COLONEL STUART KNOXopposed the introduction of the Bill, and considered that he was perfectly justified in so doing after the opinion freely expressed by Members opposite that it was too late to proceed with Public Business. It was his full intention to oppose this Bill at every stage, upon the same grounds that had been put forward by a Gentleman long holding a great position in that House, and he could not do better than read these opinions, which were given many years ago—
  "One great part of the mission of the Irish Church was the instruction of those who belonged to it in the maxims of religion, loyalty, and truth. Has it failed in that respect; or are they not, on the contrary, to be reckoned among the most loyal and devoted subjects of the Crown? England is a Protestant State; it ought, therefore, to uphold the Protestant religion. What does that mean? That while we respect the antiquity and the practices of the Church of Rome, we also assert the right of private judgment and the independence of the human mind. I trust that a Church which retains the just authority of a Christian Church, which teaches the Scriptures and the unadulter-

  315
  ated truths of the Church of England, will never be overthrown by a House of Commons. It cannot be destroyed, except by the vote of a recreant senate and an apostate nation."
  MR. GLADSTONE: What is the hon. Member quoting from?
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: I am quoting from the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1835, speaking in the House of Commons upon the question of the Irish Church, in opposition to its persistent foe, Lord Russell. I move, Sir, that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Colonel Stuart Knox.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, when on the previous day he had called the attention of the House to the fact, that it wanted less than ten minutes to six o'clock, and that no time consequently remained for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to give any explanation of the contents of this Bill, he pursued no unusual course. There was an analogy between the manner in which what was termed the private business of the House—that which related to matters of detail, to personal or local matters—was conducted, and the practice of the House in Bills of the most important character. The 26th Standing Order related to matters touching such property as that affected by the Bill, when affected in detail by Private Bills. The 26th Standing Order directed that—
  "Previously to the deposit of a petition for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the Crown, Church, or corporation property, or property held in trust for public or charitable purposes, before the first reading of any such Bill brought from the House of Lords, notice in writing of such application to Parliament shall be served upon the owners or reputed owners of such property, and the lessees or reputed lessees of such property, holding leases for a life or lives, or for any term of twenty-one years or upwards."
  And further in certain cases by a subsequent Standing Order the publication of notice in the Gazette was necessary. These safeguards were insisted upon in the case of Private Bills, and they showed the deliberation, with which the subject ought to be approached. The Controller of the Household had scarcely had time to make his obeisance or to turn round after bringing up Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, when the right hon. Gentleman got up and gave Notice of this Bill. In taking the course he was doing with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal he was only following Parliamentary prece-
  316
  dent. His object was to obtain information as to the scope and purport of the Bill. He should like to know whether it was proposed in the Bill to deal either with the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union, both of which had ever been regarded as fundamental portions of the Constitution? He should also like to know, who was to appoint to any incumbencies that might become vacant during the period that the Bill was to be in operation? [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Nobody.] He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire intended that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk should answer for him. He rather thought that was a more direct inspiration than the right hon. Gentleman would like to accept. Pie wanted to know, supposing any vacancy should occur during the operation of this Bill, either in a bishopric, cathedral, or in an incumbency, who was to appoint either to the bishopric, the chapter, or the parish? Again, was the person appointed to be put in the full enjoyment of the income and emoluments of the bishopric, chapter, or incumbency? He wished further to know, for what period the Bill, as it was to be temporary, was to remain in operation? he wished to know whether it purported to bind a future Parliament? He thought that in justice to their successors, who would be their legitimate children—the House should know for what time the Bill was to be in operation. Lastly, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed to take the second reading? These were questions touching statutes of a fundamental character, touching the Constitution, the tenure of the Crown, and the duties connected with that tenure. There were some Members of the House, at all events, who did not think lightly of interfering with these fundamental statutes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, before answering the Questions of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I wish to make a reference to the supposed quotations of the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon, made from what he says was a speech of mine. I was desirous that without the least delay the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give me an opportunity of verifying those quotations; but he was unable to give me any information that would enable me to do so.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: I have reason to believe that the first part of my quotation was from the speech made by

  317
  the right hon. Gentleman in 1835, when in Office. The latter part, I believe, was from the fourth edition of his work published in 1841—nine years after his entry into Parliament, when he could not be regarded as a boy — ["Oh, oh!"] — and when his views might be regarded as constitutional.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I want is a reference. I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman to observe the mode of procedure he has adopted. He produces passages of which I have no recollection, of which I can find no trace, and which I do not believe ever proceeded from my mouth or from my pen. I asked him from what he quoted? He says—without giving any particulars—that the first part of his quotation was from a speech I made when I was in Office, and the latter part, he believed from a work in two octavo volumes, published twenty-seven years ago, which do not seem to have attracted him sufficiently to induce him to read them for the improvement of his mind or for any other object. Till the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me a reference, I must ask the House to suspend their judgment as to the authorship of those remarkable passages. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting assistance from the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton).
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the page—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me no reference, it is not in my power to deal with his quotations; but I must say that I do not think any Member of this House has a right to use passages, on which he intends to found a charge, without at the same time naming the source, so as to give the person to whom those passages are attributed a means of verifying the quotations.
  Now, in answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I wish to say that I did not explain the contents of the Bill for this reason—that I think they were explained, as far as was necessary and convenient, for hon. Members in the speech I made when proposing the second Resolution. Indeed, that Resolution contained the whole substance of the Bill. Exclusive of the preliminary recitals and the subsidiary provisions, the enacting part
  318
  will not be found to proceed beyond the second page. The Bill first of all provides for the stoppage of any new appointments in the Church in Ireland. Secondly, it restrains the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland, except so far as regards the necessary and current purposes for which the Commission exists. It restrains them from all serious outlay of money, and all arrangements which would unnecessarily complicate the future. The Bill contains no provisions whatever touching the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union, nor does it appear to me to be necessary or suitable that it should contain such provisions. Whether it would be necessary in more permanent legislation—in final legislation on this subject — to introduce provisions touching the Act of Union is another matter: but I do not think there is anything in this Act which either states that Parliament has carried the first Resolution which has been adopted, or declares in any manner that the Established Church in Ireland should cease to be an Established Church. That is declared by the first Resolution; but it is not declared by this Bill. Therefore I do not think that there is any question of the Act of Union in the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill. The time during which; the Bill will be in operation I stated before. It will continue in force till the 1st of August, 1869. As to the methods of procedure to be adopted with regard to those offices not to be filled up, they are substantially described and provided already in the Irish Church Temporalities Act of 1833. The measures then taken with respect to the bishoprics proposed by Lord Derby to be abolished are the measures which will serve for the purpose now. With regard to benefices, the only difference it has been necessary to make I described in proposing the second Resolution. The Bill of 1833, contemplating only parishes in which there was but a very limited number of Protestants, provided for only a small remuneration to the clergyman who might be appointed. This Bill provides that in fixing the salary of the officiating minister regard is to be had to the nature and extent of the duties to be discharged. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about the manner in which vacancies are to be dealt with, I have only to say that the arrangements will be precisely the same as they were under the Act of 1833 in the case of suspended benefices. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the clauses in that

  319
  Act referring to bishoprics to be abolished and benefices to be suspended, he will find that the framework of legislation is already in action, and only requires to be extended in order to meet the case with which we have now to deal. There are subsidiary provisions in respect of minor offices in the Church in Ireland—lay offices of a minor character. Persons taking such offices are to take them subject to the pleasure of Parliament. I think I have now described the provisions of the Bill. If I decline to enter into arguments on those provisions at present, it is because I think I am consulting the convenience of the House by so doing, as I believe hon. Members will be better able to discuss the Bill when it is in their hands than they can be now before it is laid on the table.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman had thrown a doubt upon the accuracy of the passage quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon, yet he could not deny that he had made the strongest appeals from time to time, to that House, in favour of the Irish Church. He thought that the course now adopted by the right hon. Gentleman cast a grave imputation on his consistency. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office the House would not have heard of any attack upon the Irish Church. He believed that had Lord Derby been in Office they would not have heard of it. He believed that its object was to crush the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who had risen to the post he occupied by his own talent and industry, and to prevent his obtaining a fair trial from that House. According to precedent, they had every right to oppose, if they pleased, the first reading of the Bill. They knew its contents; and its contents were such that he apprehended they were entitled to oppose it. He remembered that more than once a Bill for securing vote by ballot had been successfully opposed on the first reading. This was, therefore, not an unprecedented and unusual course. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire state that, after the reception of the Queen's Message, he had a right to introduce the Bill; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced it, and they had a right to treat it as they pleased. As they bad not seen the Bill, and as it was desirable they should be in possession of that most pernicious document, he should recommend his hon Friends to reserve their
  320
  opposition until the second reading. ["No, no!"] Then he should recommend his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stuart Knox) to take any course he thought proper.
  Question put, and negatived.
  VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he thought in this important crisis he should be warranted in moving that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire should be read by the Clerk at the Table. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sure the House would give him credit for saying that he would not do anything factious, or in the spirit of party. It would be most advantageous to hon. Members—anxious as he believed they were, on both sides of the House, that the Bill should be fairly discussed—to know what were the motives of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward the Bill. A perfect understanding of what was about to be done would very much facilitate matters. He did not know that he was quite in order in moving that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table; but many of those who were accustomed to pin their faith to the principles of the maintenance of Church and State peculiarly advocated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be glad to know why he had changed his opinions.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood the noble Lord to move that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  VISCOUNT INGESTREagain rose to address the House, but being met by loud cries of "Order," resumed his seat.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question as to when he proposed that the second reading should be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid it had escaped him to answer the Question; but he might now state that, presuming he obtained leave to bring in the Bill, as the Bill was short, and as he hoped it would be in type to-morrow, he proposed to fix the second reading for Friday, the 22nd.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. LAWSON.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have to ask the permission of the House to make an explanation of a matter which has occurred in the course of this debate. ["Hear, hear !"] Aided by my Friends—for I, also, have Friends as well as the hon. and

  321
  gallant Gentleman — I have discovered a passage which bears a remarkable resemblance to that which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Stuart Knox) described as coming from me in 1835. The passage is this—
  "By all that we see and know of the history of the country, this is—and I glory in the thought— a Protestant State. What does that mean? That while we respect the antiquity and the authority of the Church, we also assert the right of private judgment and vindicate the independence of the human mind. I trust that a Church which retains the principle of a Christian Church—which teaches the Scriptures and the unadulterated truths of the Church of England, will never be overthrown by a British House of Commons. It cannot be destroyed except by the vote of a recreant Senate and an apostate nation." — [3 Hansard, clxxxii. 1008.]
  But, upon running my hand up to the head of that speech, I find that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman attributed to me as having been uttered by me twenty-seven years ago, was really delivered on the 10th April, 1866, and that the author of it was Mr. Whiteside.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXattempted to address the House, but was stopped by cries of "Order."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would be happy to obtain a hearing for the hon. and gallant Member if the ground on which he claimed to be heard could be admitted.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: I wish to say one word in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. ["Order !"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman obtained a hearing in order to make a personal explanation.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: I do, also. I wish merely to thank the right hon. Gentleman for corroborating my words; and to say that, when I have an opportunity of referring to the documents as he has had, I have no doubt I shall be able to answer him.
  MR NEWDEGATEsaid, that, in the confusion which prevailed, he could not hear the day proposed for the second reading.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that when a Bill was brought in and read the first time the second reading was then fixed.
  COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT: I wish to ask the hon. and gallant Member upon what grounds he attributed the speech of the Right Hon. Mr. Whiteside to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire?
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: From Hansard.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr.Verner.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEhoped that the usual fortnight would be allowed for the consideration of so important a measure.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he admitted the Government was in a minority upon this subject; but that was no reason why they should not have sufficient time to consider the provisions of the Bill before they were called upon to pronounce an opinion upon it. Time was not pressing, and there was plenty of business to transact in the meantime. Their being in a minority was no reason why they should not have fair play and endeavour to defend themselves.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish the Business of the House to be conducted in its regular course. The practice was, on every occasion that a Bill was brought in, to fix the second reading after it had been read a first time. That, be presumed, would be the course adopted on the present occasion. He wished to ask the hon. Member if he intended to press his Motion for the adjournment of the House?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 117.]

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING,
  Bill presented.
  On Motion, "That the Bill be now read the first time,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)
  LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: When a proposal of a similar kind was made two Sessions ago, it was agreed by the House that the reading of a Bill by the Clerk at the Table was an exploded practice—a practice which had not been followed for many years; and that circumstance was considered to be sufficiently binding upon the House in the matter.
  COLONEL BROWNLOW KNOXsaid, this was a question of great and vital importance. The Speaker had said it was unusual to do so, except on extraordinary occasions. This was an extraordinary occasion, and he was in order in pressing the Motion that the Clerk at the Table should read the Bill. As only a week was

  323
  to be allowed before the second reading, Members bad a right to know what it was, and he claimed the right to have the Bill read.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that the House itself has declared the practice to be exploded; but, if an hon. Member makes a Motion to the effect that the Bill be read by the Clerk at the Table, and it is seconded, it will then be for the House to dispose of that Motion.
  The Motion, not being seconded, was not put.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, "to prevent, for a limited time, new appointments in the Church of Ireland, and to restrain, for the same period, in certain respects, the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland," presented, and read the first time.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he proposed to take the second reading of the Bill on Friday, the 22nd. Feeling fully sensitive of the courtesy that had been shown him by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, he wished to inform them that it was not his wish, nor the wish of those with whom he had been in communication, to make any unfair use of that disposition to bring forward hurriedly the further consideration of this Bill. But how stood the matter? The substance of the Bill was in complete correspondence with the second Resolution, which had been before the House for a lengthened period. There were no proposals of a political character in it, nor one involving constitutional privileges, nor any elaborate amplification of detail which differed materially from the second Resolution. That being so, and the Bill being very short and perfectly well understood, and embracing no novel principle, and as it would have been introduced in usual course but for the respect shown to the Royal Prerogative on Thursday of last week, giving fully a fortnight or fifteen days before the day he now proposed for its second reading, he hoped the House would acquit him of any undue haste in the matter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Member for South Lancashire appeared to have forgotten his position as Leader of the Opposition, and to have assumed the functions of a Cabinet Minister without being in Office or properly a confidential Adviser of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to be acquainted with the substance of the Reply
  324
  from the Crown until it was read at the table; other Members of the House had no such previous information. The right hon. Member had carried four Resolutions touching the Irish Church, and might have based his Bill on all or any of them. The Bill was based on the second Resolution only, and he had said enough to show that hon. Members of the House might well feel doubt as to the extent and the purport of the Bill. Under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to refuse the usual ten days or a fortnight for the consideration of the measure by the Members of the House and their constituents.
  Bill ordered to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

  UNCLAIMED PRIZE MONEY (INDIA.) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Bill for the appropriation of certain unclaimed shares of Prize Money acquired by Soldiers and Seamen in India, ordered to be brought in by Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Alkali Act Continuance * (99).
Second Reading—Religious, &c. Buildings Sites (77); Duchy of Cornwall Amendment * (94)
Committee—Sea Fisheries (96).
Third Reading—Industrial Schools (Ireland) * (15), and passed.

RELIGIOUS, &c, BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL—(No. 77.)
(The Lord Cranworth.)
RELIGIOUS, &c, BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL—(No. 77.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to relieve a very meritorious class of Her Majesty's subjects from what they conceived to be a hardship inflicted on them by the Mortmain Act. By that Act languishing and dying persons were restrained from improvident alienations of lands for charitable purposes when on their death-beds and the Act made it necessary that such gifts should be made at least twelve months prior to the death of the donor, and that the deed of gift should be enrolled in the Court of Chancery within six months of its execution. This of course excludes gifts by will. The Act extends even to lands purchased for a full consideration, except that in such cases there is no necessity that the purchase should be made twelve months before the death of the party conveying. But the necessity for enrolment extends to these cases as well as to gifts of land. The Act applied to the smallest quantity of land, and even a small plot of ground, intended for objects beneficial to the entire community, such as for a site
  234
  for the erection of a meeting house or a mechanics' institute, could not be given without conforming to all the provisions of the Act. Now, in the case of large gifts of land these provisions acted, no doubt, beneficially; but in such cases as those he had referred to the enrolment could not possibly serve any useful purpose. He might, perhaps, remark that a similar Bill to the one now before their Lordships was introduced in the last Session of Parliament, and was sent up to their Lordships with the approbation of the House of Commons; but during its passage through their Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord who then held the Great Seal (Lord Chelmsford) proposed a new mode of registration which the promoters of the Bill regarded as so objectionable that they preferred that the law should remain in its present state. A gentleman interested in the promotion of this measure had handed him a paper, from which it appeared that the enrolment in one case had cost a little over £9, and in another £6. This charge was of small moment in the case of large gifts of land, but was felt in the case of small plots as a grievance. These expenses might not be very heavy, but if they were attended by no advantage why should they be incurred at all? The Bill therefore provided that all grants of land for a full valuable consideration (except by will) to trustees on behalf of any body of persons associated together for religious purposes, or for the promotion of education, arts, literature, science, or charitable purposes, for the purpose of erecting thereon buildings for such purposes, shall be exempt from the provisions of the 9 Geo. 2. c. 36 and 24 Vict. c. 9.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Cranworth.)
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he approved the general principle of the Bill, but he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend as to the uselessness of registration. He intended to move some Amendments in Committee, because he felt convinced that the enrolment complained of by the noble and learned Lord was attended with considerable advantages in the case of small charities. This enrolment, in fact, made it impossible that these charities could be deprived of land which had once been given to them. He had made inquiry upon the subject, and he was informed that the highest expense known to have been incurred for this purpose was £3 7s.

  235
  The cases alluded to by his noble and learned Friend must have been very peculiar and unusual in their character, and he should be obliged if his noble and learned Friend would favour him with the details, so that he might verify them. At present the fees, though not large, might be reduced by the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury. When the Bill got into Committee he proposed to move Amendments which would have the effect of doing away with some of the preliminary steps in the enrolment— steps which were totally unnecessary. The result would be that these small charities need not employ any solicitor; but that everything might be done by their own secretaries at an expense of about 30 s. or 40 s.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he agreed with his noble and learned Friend that it was most desirable to prevent any secret grant or alienation of land given for religious and charitable purposes, and it appeared to him that the most effectual way to secure that object was by requiring that all those grants should be enrolled. There could be no practical objection to such a course, which need not he attended with inconvenience or any great expense. His noble and learned Friend, on the previous occasions when he moved a measure similar to this one, had invariably made enrolment one of the conditions upon which those gifts should be valid; but he had altered his views since, and had given their Lordships no satisfactory reasons for his change of opinion, or why the principle of enrolment should not be maintained; and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Romilly) had shown that such enrolment could be effected easily and cheaply. He (Lord Chelmsford) should certainly support any Amendment in Committee which would provide for the enrolment of those grants.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the second reading — on the contrary, he thought that the object of the Bill was exceedingly good and laudable. He had ever been inclined to support measures proposing to effect the acquisition of sites for these purposes in the easiest and cheapest manner. But he wished to observe that the opinion of the country upon the subject did not appear to be so general or unanimous as his noble and learned Friend who moved the second reading supposed it to be. He should have thought
  236
  that the various bodies throughout the country, who were proprietors of chapels built upon small pieces of land, would have been anxious to reduce to a minimum the expense attending the acquisition of sites. But he found that to be by no means the case. He had received a deputation from, a Conference of the Methodist body, representing an enormous number of chapels throughout the country which had been built upon small pieces of land granted for the purpose. Their statement was remarkable. They said it was true that the object of the Mortmain Act originally was to prevent secret conveyances of land for religious and charitable purposes; but where a small piece of land was sold out and out to build a chapel upon it there was no reason to apprehend any mischief from the secrecy of the transaction. The Act had, however, in practice, answered a larger and more important purpose, inasmuch as it had brought about a system of registration of the trusts of small pieces of ground which had proved of the highest possible advantage. The Methodist body stated that they had not a regular stationary body of ministers in their chapels. They were men who went about from place to place. Consequently the deeds of those trusts were generally loosely kept, and some of them had been lost. The result was that all traces of the boundary disappeared, and encroachments were occasionally made which gave rise to disputes as to the exact nature of the trusts, and the obligations which were imposed upon the trustees. The enrolment was, however, attended with this great advantage, that they could procure from the Court of Chancery for a few shillings an office copy of the trust deed, if required. Although that was not the object of the Mortmain Act, yet as it had sprung out of it and proved to be beneficial he (the Lord Chancellor) thought they ought to consider whether it would not be well to secure it by a special enactment. It appeared to him that all practical objects would be secured if those trust deeds were required to be filed, like affidavits, instead of enrolled, and the expense of doing so would be very trifling.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 22 nd instant.

SEA FISHERIES BILL—(No, 96.)
(The Duke of Richmond.)
SEA FISHERIES BILL—(No, 96.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order) (on Re-commitment).
  Clause 5 (Interpretation of Terms).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he had understood that it was the intention of the noble Duke to insert a clause exempting Ireland from the operation of the Bill; as, however, his noble Friend had not done so, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would move the omission of the word "Ireland" from the 5th clause. In his opinion the Irish oyster fishermen had a right to complain of the the way in which they had been treated in reference to this matter. By the Convention that had been entered into with France, which it was the object of this Bill to carry out, the oyster fisheries on the coasts of England and France were protected during close time; but the Irish oyster beds were left entirely at the mercy of English and French fishermen, who would most assiduously dredge them during the close season for the purpose of supplying their own oyster beds. The result must inevitably be that, in a few years, several hundreds of Irish fishermen would be deprived of a valuable fishery and of a productive source of livelihood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that if the noble Marquess had done him the honour of reading the Bill, he would have seen that he had made his Amendment applicable to the wrong clause. The 5th clause had no reference to the oyster fisheries; it was the 27th clause which referred to Ireland; and in that clause it was provided that that part of the Bill should not interfere with the jurisdiction or powers possessed by the Irish Fishery Commissioners with regard to oyster fisheries, and should not apply to Ireland or the seas adjoining. There was also a proviso that nothing in the Bill relating to oyster or mussel fisheries should either interfere with or affect the jurisdiction which Irish Fishery Commissioners had power to exercise over the seas surrounding Ireland, or over the oyster fisheries and, oyster beds in those seas. The 5th clause merely related to what he might term the police regulations of the Bill, and the provisions it contained were such as even an Irish oyster would not object to. The Convention which had been signed between England and France had the effect of reducing the close season
  238
  by six weeks; so that if the Bill were passed there would be less inducement by six weeks than at present for fishermen to go to the Irish oyster beds. The Bill merely proposed to carry out the Convention.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDmaintained that the Bill would interfere with the power which, the Irish Fishery Commissioners now possessed and exercised of making by-laws for the regulation of the oyster beds, which existed ton miles out at sea on some parts of the Irish coast.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Irish Fishery Commissioners had no more right to make by-laws for the fisheries beyond three miles of the coast, than the noble Lord had to make laws for the regulation of his estate.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that the real tendency of the measure would be to give to Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Dutchmen, facilities for fishing the Irish grounds during the month of June, while the Irish fishermen could only stand and look on, without any power to fish the beds themselves.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that if the Bill passed, the fishermen of Arklow, on the coast of Ireland, would be powerless to protect their oyster beds, which lay-within seven or eight miles of land, and were fished by strangers from a distance during the close season. He had recently received a letter stating that in about a week or ten days thousands of barrels of oysters were taken from those beds.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the complaint was, that while the Convention gave the French the right of fishing English banks, subject to the observance of close time, the Irish would lose their right of making a close time through the operation of the Fishery Board. The Irish banks would, therefore, be frequented by English and French fishermen in close time to replace the oysters which had been taken from their own beds, and there would be no protection for the Irish coast. His own opinion was, that the Convention was most unjust and unfair, and that their Lordships should not facilitate the carrying of the Convention into effect, but that the noble Duke should endeavour to make a further Convention in reference to close time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question whether a further Convention should be made with France could not then be considered; the only question then

  239
  was whether the Convention which had been made should be carried into effect. He thought it better that the title to the fisheries off the coast at Arklow should not be discussed; but, at any rate, any jurisdiction that the Irish Fishery Board had exercised was exempted; and any fishery within the proper fishery limits of the coast of Ireland was also exempted.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that all the banks between England and France beyond the three miles were dealt with by the Convention. Why were not similar banks off the coast of Ireland dealt with?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the House was not asked to legislate territorially as to fishing rights, but only to give effect to an international arrangement entered into to the effect that the Legislature of each country should put some limit on the action of the subjects of those countries. If there should be a similar Convention as to Ireland the House would have to deal with a measure to give effect to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE repeated that, as no penalty was imposed in reference to the coast of Ireland, great injury would be done by oysters being taken in breeding time, and he should propose a new clause to remedy this evil.
  EARL GREYsaid, that while he agreed that they could not by legislation affect French rights in places more than three miles from the coast, he thought that the objection of the noble Marquess had not been answered. The Convention secured to France and also to England all that each wanted; but it had neglected to secure what was necessary to protect the Irish fisheries; and the noble Marquess said that Parliament ought not to pass any Act until there should be a Convention to deal with Irish fisheries, and give them the same protection as was given to the French and English fisheries. It seemed reasonable that they should postpone legislation until that was done; because if by passing the Bill they gave France all she wanted it would then be idle to ask her for a fresh Convention.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the noble Earl had not clearly apprehended the case. The Convention with France was already signed, but it was necessary to obtain the sanction of Parliament. It seemed to be forgotten that the object of the Commissioners, right or wrong, was to abolish close time altogether, and they had shortened it by six weeks. He had made
  240
  inquiries, and could not find any case in which any person had been convicted for offending against the by-laws of the Irish Fishery Board at a distance of more than three miles from the shore; and the truth was that they had no power to make such by-laws.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, they ought not to pass this Bill without further consideration, and that they should place Ireland upon the same footing as was proposed for England and France. They ought, at all events, not to part with the Bill until they had come to an understanding that the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and that any real grievance that might press upon the Irish fisheries should be dealt with.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding upon this point; the Convention was not in operation, and could not be until it was sanctioned by Parliament. He was inclined to think it desirable that the discussion should be postponed, because it seemed that the matter was not at present well understood. The Convention between England and France was confined to those two countries simply because they possessed the opposite shores of the Channel; but Ireland was in a different geographical position. It seemed to him that the Irish fishermen were labouring under a state of unnecessary panic. The French fishermen, he believed, had not hitherto gone to the Irish beds, which were too distant from them; and he did not see why it should be supposed they would now commence to go there simply because a Convention had been concluded between France and England affecting the Channel fisheries. It would, however, be a serious matter to allow the Convention to be set aside after France had been brought to agree to make undoubted concessions. He might add that he could not agree that the English Parliament had any power to make laws with respect to oyster beds which were more than three miles from the ceast.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that an express stipulation was inserted in the Convention that it should not come into operation until an Act of Parliament had been obtained. He might remind the noble Earl of an exactly similar case which happened on the first occasion when he held the Seals of the Foreign Office. At that time a Convention was concluded between England and France, subject to the confirmation of Parliament; and a

  241
  Bill was consequently introduced, but the Legislature refused to adopt the Bill, and the Convention therefore remained inoperative. As to the jurisdiction which either country might possess over fishing banks at a certain distance from the shore, he supposed there was no doubt that the exclusive jurisdiction of each country extended only to the three mile line. But this treaty, if assented to, would affect the subjects of the Queen and of the Emperor of the French beyond the three mile line. The question was whether it was not advisable, before the Convention was sanctioned, that an arrangement should be made which should include the Irish fisheries also. The grievance of the Irish fishermen was simply this—French fishermen would be able to resort during the close season to the coast of Ireland, and they would certainly do so if prevented by this Convention from fishing in the English Channel. Only the most simple would suggest; in answer to this that after the Act was passed the French Government should be asked to grant fresh favours. How could it be expected France would do so after having secured all she desired?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORbelieved the noble Earl misapprehended the state of the case. Should the Convention not obtain the sanction of Parliament, the arrangement of 1859 would remain in force, and under this close extended six weeks longer than was proposed by the present Convention. The negotiator of the Treaty had induced the French Government to shorten the close time by six weeks; therefore the inducements for French fishermen to resort to the Irish grounds would be rather less than more under the treaty; and it as was acknowledged, French fishermen had not as yet found their way to the coast of Ireland the freer course opened to them by the Convention would most likely induce them to continue fishing nearer home. As to the suggestion that France should be asked to prevent her subjects from fishing on the Wicklow coast he thought it very unlikely she would assent to the proposal when we had nothing to offer in return. In his opinion, the hope of obtaining this other concession, of indifferent value, was not a sufficient ground for postponing the enjoyment of the real benefits which would result from the Convention as at present agreed on. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Canricarde) had asked why Frenchmen should be allowed to fish off the Wicklow coast when the Irish were
  242
  prevented from doing so? This would be a very just ground of complaint if it were well-founded, but the Irish Fishery Commissioners had no power to impose such a restriction as that described, and he questioned whether any by-law of the nature alluded to was in existence.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBUEYsaid, that as regarded the Bill of 1852, to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had alluded, the object of which was to sanction the Extradition Treaty, he was under misapprehension. It was not he (the Earl of Malmesbury) who had made the Convention with France in respect to extradition, or who was responsible for the Bill introduced into Parliament in respect of it. The treaty was negotiated by Lord Palmerston, and his successor for two months, Lord Granville, and when the Government of the Earl of Derby came into Office they found the Bill ready in the Foreign Office. Of course the new Government felt themselves bound to carry out the engagement with France entered into by their predecessors, and therefore he (the Earl of Malmesbury), as Foreign Minister, introduced the Bill in their Lordships' House. To his great astonishment, as well as to the astonishment of many noble Lords on the other side the House, the Bill was opposed by the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Campbell), who moved its rejection; and it was thrown out. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not responsible either for the treaty or the Bill, and had merely moved the latter as a matter of honour.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved to report Progress.
  House resumed; House to be again in Committee (on Re-commitment) on Friday the 22 nd instant.

  ALKALI ACT CONTINUANCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to continue the Operation of the Alkali Act, 1863—Was presented by The Duke of RICHMOND; read 1a. (No. 99.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock