appeared at the bar, and being called on by Mr. Speaker, said: I have to state, that in obedience to the commands of this House, I have had the honour of waiting on Her Majesty, and presenting the Address of this honourable House, to which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to return the following Answer:—

"I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.

"You may rely on My earnest desire to co-operate with you in your endeavours to promote the welfare and prosperity of all classes of My subjects."

laid on the table the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the best and most convenient site for building a new bridge at Westminster.

said, he would take this occasion of asking the noble Lord, whether, in compliance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, confirmed as that recommendation had been by the Reports of two successive Committees of that House, he was at present prepared to bring in a Bill for transferring to the department over which he presided the property of the trust estates of Westminster bridge?

said, the result of the Commission was, a Report recommending that a new bridge be constructed at Westminster. In accordance with the recommendation of that Report, he had given the regular notices, so that he might be enabled, if Parliament should seem to wish the matter to be carried out according to the recommendation of the Commission, to bring in a Bill for the purpose. In bringing in the Bill which would be necessary for constructing a new bridge, he intended to introduce some clauses to transfer the property of the Bridge Commissioners to the Commissioners of Works. He did not think it necessary to have separate Bills for the two objects, but it was desirable to wait till the Report should be in the hands of Members, in order to see whether it was the general feeling of the House that a Bill should be introduced in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners.

begged to ask the noble Lord whether he could state at what period the Bill would be introduced? because it was very clear, that, if the Report of the Commissioners were carried into effect, no time ought to be lost in preparing and introducing such a Bill. He apprehended that there would be no objection whatever to the introduction of such a measure; and as the season would soon be advancing, and the necessary preparations ought to be made, he trusted the noble Lord would not delay it.

said, he would give notice on an early day.

said, he rose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given notice. There had appeared in all the public papers a statement with respect to an outrage committed on an English gentleman travelling in Italy, at Florence, by the Austrian soldiery stationed there. It appeared that a gentleman named Mather, happening to be in the street at Florence when a regiment was passing, inadvertently got into the way of the soldiers, and suddenly found himself struck with the flat of a sword by one of the officers. Turning round to ask what was the occasion of this assault, he received from some person a blow of the fist; and while he was reeling under the effects of that blow, and in the act of falling, the officer who first struck him, and who was in command of the troops, cut him down, inflicting a very severe wound upon his head. It did not actually fracture his skull, but it appeared that it was not far from so doing, and the unfortunate man was left weltering in his blood in the street. He was taken up by some passers-by, and carried to the hospital, where he remained for a considerable time; and it was proved that the wound he received was of a very serious, if not of a dangerous, nature. It was also stated that the gentleman representing this Government at the Court of Tuscany, the Secretary of Legation, made representations to the Austrian commanding officer, and also to the Government of Tuscany respecting the assault of Mr. Mather; but his representations were met by evasive answers, and in fact redress was refused, it being stated by the Austrian military authorities that the officer who struck him would have done quite right if he had even put the man to death, such being their rule with respect to any person who got in the way of the soldiers. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord if he had taken any steps to procure redress for this gross outrage on a British subject, and whether he had obtained what he considered proper satisfaction, or if he intended to take any other steps for this object?

Sir, in reply to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, I beg to state that the account which has appeared in the papers of this transaction, is, I believe, very nearly a correct one. There is no difference between the English account and the Austrian, except as to one or two points. It appears that the gentleman was walking behind the band of the regiment, listening to the music, and that there was some obstruction in the street which brought him near the officer who was in command of the troop. The officer struck him with the flat of his sword, and he turned round and was about to complain, when he was struck on the face by another officer. Then, according to his own account, he put up his hand to his face to cover it, and immediately the officer who had first struck him, and who was in command of his troops, cut him down with a stroke of his sword. He bled very much, and was taken to the hospital. This is the English account. The Austrian account, so far as I understand it, is that, in the first place, it is the usage of the Austrian army not to allow any officer to be insulted when on duty in command of troops, and that some officers have been obliged to leave the army in consequence of having submitted to what was considered an outrage. That in this case the officer in command of a regiment, finding that he was prevented from proceeding at the head of it, owing to a person who was before him, and who, as he conceived, from the shape of his hat, was an Italian Liberal, thought that this person meant to insult him, and touched him with the flat of his sword, desiring him to get out of his way; that the person did not do so; that another officer then interfered and struck him on the face; that then the party (and this is the chief difference between the English and Austrian accounts) put himself into an attitude of aggression, and, as the officer conceived, meant to insult him; and that then the officer struck him down with the sword, being, as he alleges, obliged by the rules of his service so to resent any insult offered to him at the head of his troops. However, the result was, that this gentleman, who was quietly walking between the band and the regiment, and did not intend any insult, was seriously injured, and was for some days in the hospital under medical treatment. It appears that the Austrian officers now say that they were mistaken, on their part, in presuming that an insult was intended by Mr. Mather. I should have thought, Sir, that when once aware that there was no intention of insulting the officer they would have been ready to offer any reparation in their power. However, it was not so, and the gentleman was told he must say he did not intend any insult before any apology could be offered. This he, of course refused, and demanded a judicial inquiry, which has been granted by the Tuscan Government, and is now proceeding. My noble Friend now at the head of the Foreign Office (Earl Granville), as soon as he heard of the affair, and before receiving any report from Florence, wrote to desire that the circumstances should be inquired into and redress required; but the British resident had already taken steps to comply with the request of the injured gentleman to procure a judicial investigation of inquiry. I have not yet heard the determination arrived at; but undoubtedly this gentleman is entitled to reparation for the injury he has sustained.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. During last year a prosecution was instituted by the Board of Inland Revenue against the publishers of a work called The Narrative of Current Events, edited by Mr. Charles Dickens. The Board of Inland Revenue having prosecuted Messrs. Bradbury and Evans for publishing that work without a stamp, the Court of Exchequer decided that it was not liable to the stamp duty. This decision, as he was informed, had not given satisfaction to the Board of Inland Revenue, who were still of opinion that monthly publications were liable to the duty, and the public were yet in doubt whether, in case they were to act upon the decision of the Court of Exchequer, the Board of Inland Revenue might not institute another prosecution for the purpose of getting a reversal of the recent decision. The decision of the Court of Exchequer was, that a person might publish news without a stamp, provided the publication did not take place oftener than once a month; but the Board of Inland Revenue held that the publication of news at all, even only on one occasion, still rendered a work liable to the stamp duty. He begged to ask whether the Government intended to institute any fresh prosecutions, and also whether they intended to bring in a Bill for the purpose of settling the doubts which had arisen with reference to the Newspaper Stamp Act since the decision given by the Court of Exchequer?

said, that it was impossible to give an answer in a case involving legal points unless notice of the precise nature of the question was given; and, as he had only received a general notice of the right hon. Gentleman's intention to put some question with reference to duties, he was not prepared to say whether the right hon. Member had correctly stated the decision of the Court of Law. He might say, however, that the Government had no intention at present of taking any steps with the view of reversing the decision of the Court of Exchequer.

said, that some particular points of the decision to which the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had referred, were now under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and no final determination could be come to by the Government on the subject until the law officers had given their opinion as to what course should be taken.

said, that the Motion was a very proper one, and he hoped that the House would agree to grant the supplies necessary. All that he asked was that the Estimates should be laid upon the table of the House at as early a period as possible, in order that there might be ample time for their consideration; and as it had been said that the militia were to be called out, and a considerable expense was to be incurred, he had to express a hope that the Government would not incur any expense on this account until the question had been discussed by the House as to the propriety of enrolling such a force. He believed himself that the time for the militia was now gone by, and that a force could be obtained which would be at once more efficient and more economical.

said, that no expense would be incurred on account of the militia until the Government had taken the opinion of the House upon the subject, with the exception merely of the charge of the inspection and drilling of the militia staff from time to time.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of the Suitors in the Court of Chancery. He was aware that some apology was required for prefacing by any remarks the introduction of a Bill which was not likely to meet with any objection; but he was anxious to take the first opportunity of stating briefly to the House the course of measures which it was in the contemplation of the Government to take for the amendment of those abuses and grievances which had for a long time existed in the Court of Chancery, in which, he was happy to say, so much interest of late years had been taken by that House, and to which such pointed allusion was made by the lion. Baronet who moved the Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Baronet was, perhaps, somewhat carried away by the warmth of his own feelings in respect to the case, in which, although not a party concerned, he was still deeply interested; but of that warmth he (the Solicitor General) was not disposed to complain, because he took it to be only a mark of that general discomfort and dissatisfaction which must be felt by a great proportion of the suitors of that Court with respect to the heavy expenses and long delays to which they were subjected. He thought, however, that he had a right to complain of the hon. Baronet's remark, that he had little hope that the numerous lawyers who occupied seats in that House would take steps for reforming the Court of Chancery, because it was not likely that those who benefited so largely by the profession would be willing to reform its abuses. Now he must say that that remark was unworthy the talents and character of the hon. Baronet, and he trusted that on reflection he would think that he was scarcely justified in making such an observation, for he was sure that it was not from any want of anxiety on the part of the members of the profession that the Court of Chancery had not long since been reformed. Every step that had been made towards its reform had been taken—as it almost necessarily must be—by members of the profession. He need not remind the House how long the names of Mackintosh and Romilly were associated with those legal reforms which they attempted from time to time without result, owing to the determined inertia of the House. Lord Brougham afterwards took the same cause in hand, and succeeded in effecting considerable reform; and since that time a number of Committees had been appointed on the motion of members of the profession in that House for the investigation of grievances connected with the administration of the law; and the Bill to which he now wished to call the attention of the House was founded upon the Report of a Committee of that House, appointed to consider the whole subject of the fees of the Courts of Law and Equity. This was the first of the Bills that were to be brought forward to remove the abuses of the Court of Chancery—it was but the first—and had been prepared under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, to carry into full effect the recommendations of that Committee; and he believed that its result would be a most material relief to the suitors, not merely from the actual expense, but from the annoyance attendant upon the payment of the numerous fees now levied in that Court. This Bill would be followed by another, of a still move efficient character, founded on the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the whole subject of the Court of Chancery, which was laid upon the table on the first day of this Session; and he trusted that it would be found to afford very efficient relief—he did not say complete relief, for that could hardly be expected in the present state of the proceedings—but a very large and effective benefit and relief to all those who had the misfortune to be involved in litigation in that Court. It would be remembered that a Committee was appointed in 1846, on the Motion of his learned Friend, Mr. Watson, then Member for Kinsale, to inquire into the subject of fees in the Courts of Law and Equity; and that Committee made a Report, upon which considerable reforms were adopted with respect to the system of fees in the Courts of Common Law. That Committee was renewed in 1847, in the present Parliament, upon the Motion of the present Master of the Rolls, and it had made two Reports; one of the evidence taken in 1848, and the other upon the remedies to be applied to remove existing abuses, in 1849. During the year 1850 it was in contemplation to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report, and the subject then occupied much of the attention of Lord Cottenham; but his unfortunate illness prevented his completing the work, which was therefore delayed until the appointment of the present Lord Chancellor. In consequence, however, of the arrear of business which had accumulated during the illness of Lord Cottenham, and of the numerous Bills which required attention during the last Session, the Lord Chancellor was not then able to turn his attention to the subject of the present Bill. During the recess, however, he had gone carefully through the Report of the Committee, the recommendations of which, with one unimportant exception (in which he thought the Lord Chancellor rightly differed from the Committee), were to be carried into effect by the present Bill, which would also contain some most important provisions not included in the Report. The suitors in the Court of Chancery complained of the whole fee system as being highly objectionable; and it had long since been strongly recommended by Committees of that House that the officers in the courts of justice should be paid by salaries and not by fees. Fees occasioned no inconsiderable trouble in the collection, besides the temptation which they offered to those who collected them, if they received them for their own use, to multiply the various forms on which they were payable; and, on the other hand, if they did not receive them, but paid them into a fee fund, there was serious temptation in connection with the accounting for them. Fees too were always an obstruction to reform, because at every step there was a "vested interest" to be encountered. The Committee, on investigating the fees payable in the Court of Chancery, arrived at this startling result—that the number of fees paid in the various offices had amounted in the course of a year (on a rough calculation) to 333,000, each entailing the annoyance and trouble of a separate payment, in addition to the expense. Some of these fees, indeed, were of such a minute character that in one instance 298l. had been paid for fees in no fewer than 392 payments. There were ninety officers in receipt of these fees, and therefore that number of persons to be applied to for the purpose of making payments, and of these only forty accounted on affidavit for fees received by them, the fees received by the other fifty being merely accounted for by their superior officers, who stated that they had received a return from the inferior officer, which they believed to be correct. The Committee were of opinion that the whole of this system should be abolished, that all the officers should be paid by salary, and that some system should be instituted by which, instead of receiving these fees at various offices, the whole might be more economically collected in one payment, by which more effectual security might be obtained against any possible irregularities in the accounting for them. According to this Bill, the officers would in future be paid by salaries, and the fees would be levied by stamps, which would be issued to parties requiring them, and would obviously leave no room for fraud, and would not subject the parties to the necessity of applying at so many various offices to pay fees. The Committee found that the tax on suitors by fees amounted to no less than 150,000l. per annum, or, including the further sum they had to pay for office copies, to 180,000l. But the grievance did not rest here. The House must have heard several times of the "suitors' fund," of which the report of 1849 gave a full account, and which was formed in the following manner:—A large quantity of cash is at all times standing to the credit of the Accountant General in Chancery, which is not required at the particular moment to be invested in stock for the purposes of the cause out of which the deposit may have arisen: in fact, it very much represented the cash deposited by customers with a bank, and of which they had not required investment. The money was liable to be paid out by the Accountant General at any moment when demanded in the proper course of proceedings in the Court; but still the various transactions of the Court must always leave a large sum of money in his hands, not requiring to be invested. In the reign of Geo. II. an Act was passed authorising the Accountant General to invest 32,000l. of this floating cash, in order that a profit might be made of it to be applied to the payment of the officers of the Court; and Acts had since been passed at various times by which this floating cash, standing to what he might call the first account, amounted to 2,590,000l., chiefly invested in the Three per Cent Consols, and the remainder in the Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents. In 1792, however, another Act was passed for the investment of a further sum of money, being the accumulated surplus dividends (after paying the officers of the Court) of the former fund, under the title of the "suitors' surplus fund." This second fund now amounted to 1,240,000l. so that the two funds together gave a total of 3,800,000l., or nearly 4,000,000l., arising from the money of the suitors so deposited in Court. Now, the income of this fund, amounting to about 112,000l. a year, was applied for the payment of the various officers of the Court, and amongst others for the payment of that part of the Lord Chancellor's salary which he received independently of his office as Speaker of the House of Lords, and for the payment of the salaries of the two Lords Justices, and of the Vice-Chancellors created by the Act of 1841; so that the suitors supported the Judges who had to administer justice in the Court, and who, upon every principle, ought to be provided at the public expense to administer justice to all whose rights were disputed; it was contrary to all principle to tax the suitors with the maintenance of the Court, to oblige those who had the misfortune to be involved in litigation to maintain the judicial system. In criminal matters it was not attempted to make the man robbed on the highway pay a fee to the Judge. The principle was intelligible enough upon which such a fund might be properly applicable to the support of what he might call the administrative jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, which was exercised in consequence of a large number of persons desiring the Court to administer their property, and, in fact, making the Court their trustee. Now, it was but reasonable that these persons should contribute (as they did largely) to the expenses incurred in the management of the trust. The following, however, were the sums now paid to the Judges out of this fund: The Lord Chancellor, 6,000 (in addition to 4,000l. received as Speaker of the House of Lords); the Lords Justices (6,000l. each), 12,000l.; and the Vice-Chancellors appointed under the Act of 1841 (5,000l. each), 10,000l.; making a total of 28,000l. Now, when the Bill for the appointment of the Lords Justices was under discussion last year, a question was asked whether it would not be better to make their salaries payable out of the Consolidated Fund; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government then stated (and his reply was received with general approbation) that he had it under consideration whether all the Judges should not be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That was the course proposed to be pursued by the present Bill. This Bill would transfer the payment of this 28,000l. from the suitors to the Consolidated Fund. Besides relieving the suitors from the payment of a great variety of fees, this measure would also release them from a variety of payments for "office copies" and otherwise; and it was moreover proposed that they should no longer be compelled to take office copies at all from any of the offices from which they took them under the existing system—a system which led to an unnecessary multiplication of copies, and the payment of "despatch money;" and in future the practice in Chancery would be the same as at common law, where the attorneys mutually exchanged copies of such documents as they required. But it should be here stated that this question had occupied the attention of all the late Chancellors, beginning with Lord Lyndhurst; and by orders of him, and of Lords Brougham and Cottenham, the former charge of 1s. 6d. per folio had been reduced to 4d., effecting a saving of 28,000l. a year. While the Bill for the appointment of Lords Justices was under discussion last year, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration the question whether, having regard to the extent of the suitors' fee fund, which presented annually a considerable surplus, he could not effect a considerable reduction in the fees payable by suitors, and he made orders which it was calculated would give a further relief to suitors to the extent of about 20,000l. by the reduction of fees which he thought no longer necessary for keeping up the fund; and with such nicety had the calculation been made by Mr. Johnson, the able solicitor to the suitors' fee fund, that in the result there was only a deficiency of 1,128l. That deficiency was not of any importance, because there was power to supply any deficiency in the suitors' fee fund from the suitors' fund. Now, the surplus of the suitors' fund amounted annually to 33,000l., and adding to that the 28,000l. to be transferred by this Bill to the Consolidated Fund, there would be a surplus of upwards of 61,000l. or of 60,000l., after making up the deficiency in the suitors' fee fund. That being the case, the Lord Chancellor was prepared, immediately on the passing of this Bill, to make a further remission of 50,000l. in fees to the suitors. The suitors' fund would still be contributing 112,000l. towards the administrative branches of the Court. But further, the Committee which had sat upon this subject had pointed out a variety of offices in the Court of Chancery, in regard to some of which they recommended the abolition, while in other cases they had merely stated the facts connected with the office, leaving it to the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he could not fairly and with propriety dispense with some of them; and his Lordship had, in every such instance, carefully considered whether it would be possible to make any reform, or dispense with the office. The Committee recommended the abolition of the offices of the Master of the Reports, the Clerk of Accounts, and the Affidavit Office, which was to be transferred to that of Records and Writs. It pointed out also a number of offices still paid by fees. It had, amongst other things, been said in that House, that the Lord Chancellor's six Secretaries were much too large a staff even for the business of that important office. Now the first of these Secretaries was his Lordship's Private Secretary, and could not be dispensed with. The Secretaryship of Decrees and Injunctions would be abolished; but this was rather a name to frighten the House withal, than anything more, and no great credit could be taken for abolishing the office, for the saving thereby to be effected was only 50l. There were next two Secretaries not connected with the Court of Chancery—those who undertook the business in connection with the Presentation to Livings, and with the Commission of the Peace. These offices were now full, but it was the intention of his Lordship to consolidate them, when either fell vacant. The next was the Secretary of Lunatics, but though so called, he never performed the functions of a secretary; he was in truth a registrar. He never even signed the petitions pre- sented. He would be continued under his proper name, "Registrar in Lunacy," being absolutely required for the discharge of the duties of that office. The remaining office, the Secretary of Bankrupts, was very justly complained of. He was paid by fees, but by an arrangement with Lord Cottenham he accounted for all that he received above 1,200l., so that it might be taken that he had a salary of 1,200l. There was also a Chief Registrar in Bankruptcy, with 1,200l. That office having fallen vacant, it was proposed in a former Session to make the Secretary in Bankruptcy perform its duties; but a Select Committee appointed to consider the subject, at the instance of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) having reported that neither office was necessary, he had now to state that the Secretary had very honourably, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, resigned his office without any compensation; and that the office would not be filled up. A saving of 2,400l. would, therefore, be effected by the abolition of these two offices. Then, there were some officers about whom the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) had made anxious inquiries—Chaff-Wax and Deputy Chaff-Wax, the Sealer, and the Patentee of Subpœnas. These offices, by an Act passed early in the reign of Her present Majesty, were directed to be abolished at the death of their then holders; but it was proposed by this Bill to abolish them at once, paying compensation to the parties holding them. The following offices were also to be abolished: The Lord Chancellor had two Gentlemen of the Chamber, at 700l. a-year each; one of these offices only was full; but the Lord Chancellor had appointed to that office a gentleman who was of the utmost assistance to him, and really much required by him in the discharge of his manifold duties—amongst others, in looking into the various cases referred to, and matters of that kind. He knew as a matter of fact that that gentleman was actually employed until one o'clock to two o'clock in the morning in his duties. The office of the other Gentleman of the Chamber it was proposed to abolish, and to reduce the salary of the remaining Gentleman from 700l. to 500l., which would not be more than sufficient to remunerate him for the performance of his duties. The office of Deputy Sealer, who had a salary of 289l., was to be abolished. It was also proposed to abolish the Clerk of Affidavits at 1,000l. a year, the Assistant Clerk at 800l., and the Second Clerk at 400l. The Clerk of Reports had an income of 600l., arising from fees, and 200l. arising from salary, and his office was to be abolished, which would make a saving of 860l. a-year, subject, however, to a payment of 400l. to be made to the person who would undertake the duties which that gentleman had really to perform, so that the saving thus made would in fact amount to 460l. a year. The office of doorkeeper of the Court of Chancery—salary 347l.—was to be abolished; the usher of the Court, with 300l. salary and 127l. fees, making together 427l., was to be abolished; so that the offices which were for the first time to be abolished by this Act would produce a saving of 4,881l. a year, or in round numbers about 5,000l. a year, subject, of course, to compensation to some parties. The saving that would be effected in the other offices to be abolished by this Act, which would terminate with the lives of the present holders, amounted to 1,838l. a year, making a total of 6,900l., or nearly 7,000l. a year. But besides that, the Committee had recommended another important reduction. The Accountant General of the Court of Chancery was paid in perhaps not altogether a satisfactory manner. He received a salary of 1,500l. a year, 400l. of which was paid to him as a Master in Chancery, and the remainder as Accountant General in Chancery. He performed the duties of Messenger to the House of Lords, as the other Masters did, and conveyed their messages to the House of Commons; but, besides that salary, the Accountant General of Chancery, by an arrangement with the brokers of the Court, received three-fifths of the whole brokerage charged to suitors in respect of various transactions in stock to the Court of Chancery. The brokerage was one-eighth per cent; and of that one-eighth per cent, the broker only received two-fifths, and the Accountant General three-fifths. That was a system that had existed for more than a hundred years; it was not recently introduced by the present Accountant General; and the result of the payments so made to the Accountant General was somewhere about 3,700l. a year, making a total income of about 5,270l. a year. It was proposed at once that an arrangement should be made with the present Accountant General—that, instead of being paid by the present system of brokerage, he should be paid by salary; and that, on a vacancy occurring in the office, the future income of the Accountant General should be 3,000l. a year, thus effecting a saving to the suitors of over 2,000l. a year. That income would not be found excessive, when they looked to the vast quantity of transactions that took place in the Accountant General's office. In the course of a year there were nearly 46,000 cash transactions going on in the Accountant General's office, whereby his constant attendance there was required; and it was thought that his salary should be fixed at the amount just stated. The total of all these savings would be 8,900l., or, in round numbers, 9,000l. a year; so that, in addition to the 50,000l. a year already mentioned, from which they would be able at once to relieve the suitors, they would be able, when those changes were effected, to relieve the suitors from the payment of about 10,000l. a year more. Further than that, the suitor was burdened now because the fee fund was charged with a high amount of compensation by the reduction of the "Six Clerks." That compensation amounted to about 47,000l. a year; the entire amount of compensation was about 48,000l. or 49,000l. a year. When that compensation expired, there would be in addition to the 50,000l. a year, and to the 10,000l. a year before mentioned a reduction of over 40,000l. a year more, making altogether about 100,000l. a year. He hoped the ultimate result of the arrangements would be carried so far, that the suitor would be relieved entirely from all payments for fees of court, and that the only contribution he would have to make would be that derived from the investment of his own money, of which he could scarcely complain, as he was making the Court of Chancery his banker and trustee; and the Court of Chancery only received the profit that an ordinary banker should receive whilst defraying the expenses of the trust, and carrying it into effect for the benefit of the parties. It would be seen from that statement that the Bill might well be termed "A Bill for the Relief of Suitors in the High Court of Chancery." There was, however, an exception in its provisions from the recommendations in the Report on which the Bill was founded: the office of Clerks of the Accounts and that of the Master of Reports was not to be abolished. The reason why the Committee recommended the abolition of the office was this —they found that the gentleman who filled the office of Master of Reports had ceased to attend the office, and the Committee naturally concluded that when he did not attend the office, it did not require his attention. The Clerks of Accounts checked the Accounts of the Accountant General's Office. They went through the whole of the accounts, of which they had a transcript corresponding with the transcript in the Accountant General's Office; and before a check was issued from the Accountant General's Office it was passed through the office of the Clerks of Accounts, and thus they were able to correct, if necessary, any cheques that were drawn to the credit of the parties. The cheque was then taken to the Bank of England to be cashed. The Bank of England had also a book of their own, and it seemed to the Committee that if the Bank of England had a book, and the Accountant General had a book, there could be no chance of a mistake by overdrawing the account, and therefore that the intermediate check might be dispensed with. The Committee had no reason to know what took place in the Account Office. Unfortunately the Master of Reports was unable to attend his office from infirmity; they only got their evidence, therefore, from the Accountant General's Office, and did not examine any of the clerks of the Account Office. The Lord Chancellor saw the recommendation of the Committee, but did not think there was sufficient evidence to satisfy his mind that the office should be abolished. Therefore, he called for the Clerks of Accounts and examined them, and asked the result of the check they exercised, and if it were an efficient one; and he (the Solicitor General) was bound to say that from the evidence which the Lord Chancellor so obtained, he was obliged to come to the conviction that, as Members of the Committee, they were all somewhat hasty in coming to the conclusion they did. He held in his hand a list of errors discovered in that office—he would not fatigue the House by going into a detail of them—but he might say these were all instances of accounts being overdrawn. There was one instance where the amount was 634l., in another instance 346l., in another 900l., in another 293l., and in another 128l. The list was a tolerably long one, and the sums were in the aggregate of considerable amount. The evil resulting from these errors being undiscovered would be this—the parties getting the cheque would no doubt be refused payment at the Bank if his account were discovered to be overdrawn; but he might very easily get money from anybody on the cheque—he might get it cashed by anybody to whom he applied, and the party who cashed it, on going to the Bank of England, would not be paid. It would be some discredit also to the Court of Chancery if its cheques were overdrawn; the Accountant General could not well be blamed, for they must recollect that he had to deal with accounts 46,000 or 47,000 in number; and it was desirable that there should be some existing check to prevent it. It was on these grounds that the Lord Chancellor considered that this office could not be abolished. He had gone through the recommendations of the Committee, and had stated the mode in which they proposed to carry them out as regarded the Court of Chancery, but he had not yet touched upon lunacy. With reference to the mode of raising fees, there was a great discussion in the Committee as to the best mode of raising them. They desired ultimately entirely to abolish them; but in the meantime it was a great object to consolidate them, and have them paid at fixed stages of the case, and put an end to the numerous and ridiculous small payments now required. The Lord Chancellor proposed to take a power to fix and regulate those fees, as they could not be regulated at once by the Act, because it required judgment and consideration to do so. The Committee had recommended, that, if necessary, a per centage should be allowed out of the monies paid into Court to raise one-half of the fees which it might be requisite should be paid; and he (the Solicitor General) admitted that that point was not carried as unanimously as other points in the Report. He then saw an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) who objected to it; it was also objected to by the Vice-Chancellor Turner, who then represented the city of Coventry; but there was a majority of the Committee in its favour. The Lord Chancellor, seeing that, proposed to take a power to raise the funds required for the purpose; but it might not be necessary for him to exercise that power, because it was thought that the different fees, when properly adjusted, would meet any demands for the purpose. In lunacy, however, he thought the best mode of raising the fund would be by this very per centage. There was no objection to it in lunacy, because the business was not contentious, but merely the administration of an estate by the Lord Chancellor as a trust. The property was vested in the Crown upon the commission finding the party lunatic, and the Crown held it upon trust to administer it. There was no reason why the estate to be administered should not be at the expense of administering it, but there was reason why the present system of fees should not be continued, because by the present system every estate, large and small, paid equally. He would give the House two instances to explain the monstrous hardship which was thus inflicted upon persons having a small estate. One was the case of a lunatic who had been clerk to a solicitor, and who had realised by his savings about 1,500l. That was his whole property. The expense in respect to that commission amounted to 216l., and of that, 216l., 55l. 2s. 6d. were the actual fees which his estate had to pay into Court. So that in that small estate the party had to pay 55l. 2s. 6d. into Court, being the same amount that another lunatic possessing 14,000. or 15,000l. a year, would have to pay. There was another instance, where the party had originally filled the situation of a lady's maid, and had saved 800l. The expenses amounted to 183l., and the fees paid into Court amounted to 58l. 9s. 2d. for that small estate. It was proposed, with reference to lunacy, that the fees required, which amounted altogether to 6,000l. or 7,000l. a year, should be raised by a per centage on the estate of the person whose estate was to be administered. He thought he had stated to the House the principal features of the Bill. There were minor details with which he would not trouble the House, because they would see them as soon as the Bill was printed. He would state one circumstance with reference to this Bill which would lead him to make a remark upon the other measures that were contemplated. This Bill as originally framed contained some clauses with reference to the Clerks' and Masters' Offices. These clauses had been withdrawn from the draft of the Bill for this reason: a Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, had been presented and laid upon the table of the House on the first day of the Session. [Parliamentary Paper, No. [1437] Session 1852.] He was not then going to enter into the various subjects contained in the Report; but one of the recommendations contained in it was, that in future a large proportion of the business of the Masters' Office, consisting of the taking of accounts and other business, now solely performed by the chief clerk, should be performed by some officer of a similar character; that the litigious business of the Masters' Office should be performed by the Judges giving their opinion on the cases that arise at the Masters' Office; and that the third class of business, namely, business requiring discussion with reference to the property of infants, the appointment of guardians, &c., should be transacted by the Judge himself sitting in chambers. And he was happy to say that, having had on that Commission the advantage of the presence of three Judges of the Court, the Master of the Rolls, Vice-Chancellor Turner, and Vice-Chancellor Parker, the Commission found them not only concurring in all these propositions, but expressing their entire readiness to perform the additional labours that would be cast upon them by undertaking the transaction of this business in chamber. And the result would be, that if those various recommendations were carried out by the Legislature, it might be in the power of the Legislature to dispense with the office of Master in Chancery altogether; and they would have it in their power to obviate all those delays which were so often complained of—though the delays were perhaps somewhat exaggerated—by substituting a different mode of proceeding altogether from that of proceeding in the Masters' Office. All the clauses, therefore, which had reference to the Masters' Office were wholly omitted in the framing of this particular Bill that was now about to be laid before the House. But before he sat down, he could not help stating to the House the great satisfaction he felt in finding that it was in the power of Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the exertions of the Commission (which had been made to enable some immediate action to be taken in the present Parliament), to bring forward a Bill that would go further towards the permanent relief of the suitors in the Court of Chancery than this present Bill, which simply relieved them from a certain amount (not inconsiderable) of pecuniary payments. They trusted to be able to introduce such a new system in the management of the Court of Chancery that the delays, which occasioned so much suffering and anxiety, and which wore often felt as a far greater grievance than the expense of the suit itself, would be brought within such compass, that in all cases, except cases of ad- ministration, where the parties accepted the assistance of the Court, justice would be done in a period not exceeding the extent of a single year—that parties would be able to obtain speedy justice, and in such a shape that it would not only be speedy but much more cheap than in the mode in which it was hitherto had to be sought, and far more complete and effective when it is rendered. They would then be enabled to prevent parties from being bandied about from court to court; the business appropriate to other courts would be handed over to those courts; such business as the Court of Chancery undertook they would transact in a manner worthy of the highest court of equitable jurisdiction in this country, instead of conducting it as it had, unfortunately, been too much carried on till the present time, so as to reflect great discredit on the administration of justice. He scarcely hoped so early as on Monday week to bring forward the Bill to which he made reference; because, in consequence of the Report of the Commission having been made only a few days before the meeting of Parliament, the Bill was not reduced to such a shape as that he could entertain any reasonable expectation of being able to offer it on that precise day. But there would be no delay, as far as he was concerned, in doing what lay in his power to meet the most anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to many recommendations of that Report; and he concluded by expressing the hope that when those recommendations were carried into effect, they would not be compelled, as before, to listen year after year to complaints of the Court of Chancery as a source of vexation and expense to suitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he was desirous at that early period of the Session to obtain leave to bring in a Bill respecting the supply of water to the metropolis; and he would take that opportunity of stating to the House the views he entertained upon the subject. He considered the House to be already in possession of sufficient information by means of Committees and Commissions, which had inquired into the sub- ject during the last two years, to enable it to make up its mind upon the general principles of the measure which he proposed to introduce. He imagined that the results which the House would be desirous to attain were to supply the inhabitants of the metropolis with water of a good quality, in a sufficient quantity, and at a reasonable price. These appeared to him to be the three general principles that were required to be enforced. With regard to the quality of the water and the mode of distribution, a great deal of evidence had already been obtained. There was, first, the Report of the Board of Health, then the inquiry by the Gentlemen appointed by the Government to ascertain the quality of the water; and, lastly, there was the very laborious inquiry by a Committee of that House, and a large mass of reported evidence on the subject. There was one branch of the question, however, on which he did not think sufficient information had yet been obtained—he meant as to the rate of charge and the mode of assessment. He did not find in the evidence before the House, anything to guide them as to what would be a fair rate of charge, or the best mode of assessment. But the first question to deal with was as to the sources of supply. He thought it quite right, as far as that House was concerned, to say what were the sources from which water ought not to be supplied; and it was his opinion that sufficient evidence was already before them to enable them at once to say that the river Thames within the tidal influence was a source of supply which ought to be prohibited. There were some of the water companies that had already abandoned that source; but there were other companies that would be affected by such a prohibition, namely, the West Middlesex, the Grand Junction, and the Vauxhall Companies. This, however, was not a consideration of sufficient weight to prevent the House from giving powers to the Government to appoint an inspector to report on the quality of the water, and to found on such report, if deemed necessary, a prohibition of that source of supply. After the variety of evidence which had been given on the different qualities and properties of soft and hard water, he was not prepared to say that the quality of soft or hard was in itself a sufficient ground of prohibition. He thought the Thames water beyond and without the tidal influence would be found a very fit source of supply. The water of the New River also, and its various tribu- taries, if properly brought to the houses of the people, without being exposed in its course to any extraneous impurities, would, in his opinion, afford a good source of supply. To watch over the sources of supply to this extent, was in his opinion the duty of Parliament; but it was unnecessary there should be any further interference; and, if unnecessary, it would be unwise further to interfere. On that ground, therefore, he was opposed to the adoption of the course recommended by the Board of Health—that of only going to the sands of Surrey for a supply. He thought it would be unwise to lay it down that that should be the source of supply. It would, in his opinion, be much better to allow water to be brought from different sources, taking care, however, that whencesoever brought, it should be fit for consumption by the inhabitants of the metropolis. Means, also, should be provided for filtration at the reservoirs, and the reservoirs, if within the districts of town, should be covered, to prevent the admixture of anything objectionable. It should also be provided, in case any great majority of the householders in any district should require a constant supply of water, that that supply should be afforded. That, he conceived, could be done without any difficulty. One great objection to the present system was the insufficient supply of water to the houses of the poor. To obviate that evil he would propose that all houses rated under 10l. a year should be supplied with water at a fixed rate. On a comparison of the charges made for water supplied to the houses rated under 10l. a year in this metropolis with the charges made for its supply to houses similarly rated in other towns, it appeared to him that the charges in London were at present very high. In determining what the amount of payment should be in respect to that class of houses, it would be necessary to ascertain what was the rate of charge in other places. But on this subject he had not introduced any provision at present, as it would be necessary that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, where that matter could be more conveniently considered. After the passing of this Bill, it would be necessary for many of the existing water companies to come to Parliament for new Acts to enable them to comply with the terms of the Bill he now sought to introduce. It would then be for Parliament to renew the powers of those companies upon such terms as might be considered fair as between them and the public. One great question, however, remained to be noticed, and that was, to whom should the management and the direction of the water supply be intrusted? He at once declared that it was not his intention to propose that private enterprise should be excluded from supplying water to the metropolis. The Board of Health had recommended management by a commission, and a Parliamentary responsibility. He did not believe it possible, however, for Government, by means of Commissioners who should be responsible to Parliament, to superintend such a work to the satisfaction of the public. He should, for his own part, be very sorry to be answerable for the water supply of the metropolis. The Bill of last year on this subject recommended a fusion of the different existing water companies. He believed that a combination of the companies, and a concentration of the management, might be attended with considerable economy; but he did not think it was the duty of Parliament to require that such a combination should be effected. All that it behoved Parliament to do was to require that water should be supplied of good quality, in sufficient quantity, and at a cheap rate. The companies had better be left to act separately, or in conjunction, as they should find best. Another proposition had been made, which was that the management of the supply should be by means of a municipal corporation. Now, in the first place, it should be remembered that there was no municipal corporation existing in this metropolis to whom that management could be confided. The first thing they would have to do, if the proposition were adopted, would be to create a corporation; and he questioned very much the expediency of creating corporations for such a purpose. Its first duty would be to provide new sources of supply, and new means of distribution. Now, to do that would be something very different from undertaking the management of establishments already in existence. If municipal bodies, inexperienced as they would be, were to be suddenly called together—divided, as doubtless would be the case, by party feeling—to provide for the supply of water to the inhabitants of this town, great delay in the first place would unquestionably arise. He was the more convinced of that from seeing what had been the effect of a like management in other towns. Last year a Committee of that House went into this subject at great length, and it appeared that many corporate towns which had the power of supplying water to the inhabitants had totally failed to do so, and that in many cases where they had undertaken to do it, they had done it very ill. When he observed that the city of Edinburgh, the people of which were as attentive to their own interests as the inhabitants of this metropolis, and which had corporate power to govern its own water supply, rather than undertake the task, had abandoned it to a private company, and that to the entire satisfaction of the inhabitants, he thought he was furnished with strong evidence that private companies, under proper control, might conduct such works with great advantage to the public. But, whether the water supply were undertaken by companies or by municipal corporations, he should be equally inclined, on the part of the Government, to impose the same conditions upon them: namely, that the source of the supply should be under the inspection of the Government; that the supply should be ample; that means for filtering the water should be provided; that the reservoirs should be covered; and that the rate of charge should be under the control of Parliament. From the observations he had already made, it might be gathered, that for the carrying out of this work he had rather more hopes from the companies than he had from municipal corporations. The large works undertaken by the Lambeth Company did them great credit, and embraced most of the requirements that could be expected from any company. But the question really was, not whether Parliament should allow municipal bodies to undertake the supply of water, but whether it should proceed further, and absolutely prohibit private companies from undertaking that supply. Now, he certainly was not prepared to take that step, and to say that on no account would he allow any private company to supply the metropolis with water. The great objection to private companies was, that they would have to look to their own interests, and would be tempted to have an eye to the question of dividends rather than to the public benefit; but he thought, if that House obliged such companies to obtain new Bills, and took care that in such Bills proper clauses were introduced, the public would have every security that they would require; and so far as carrying out the works was concerned, he believed those companies would carry them out with more efficiency and economy than any municipal corporation, while the necessity of incurring rates for a large expenditure in the first instance would be obviated. The object of the Bill which he now proposed to bring in was, in fact, directed towards the consumer. It sought to protect the consumer from bad water, from an insufficient supply, and from extravagant charges. He had been at the pains to obtain returns on this subject from all the large towns in the country, and he found the mode of charge for water was so different in the provincial towns and in the metropolis that he thought it better not to attempt to introduce a scale of rates until he had obtained further evidence on that subject. He found the Lambeth Company, who recently introduced a new scale of charges, had since thought it prudent to abandon it, and to adopt another. He proposed, therefore, when the Bill was before Committee, to take some further evidence on the subject of the mode of rating to be adopted. There was one mode of supply which had attracted some attention lately: he meant that which was acted upon by the Croydon Company; and if that company could furnish water in sufficient abundance, and at a cheap rate, they would undoubtedly confer a great advantage on the public; but he had not sufficient information respecting the cost of that supply, and therefore he could not adopt that scale of rates. The Bill which he sought to propose was in its general outline and character a controlling Bill. It was a Bill which did not propose to undertake the management of the supply of water; it left that to private companies, and if those companies would not assume it, public bodies might undertake it; but whoever undertook it, the Bill proposed some inspection and control on the part of the Government, with a view to the supply being regulated in conformity with its provisions, and so as to meet the necessities and the means of the citizens at large. The noble Lord concluded by moving leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he rose to ask a similar leave to that of the noble Lord, namely, to bring in a Bill purporting to have the same object—the better supply of water to the metropolis, and the adoption of a better system of drainage. He would take up very little of the time of the House in explaining the necessity for the introduction of some such measure as that, for he thought it would be admitted on all hands that there was a very great want for an amended system of supplying the metropolis with water, and also an amended system of drainage. Indeed, the very fact of the noble Lord bringing in a Government Bill, released him (Mr. Mowatt) from the necessity of establishing that proposition. There was, however, an essential difference between the Bill of the noble Lord and that which he (Mr. Mowatt) proposed to bring in. The noble Lord said very properly that his Bill was only controlling and permissive; whereas his (Mr. Mowatt's), while providing expressly for the same objects as that of the noble Lord, went a great deal further. He (Mr. Mowatt) said most unhesitatingly that this was not a question for the interference of Government except to the extent of enlarging, he would not say creating, municipal institutions in the metropolis, to enable the inhabitants to do what was required for themselves. He proposed a Ratepayers' Bill, and was of opinion that the inhabitants of the metropolis, who paid for and used water, and who were affected by drainage, were the proper persons to determine the question of the supply of water and the system of drainage: in other words, that they should have the management of their own affairs in their own hands. This was no new doctrine. It was recognised by the constitution, and was a part of it, as it involved the principle of self-government. It was his wish to grant further facilities to the ratepayers, to enable them to take these two matters into their own charge. He therefore proposed to divide the metropolis into seventeen districts, and in each of them to give the ratepayers powers to elect district commissioners to administer the affairs of the two services of the water supply and the drainage, who should be under the control of a central commissioner in their own district. There should be also powers given to the ratepayers, in proportion to their numbers and their rating, to elect boards, varying in number, but in no case to consist of less than nine members. The district commissioners to have power to elect out of their own body general central commissioners, amounting to forty-one. To that number he proposed to allow the Government, if they thought fit to exercise it, the power of associating four other commissioners, representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the Poor Law Board, and other boards whose property might be affected; in other words, that the Government should have a voice in the working of the Commission. He proposed that the Commission should be incorporated for the purposes of the Bill. It would be, of course, obvious that the Commissioners would require powers for raising the requisite capital, first of all to establish an entirely new system of water supply, and an entirely new system of trunk drainage; and next to provide all other means necessary for putting in working order the management of those two services. Accordingly, powers were given in the Bill to the Commissioners to rate the inhabitants of the metropolis for the purpose of raising the requisite capital for putting the machinery in operation, and for its future maintenance. In short, that the ratepayers should have power to do that in this matter which they now had power to do in all matters relating to themselves. It was obvious, notwithstanding what the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had said with regard to companies, that water was quite an exceptional case, being a necessary of life, and one which could hardly be made, in this large metropolis, the legitimate source of occupation to a mercantile company. He was surprised that the noble Lord had not come to the same conclusion, considering the impartial attention he had given to the subject, and arrived at the opinion that this was a case in which companies could not legitimately meet the wants of the public. He would only mention the fact that all the companies were originally created and their existence sanctioned by Parliament, on the understanding that it would be for the interest of the metropolis that there should be competition amongst them for the supply of water to the inhabitants. It was assumed that if there was competition, the interests of the public would be sufficiently guaranteed. But it was lost sight of that two companies could not compete in one district. It was impossible for the inhabitants of Portland-place, if they were dissatisfied with one company, to apply to another, for it would not be worth their while to break up the streets and lay down mains and pipes. The public had no guarantee against the acts of the companies, and he thought it was much to their credit that they had treated the public so tenderly and moderately as they had, when it was considered that, high as their rates were, they had power to make them twice as high. However it might be with others, the supply of water to the poorer classes was not a legitimate source of profit. It was clear the poorer classes ought to be supplied, if not at the expense of the wealthy, at least without profit to a mercantile company, and he believed every one would agree with him in coming to this conclusion. While, therefore, the Bill which he desired to lay on the table provided that the water should be good in quality, moderate in price, and sufficient in supply, he humbly submitted that by creating the body to which he had referred, and placing it under the influence of the opinion of their brother ratepayers throughout the metropolis, the public would have a much stronger guarantee for all those essentials being carried into practice than by simply providing, by an Act of Parliament, that the thing should be done. He did not propose by his Bill to take any provision whatever with respect to the source of the water supply or the disposal of the sewage, for the reason that when the Commissioners should be appointed they would be much better able than probably the whole House put together to come to a right decision on those questions. In all probability, one of the first acts of the Commission would be to invite public tenders from all parts of the kingdom for the best mode of supplying the metropolis with water, and for the best scheme of putting it into execution, as well as for the best system of trunk drainage, and the most advantageous way of disposing of the sewage of this great metropolis. The noble Lord had quoted instances of the partial failure of corporations with regard to water supply; but he (Mr. Mowatt) thought the case of the metropolis was essentially different from that of any town, not even excepting Edinburgh. Even supposing it to be the fact that ratepayers were so incapable a body, or were so organised in vestries and similar boards as that they could not work in unison nor manage their own affairs in relation to water supply and drainage; still, as they were to pay for them, they were consequently the proper parties to manage them; and he should contend for that principle, even if it could be shown that they had failed to carry out the service of those two articles. It was one of the advantages of our social institutions, of which we were most proud, that we possessed self-government, and one which was to be cherished notwithstanding any abuses that might exist in it. He was himself a vestryman, and as able to appreciate the difficulties of such institutions as the noble Lord. With regard to the question of the expense of these great services, and the rights of existing companies, he proposed by his Bill that, whenever the companies were interfered with by the Commission, that within a reasonable time they should be abolished, compensation being awarded to them by arbitration; so that, whatever might be the value of their property, it might be ascertained, and compensation paid to them. To provide the funds necessary for carrying the Bill into operation, he proposed that the Commission should have the power of rating all the property of the metropolis in a sum not exceeding 8d. in the pound in any one year for the water supply and drainage. A further rate, not exceeding 4d. in the pound, might be imposed for other expenses, including compensation to the companies. On the whole, this would be to limit them to a rate—everything included, even to the compensation to the water companies—not exceeding twelvepence in the pound. This, hon. Members would be good enough to remember, would amount to less than the average rating of houses, at present, for water alone: and obviously, if by putting the water supply and the sewage arrangements together on the best possible footing, compensating, at the same time, the companies which would be extinguished, they charged for the two not more than was at present charged for the one, they at once effected a very considerable pecuniary saving to the public. It might be said that this statement as to the present rate was not strictly true, because there were houses in Belgrave-square and in Portland-place which were rated much lower than this proportion; but, on the other hand, there were smaller houses in other neighbourhoods which were rated much higher than twelvepence in the pound, and, on the whole, therefore, this would be much less than the average. It would be asked, how could this rate of twelvepence in the pound provide the necessary sum for carrying out this great work which would be necessary, as well as for granting the compensation to the companies. He proposed to provide the money in this way. He had ascertained by returns made to the House last Session that the property of the metropolis rated to the relief of the poor exceeded in value the sum of 12,000,000l.; and this rated at 8d. in the pound, would give a sum of 400,000l. per annum. In order to raise the requisite capital, he proposed to take power under the Act to issue annuities, terminable and otherwise, for sums of 20l. per annum; and this, he had good reason to believe, would be regarded by the public as a desirable investment; secured as it would be by the whole rating of the metropolis, and admitting of a simple and ready transfer. He proceeded on the calculation, therefore, that the capital could be raised on most favourable terms, probably at from 3 to 4 per cent. The reasons which had urged the association with which he acted to combine the two questions of water supply and sewage, would be evident to every one on consideration. You could not supply water for domestic purposes without providing means of afterwards getting rid of that water. On the other hand, the sewage could not be managed if the managers had not an adequate command of water; and hence the expediency of combining the two services, not only under one set of commissioners, but in other respects. In short, the scheme which he had detailed to the House, was applying the existing municipal machinery to a general purpose in the least expensive and most efficient manner. If they were to have the municipal machinery resorted to at all, it must be reverted to in this manner. One parish could do nothing but by combining with another parish; and it was, therefore, apparent that some such incorporation of districts as that which he had proposed must be sanctioned by Parliament, in order to admit of their working out the existing institutions. He should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for vesting the water supply and drainage of the metropolis in commissioners representing the inhabitants thereof.

seconded the Motion.

said, he proposed making a few remarks on both the Bills just brought before the House, and should now be able to do so without troubling the House more than once. He concluded that the Bill of the noble Lord, as well as that of the hon. Member, were to be submitted to a Select Committee as rival candidates for favour. [Cries of "No, no !"] He drew that inference from what had happened last year. Well, then, whether the Government Bill was alone to be referred to a Select Committee, or not, the House must decide the principle. On several points he agreed much more with the hon. Member for Falmouth than the noble Lord. He agreed with the hon. Member in the general view he took of the principle which ought to govern legislation on this subject, and which raised it above a mere question of commercial speculation; and he was surprised the principle of competition was still adhered to by Her Majesty's Government in such an article as water. He agreed with him as to uniting under the control of the same body the water supply and drainage. He agreed with him that these matters belonged to a class properly to be dealt with by public authority, and that on general principles that authority ought to be the municipality of the town; at the same time, in the case of the metropolis, there were special considerations which in his opinion furnished grave reasons why the House should pause before they adopted the course proposed by the hon. Member. In the first place, supposing the whole matter to be ultimately placed under the superintendence and control of a popularly-elected body, it did not follow necessarily that the ratepayers would in the first instance be competent to decide upon the difficult and complicated question upon which even scientific men were still not quite agreed—as to the best scheme for the water supply and drainage of the metropolis. It was conceivable that Government, with the superior knowledge and appliances at their command, might advantageously lay down a general scheme, in the first instance, to be worked out by popularly-elected bodies; and on that point he was at issue with the hon. Member. But with regard to the question of the establishment of such a popularly-elected body in London, he must have very little attended to what had taken place on the Continent, who did not see that the relations between the State and the municipality of the capital, were most difficult safely and satisfactorily to adjust: the experience of Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, showed that they now were questions of the greatest delicacy and importance. He was alarmed at the levity with which the Government had, in the first instance, treated this question of what would have been practically a metropolitan municipality, when it was proposed by the hon. Member; but before the end of the Session, he had been relieved by the observations made upon it by his noble Friend at the head of the Government, which proved that he, at least, was aware of the importance of the question. The House should consider carefully a proposition conferring such powers on a body representing the whole of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Whatever might be the specific duties they might be called on to discharge in their corporate capacity, it was quite clear that such a body, acting in close proximity to the very seat of the Legislature, would exercise a very powerful influence on the Government and Legislature of the country. Though the conduct of the Government on sanitary questions had last year been far from encouraging—though that of the noble Lord in particular, as regarded the Commission of Sewers, the working of the Public Health Act, and, above all, of the Interment Act, had been far from satisfactory; yet, he confessed, with regard to the question of uniting the management of water supply and drainage, he was sanguine enough to entertain hopes, from what had fallen from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion, that the Government would have seen the necessity and desirableness of such a union. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) would leave every important item of expense to be determined by the Committee; and the inhabitants of the metropolis were not furnished with any approximation even to the rates to be charged on them. Why had the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was so ready to remit money due in Ireland, or to lay out money on that most splendidly inconvenient House in which they were assembled, refused 500l. to enable the Board of Health to finish the levels and surveys necessary to afford a perfect notion of the expense to be incurred for the supply and drainage of the metropolis? Instead of that, he proposed referring the various Water Bills in a body to a Select Committee, the expenses of which, for days together, in lawyers and witnesses, had amounted to 1,000l. a day; and the effect of the whole of this expenditure was to leave the ratepayers exactly as they were before. The Committee appointed never made any report to the House; and now it was proposed to appoint another Committee, who would perhaps sit as the previous one had done, accumulate still more evidence, and produce another huge blue book with the same absence of any practical result. Now, with regard to the estimate of expenditure, in the absence of the information which might have been given to the House by the Board of Health, if the small sum of money he had mentioned had been expended in procuring it, we were obliged to look at what had been done in other towns. Besides Tavistock, where the Duke of Bedford, the owner of considerable property there, had undertaken both the drainage and the water supply, there were several towns in which those two departments were placed under one management; and in many of these the public works necessary for the supply of water had been laid down at something less than 10s. per head of the population. This was in towns which were constantly increasing in size, and in which it had been necessary to make provision for the future supply of nearly double the present population. In Manchester, he believed, what is technically known as the "piping," had been provided, notwithstanding the large quantity required for manufacturing purposes, at 10s. per head upon the number of inhabitants. Now, every one knew that in the case of very large works there was a considerable saving; but even assuming that the sum of 10s. per head of the population would be required for the new piping of the metropolis, they would have at most but 1,000,000l. or 1,250,000l. of expenditure to lay out under that head; and, then supposing the money obtained and dealt with on the same principle as the drainage loan advanced to landowners by the Government, the interest and principal of which are paid off in thirty years, there would be an annual cost to the ratepayers of only something like 100,000l., so that they would be enabled to supply the ordinary dwellings of the poor at the same rate which was now charged by water companies for supplying a single room. He did think the House had great reason to complain of the crude and unsatisfactory measure now proposed by Her Majesty's Government. But, as he would have another opportunity of further discussing the measure before it was exiled to the Select Committee to which it was proposed to be consigned, he would reserve the further remarks which he should have to make until after he had had the advantage of seeing the clauses of the Bill in print.

considered that the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt), who had just moved for leave to introduce his Bill, had adopted a fair and proper course. He had objected to the scheme of the Government for improving the supply of water to the metropolis, and had embodied his views and opinions on the subject in his Bill, and had asked leave of the House to be allowed to introduce it, in order that its provisions might be placed side by side with the Government measure, and the House be afforded an opportunity of judging of the respective merits of the two proposals. His noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) who had just addressed the House, had not, however, adopted an equally fair course, either to the House, to the Government, or to the hon. Member for Falmouth. Considering the great attention which the noble Lord had paid to the whole subject of sanitary legislation, he was somewhat surprised that he had not submitted to the House the proposal he had to make, together with the criticisms which he had offered upon the Government measure. The noble Lord had objected to everything, and proposed nothing. He (Sir G. Grey) concluded from what had fallen from the noble Lord, that he wished the Government to take the whole question of water supply to the metropolis into their own hands by means of a Government Commission, which should be responsible to Parliament, but which was to charge itself with the whole superintendence of this duty. Now, he (Sir G. Grey) had on a previous occasion stated his objection to such a course, and his noble Friend had certainly not stated any new arguments in support of it. As to the application to the metropolis of a representative system in connection with the water supply, he agreed with his noble Friend that there was considerable difficulty in its adoption; but it was not in a Committee of the House, but in the whole House on the second reading, that it would be for hon. Members to decide between the principle of the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt), and that of the Government measure. His noble Friend had taunted the Government—not very charitably, as he (Sir G. Grey) thought—with an intention to leave the subject in the hands of the Select Committee, with a view to the production of a "large blue book;" but the noble Lord ought to know that the Bill introduced by the Government, as well as that brought forward by the hon. Member for Falmouth, must be referred to a Select Committee, not by the wish of the Government, but by the invariable rule of the House, which required that private Bills and Bills of this description should be referred to such a Committee. It was therefore really without any such intention as that attributed to the Government, but in deference to and in accordance with the rules of the House, that they had pursued the course commented on by the noble Lord.

explained, that he was quite aware of the necessity, under the regulation of the House, of referring the Bill to the Committee upstairs; but what he complained of was, that his noble Friend proposed to leave the Committee to complete his unfinished Bill for him.

considered, that in any Bill that House might adopt, it would be obligatory to have water supplied to the dwellings of the humbler classes, below a certain amount; and, if he had understood his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) aright, I it was intended that this provision should; be enforced. It was one of the greatest evils that existed in many large towns that no such obligation existed, and the consequence was, that the owner of the house would not pay the rate, the poor occupant was not able to pay, and small tenements went unsupplied with water, entailing oftentimes a state of disease which was productive of considerable expense to the ratepayers. Another point to which he wished to refer was this—that though in his opinion it was not absolutely necessary that the same parties who had the management of the sewerage should have the management of the water supply, it was absolutely necessary that they should have such a command over the supply as to carry out what was essential for purposes of drainage. It appeared to him perfectly practicable to call upon the company, or whoever they might be, to grant such a supply of water as was necessary properly to cleanse the sewere. Every one knew that under the improved mode of drainage through piping it was quite impossible to have a perfect system of sewerage unless there was a sufficient supply of water, and that sufficient supply of water it would be necessary to procure by means of stringent provisions in any Bill that was adopted.

as one of those connected with a large water company in the metropolis, had looked forward with great anxiety to the Government Bill of the present Session. He wished to state to the House that the present measure was entirely the production of the Government, without reference to any of the companies, none of whom, as far as he knew, had been asked for suggestions. He approved of the general principles proposed to regulate the water supply, and he would remind the House that it was very nearly the precise plan which he (Sir J. Johnstone) had suggested when the Government Bill was first introduced. Some of the provision might be productive of harm, but, as they would have to be submitted to a Select Committee, he would not offer any further remarks on the subject.

in moving "that Dr. Reid be called to the Bar of the House and questioned as to the means at his disposal for ventilating the New Buildings," said, that a good supply of air was even more important than a good supply of water, and his present Motion more nearly affected hon. Members than that last under discussion, for it related to the supply of fresh air to this House. Assuredly nothing could be worse than the present state of the ventilation. It was suggested that the subject should be referred to a Committee, but he had strong objections to any such course. In the first place, three Committees had already sat to consider the matter; and to adopt a similar course now would be to shelve the whole question, for they would sit in a room upstairs, they would make a report at the end of the Session, and meanwhile hon. Members would be subject to all the hot and cold blasts from which they had suffered since the Session commenced. Now, he proposed that the House should exert the power it had in the matter, and with this view he would call Dr. Reid to the bar, and, without entering into the personal dispute between that gentleman and Mr. Barry, he would put to him six questions. He would ask him, first—and he invited the noble Lord's (Lord Seymour's) attention to this question—whether there was any impediment to the full and proper action of his plan for the ventilation to the House? Secondly, what those impediments were as to matters of fact, taking care not to enter upon personal differences with the architect? He would then ask Dr. Reid to state these matters as briefly as possible, calling upon him to say what it was he proposed to do, and inquiring whether he could name any works already in operation which were upon a principle similar to that which he desired to carry out in the Houses of Parliament? These questions he (Mr. B. Osborne) thought were very fair ones; and by calling Dr. Reid to the bar, as he now proposed, they would avoid any personal altercations, they would make Dr. Reid be as brief as it was possible for him to be, and the subject would be properly brought before the House, instead of being forgotten in the hands of a Committee.

said, when the Houses of Parliament had been committed to his charge, he had himself asked Dr. Reid what impediments there were in the way of the ventilation, and was told by that gentleman that there had been impediments existing for the last five years. Now, if Dr. Reid were called to the bar, the House, in seeking to be informed of those causes, must necessarily enter into a great deal of detail, involving perhaps other persons whom it would be necessary in justice to listen to in reply. He was anxious to avoid placing the House in this position, and would therefore suggest the appointment of a Committee to take the subject under inquiry, in which case they would have the opportunity of hearing what was necessary to be heard in reply to the statement of Dr. Reid.

hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex would not be opposed. The appointment of a Committee was very well, looking to some distant period, but this was a subject demanding immediate inquiry. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) did not mean the House to adjourn until the Committee had made its report. What hon. Members wanted to hear was, who had directions from Government to ventilate the House? The noble Lord said that Dr. Reid had; but hon. Members could hardly judge of this, though they knew very well that the House was not ventilated. Were the Commons of England to be put about in the way they had been? No less than 200,000l. had been expended from first to last in ventilation, and if we had not yet arrived at a knowledge of the proper principles, the sooner we did so the better.

said, he knew an hon. Member who had caught a severe cold in consequence of the blasts of cold air that were admitted into the House, and who had been obliged to keep his bed ever since.

said, it did not follow that because Dr. Reid had stated the impediments in the way of his ventilating the House were of five years' standing, that therefore it would take him five years to explain them to the House; and, in fact, Dr. Reid believed he could make everything clear on the subject in the space of ten minutes. At one time hon. Members were warm, and at another time cold; they had water coming down in all directions, one of the candelabra would not burn, and no man could enter the House without feeling that he was exposed to a great degree of discomfort, which, in many cases, would prevent his paying that attention to business which he ought to give. He hoped the subject would receive immediate attention from the House.

said, he must confess the ventilation of the House was not perfect; but he did not think, if Dr. Reid were called to the bar, the question for the consideration of the House would be found to be so simple a one as some hon. Members seemed to suppose. Although they might question Dr. Reid, who might be able in ten minutes to explain that which he considered the cause of the inefficient ventilation, and that which he wished to be done, yet that which he wished to be done might not be in any means in accordance with the opinions of the architect. In that case would the House refuse to hear Mr. Barry; would they decide that everything Dr. Reid desired was to be carried out, perhaps at very great additional expense, without keeping in view what might be proper architectural difficulties? They must accordingly hear Mr. Barry, and they must hear whether Dr. Reid's objections and views were, in the judgment of the House, a sufficient answer to Mr. Barry or not. The question was one which could hardly be considered by the whole House. It would, probably, take some days to decide upon, and it would be far better disposed of if referred to a Select Committee.

said, several hon. Members on that side of the House had suffered severely from the state of the atmosphere. He thought that it did not ne- cessarily follow that the House should come to an immediate decision upon hearing the statements of Dr. Reid; if it was considered necessary, a Committee might afterwards be appointed.

thought the House had wholly neglected its duty, as holding the purse-strings of the nation, in permitting so much extravagance in the outlay upon the Houses of Parliament. If either the architecture or the ventilation of the House must give way, he thought it ought to be the former. The atmosphere of the House had been almost insufferable of late.

moved, as an Amendment, that the question of the ventilation of the House be referred to a Select Committee.