rose to oppose the Amendment, and said, Sir, having expressed my sentiments very fully upon this branch of the subject on the second reading of the Bill, I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. In dissenting from the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, I would remind the Committee that the question of the union of the two Aberdeen Colleges is no new question—on the contrary, it is one which forced itself upon the public mind, and the attention of the Government of that day, so far back as 1640, within a few years after the foundation of Marischal College; and although, in the interval of more than two centuries, some nine or ten proposals of settlement have been propounded, yet it would seem that, without the intervention of Parliament, a satisfactory solution of the question is as far off as ever. Sir, it appears to me that, among the many changes which have been suggested, the only mode of settlement which can be considered satisfactory is that which provides for the entire union of the two Colleges, whether as to property and goverment, or as to instruction and discipline—and for this reason, because such a union affords the best guarantee for the better application of the existing funds of the two establishments, by consolidating the management, by abolishing unnecessary professorships, and by supplying existing deficiencies, and thus extending the means of effective teaching. Now, Sir, it will no doubt be asked, what are the disadvantages of the present state of separation, which it is so desirable to correct? To that question my answer is, that as separate establishments the two institutions do not afford a complete course of academical instruction even in the faculty of Arts, and certainly not in any of the higher branches of science; and, however much disposed, they are not in a position from their own resources, to introduce the necessary improvements. Each College is deficient in certain professorships which the other possesses. In both, certain chairs which are essential are wanting—and I believe that at least one or two chairs are mere sinecures. The actual state of the two Colleges is thus described in a letter which I hold in my hand.—[Sir WILLIAM here read an extract from a letter pointing out the existing defects.]—Such is the present condition of the two Aberdeen Colleges. It is certainly one which, as is truly said by the writer of this letter, is not creditable to the age in which we live; and the question, therefore, for the Legislature to decide is—"Shall such a state of things be allowed to continue—and if not, how is it to be remedied?" Now, there are only two ways in which an effectual remedy can be applied. Either the two Colleges must separately be fully equipped and thus enabled independently to realise the objects for which they were severally founded, or a complete union of the two imperfect Colleges must be effected and a university established, complete in all the faculties, and suited to the requirements of the time. To the former of these plans I imagine that Parliament cannot be expected to assent, because it would involve a needless expenditure of public money, and the wants of the country do not require it. Accordingly no parties have ventured to make such a demand, though the ground which many of them have taken up would necessarily lead to it. The other plan — which is the plan embodied in the Bill—is the object of vigorous opposition in Aberdeen and the surrounding districts, and is condemned, along with its supporters, in no measured terms—but has my learned Friend the Lord Advocate acted unwisely in embodying that plan in the Bill because it is so condemned? I for one do not share in that opinion. Sir, we can have no higher authority to appeal to on this subject than the Royal Commission of 1857. That Commission consisted of my hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire, and two other gentlemen, than whom, whether in point of literary attainments or in any other respect, there are no three persons, in Scotland at least, more competent to pronounce an authoritative and reliable opinion upon such a subject. They had before them every scheme which had been previously suggested, and every information that could throw light upon the subject matter of their inquiry, and after the fullest consideration they came to the deliberate conclusion that a complete union of the two Colleges was not only free from the objections to which every other plan was liable, but it was entitled to a preference, "As being best calculated speedily and effectually to remedy the existing defects, and secure the full future benefit of combined and harmonious action. The entire consolidation of funds for which it provides affords the surest guarantee for their beneficial application, whether by suppressing superfluities, or supplying deficient professorships, by increasing the emoluments of those inadequately endowed, or extending the means of effective teaching by augmenting the required apparatus. This plan also holds out the best prospect of a speedy termination of those unhappy jealousies and dissensions, academical or personal, which can hardly fail to recur so long as the Colleges remain separate, but for which it is difficult to see what cause or opportunity could remain, were the now antagonistic bodies and their interests completely blended and united in the mode here contemplated. The Committee will thus observe that in these two or three short paragraphs, the Commissioners refer to the defects which require to be remedied—the remedy which would be most efficacious—and the advantages direct and otherwise that would flow from it. But not satisfied with that unequivocal expression of opinion, the Commissioners proceed to fortify that opinion by a weight of authority which cannot fail to command the respect of every unprejudiced mind. "It is also no slight argument (say they) in favour of this complete and comprehensive mode of settlement, that on so many occasions during the past century it has been promoted or sanctioned by those public bodies, and leading members of the community, who were most nearly interested in the question, or best qualified by their position and attainments to judge impartially of its merits, by the Commission of 1826, by the Member for the city, Mr. Bannerman, in his Bill of 1835, and by the Commission of which he was a member, appointed in the ensuing year, by the two Colleges conjointly in 1754 and 1854, and in the latter year by the Provost and Town Council, by Mr. Thomson of Banchory, now convener of the county of Aberdeen, by Mr. G. Thompson, then M.P. for the city, by the Government of Lord Aberdeen, and personally by the distinguished nobleman as Chancellor of King's College." Well, Sir, with such a weight of testimony before him in favour of complete union, so far from being surprised at the course my learned Friend, the Lord Advocate has taken, I should indeed have been surprised if he had not dealt with the difficulty in the only way in which it can effectually and permanently be dealt with. But, Sir, I understood my hon. Friend, the Member for Perthshire, the other night to say that, yielding to the pressure of local feeling, which, let me remind the House, has fluctuated from year to year, now for and then against the plan of union, he had felt himself obliged to a certain extent to modify Ids original views; at the same time, he gave the Lord Advocate a friendly warning that "if any Commissioner were sent to the north to carry the provisions of the Bill into effect, he would have to be backed by at least something more than moral force." Now, if I did not know that my hon. Friend is the last person in the world who would or could be influenced by such apprehensions, I should almost have imagined that a presentiment that he might be the unlucky envoy accredited with so dangerous a mission had had something to do with his change of opinion. But be that as it may, while I do not wish to undervalue the strength and sensitiveness of local feeling, I cannot help expressing my belief that if this Bill were passed, such are the advantages which it confers, that anything like hostile feeling would soon subside, and under any circumstances, I am of opinion, that it is the duty of Parliament, when voting money from the public purse for the improvement of the academical institutions of Scotland, to deal with a question of such importance not on the narrow basis of local convenience but on the broad ground of national benefit. Having said this much upon the expediency of the union of the two Colleges, I will now proceed to make a few brief remarks upon the objections which have been urged against the union both in and out of the House. The first and principal objection is, that the union is tantamount to a suppression of Marischal College. That is an objection which might with equal truth apply to King's College; but as it is one which is calculated to make an impression upon persons who are ignorant of the details of what is proposed, I would ask where, within the compass of this Bill, there is to be found any evidence whatever of an intention to suppress either College, or the one College more than the other. On the contrary, I find that by Clause 21, the Commissioners who are to be appointed under the Bill to carry its provisions into effect are required to have special regard to the reports of the University Commissioners under previous Commissions; and the proposal made by those Commissioners, as I understand it, is to divide equally between the two Colleges the four faculties of which the University will consist. But then it is said that besides the two faculties to be assigned to each College, Marischal College ought or has a claim to be secured in a full Faculty of Arts; and why should it be so? To endow two complete Faculties of Arts within the same university would require a considerable expenditure of public money, whereas by uniting the two faculties, after providing the necessary endowments, a considerable annual surplus would remain for the endowment of other chairs in the University. Again, it is said that by combining the faculties, the classes will be too large for effective teaching. To that objection my answer is that they will not be so large as the corresponding classes in Edinburgh and Glasgow, that the Bill provides for assistants to those classes which may require it. This will enable the Professor to arrange his class, and to teach all his pupils thoroughly, instead of being compelled, as he now is, to adapt his instructions to the average attainments of his pupils. Another objection is one which I can hardly regard as a valid objection to a measure of great public importance. It is that a distance between King's College and Aberdeen is inconveniently great. Now, I am informed that the distance is less than a mile—that many of the students of King's College live from choice in New Aberdeen—and that the sons of those citizens of Aberdeen, who hold bursaries at King's College, find it no inconvenience, and that not a few of those who are among the most active opponents of the Bill, professedly on this ground, have actually been in the habit for some years past of sending their sons to a school in the Old Town, nearly a quarter of a mile beyond King's College. It would be easy so to arrange the hours of teaching as to prevent more than one journey to and fro daily. Besides all this, I am told that only one-third of the students at Marischal College are natives of Aberdeen. With regard to the objection which is founded upon the assumption that the expense of education will be so increased as to deter many from entering the University—all I have to say is that the power of regulating the course of study, and the fees, is left with the Commissioners, and subsequently with an independent University Court, who will doubtless adapt their regulations to the means of those classes which are intended to be benefited by the University. Another, and a farther ground of opposition to the Bill is, that it is supported chiefly by those Professors who expect or intend to derive the benefits that may be expected to accrue from the suppression of certain of the Professorships. My answer to that objection is, that between the Professors and the intention attributed to them (if it does exist), the Act interposes the Commissioners, one of whose special duties it is to see that the funds of the University are properly appropriated. Then another and a very favourite argument is, that the two Colleges ought to be maintained to keep up what is called a spirit of competition. Now, if to underbid each other in the matter of university privilege, and so to lower the standard of qualification and education, is a species of competition to be desired, then I believe I am right in stating that such a competition, if no other, does exist—but I, for my part, am of opinion that, instead of keeping up a spirit of jealousy and rivalry with each other, it were better far to encourage the two Colleges, combined as the University of Aberdeen, to enter on the less ignoble field of rivalry with the other Universities of Scotland. With regard to the principle of union advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, I feel bound to say that it is not easy to discover what it is that he precisely aims at. On the one hand, by his Amendment on Clause 1, he would exclude the Commissioners from meddling with the funds of Marischal College, for university purposes, while on the other hand, his Amendments on Clause 16 would imply that they were at liberty to interfere with its internal economy, and therefore with its property. I can only say that his plan of union would not effect the objects he has in view, bat as I cannot express my sentiments on this part of the subject in more forcible or intelligible language than the Royal Commissioners, I will conclude my remarks by quoting their words, which are these:—

"A union merely for what are called university purposes may safely be set aside, as providing no substantial remedy for the practical disadvantages of the present system. It lops off no superfluities, supplies no deficiencies, secures no improved application of the existing funds, while the injurious effects of the present academical rivalry would perhaps be aggravated rather than mitigated on the new arena provided for its exercise. It is not probable that two bodies, animated by separate feelings and interests during the rest of the year, would act with the cordial harmony essential to secure impartial and judicious measures, when called together, once annually, to legislate on the points on which those feelings originated."

Sir, I have not a word to add to the opinion so clearly expressed by the Commissioners, and I shall, therefore, give my cordial support to the Bill at it stands.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had dwelt at so much length upon the strong feeling which prevailed in Aberdeen and in many districts of the north-east of Scotland upon the subject, that he would not further allude to it. He would confine himself to utilitarian arguments. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to point out the great and growing inconvenience which would be felt by the citizens of Aberdeen if they had to send their children from the furthest parts of the City to King's College. It was not, he urged, intended to keep separate the higher classes, the Faculties of Medicine, Law, or Theology. These classes were attended by young men who could with great propriety live alone in lodgings, as in the German Universities. It was, however, undesirable that the good Scotch custom of boys from fourteen to seventeen attending the junior classes of the University while they lived with their parents should be in any way disturbed. Again, while he was quite ready to admit that there must always be a contemporary authority which may review and redistribute, if need be, the funds of educational endowments, he could not view with approbation the diversion from the uses to which it was intended of the large sum of £7,000 or £8,000 which had been contributed by persons, of whom many were still living, towards the new buildings of Marischal College. The existing system, he was free to admit, was very bad. The competition of the rival Universities kept down the standard of education; but this could not be said of two Faculties of Arts, which would act on each other exactly as Trinity acted on St. John's at Cambridge, or Balliol on Christchurch at Oxford. Such competition did simple good. A healthy emulation was excited, and the students became "rivals in renown." There was another aspect of the question, which seemed to him of great importance. The competition of the Colleges kept down the fees. Now, many of the English and all the Scotch Members present were doubtless aware that a large portion of the students, more especially at King's College, were very far from well off. Not a few actually supported themselves during the vacation by manual labour. To such persons the addition of a pound or two to the sessional fees would be a sad misfortune. It might be said that a Commission would regulate the fees. This was true; but how long would their regulations remain unchanged? The Professors were, he was well aware, both just and generous; but in the long run their interests might, if they were under the ordinary laws of human nature, be expected to prevail, and how were they to be opposed? who were their opponents?—the scattered peasantry of the north of Scotland, without organization and without influence. It was said by some of the supporters of the fusion scheme, "If you unite the incomes of the professors in the Faculties of Arts in the two Colleges, you will attract to Aberdeen men of greater eminence than you now succeed in attracting." He (Mr. Grant Duff) very much doubted this. Any one who knew the present state of Oxford or Cambridge—the present Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who sat opposite, could set him right if he was about to make an erroneous assertion—was perfectly aware that, if you went into the "learning market" and offered salaries of £400 a year to young men of twenty-five or twenty-six, with a good position and work for only five months out of the twelve, you would get very much the same men as you would get if you offered twice that sum. What was the state of things even now? Why, at Marischal College you had Professor Maxwell, one of the most distinguished Cambridge men of his day; and only a year or two ago, an Oxford man, whose position in his own University was not inferior to Professor Maxwell's, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Greek Chair at King's College. Let the salaries of the Professors be raised by all means. He (Mr. Grant Duff) would only be too happy if every professor in Scotland had £1,000 a year. But let them be raised in another way. The Lord Advocate might rest assured that, if the position of the Scotch Universities was elevated—and elevated it assuredly would be if this Bill passed, amended as he hoped to see it amended—many large sums of money which were now applied to the erection of such buildings as Donaldson's Hospital would be applied to augment professorships, to found fellowships, and to endow new chairs. Let the learned Lord think of the Dick Bequest, and trust to Aberdeen, Banff, and Moray. Let him yield in a matter which, important as it was to the people of Aberdeen, could not be to him (the Lord Advocate) a very important matter. Let him remember that, if the arrangement proposed by Colonel Sykes did not work well, it could at any time be altered; and let him reward those who were willing to go with him three-fourths of his journey by not compelling them to go the remaining fourth against their inclination.

said, he was unable to ascertain what public advantage was to be gained by the union of the colleges of Aberdeen. He was told that some amount of money would be saved by that provision, but he believed that the saving would be utterly contemptible. At all events, he should like to have been informed of the amount which it was thought would justify them in setting at nought the united wishes of a whole district of Scotland. The county of Aberdeen contained one-seventh of the whole population of Scotland, and contributed three-fourths of the students who were educated at the Universities of Aberdeen. That county was almost unanimous in its opposition to this provision. Not only the landowners and commissioners of supply, but the clergy also, who were well qualified to speak upon this subject, were of opinion that this clause would injuriously affect the interests of education in the North of Scotland. The opinion of one of the Royal Commissioners was also entitled to respect, and he in his place in Parliament had expressed his objection to this obnoxious provision. These Universities were ancient institutions, which for centuries had conducted education in that part of the country. Both were capable of giving instruction to the students who resorted to them, and of granting degrees, and the maintenance of those two institutions in a state of complete efficiency and independence was an object which was cherished with the strongest anxiety in that part of the country. The provision with respect to the union of the two colleges of Aberdeen did not affect the principle of the measure, and might be left for future consideration, and he was sure, if the learned Lord Advocate would waive that portion of the Bill, and would be content for the present with the union of the two Universities, his acquiescence in the general wish would be received with universal satisfaction.

looked upon the Bill as a great boon to the people of Scotland, and thought that they were indebted to the learned Lord for the pains which he had taken with a measure which must be regarded as both comprehensive and liberal. The question involved in the first clause could not be isolated from the remainder of the Bill, although at first sight it might appear to relate to Aberdeen exclusively; because it must have an influence upon the amount of the Parliamentary grant. If it were unnecessary, as he contended, to maintain double classes in Arts in the two Colleges, to do so was pro tanto to starve, not only the other classes in Aberdeen, but the other Universities, and they would consequently be called upon pro tanto to increase the grant. The Bill was founded in its main particulars upon the able Report of the Commission of 1830, which had been presided over by the Earl of Rosebery. The Commissioners stated that the propriety of uniting the two institutions into one University had, at a very early period, been time subject of their serious consideration, and that they had arrived at the conclusion that it would be highly expedient that a union should take place; for they believed that by such a union the system of instruction might be rendered more extensive and complete. They then went on to recommend an entire union of the Colleges, as well of the Universities, and in every case they proposed that there should be one professor in each Faculty. As he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sykes), he was willing to admit a union of the two Colleges in respect of the Faculties of Theology, Law, and Medicine, and proposed that they should be separate only as regarded the Faculty of Arts. He thought it might answer the views of all if Latin, Greek, and Mathematics were taught in duplicate in both Colleges. When a Member of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, he had been desired by the noble Earl to go down to Aberdeen, and ascertain what was the possibility of effecting this union of the two Universities and Colleges. He had gone there, and put up at an hotel, the sign of which was "The Union," which he took for a good omen. Having heard of the objection about the distance of the two Colleges, he thought it right to ascertain for himself; so he set out to walk from New Aberdeen to King's College, and was quite surprised to find himself there so soon and so pleasantly. When on the way, he had talked with several of the students, and found that they made no difficulty about the matter. He had seen a great many parties who had taken an interest in the question, and he came away with the impression that a union of both Colleges and Universities, providing two or three duplicate chairs, might be carried out with the general assent of the people of Aberdeen. On his return to London he had embodied his views, and had sketched out a plan for the union in an official letter, which was sent down to Aberdeen in answer to a memorial from the Town Council to the Government desiring that a Bill might be introduced; but it appeared that a sudden change had taken place in public opinion there, and his scheme was disapproved by the local authorities. Lord Aberdeen, of course, then washed his hands of the matter altogether. The real cause of the difficulty in carrying out this beneficial proposition was the local jealousies of Old and New Aberdeen. He denied that public feeling in Aberdeen and in the north of Scotland was so unanimous or so deserving of consideration as had been represented. It might be quite true that the feeling at that moment, in the year of grace 1858, and in the present month of June, was strong and united, but was there any certainty that it would continue so? It was a curious vacillating thing this public feeling of Aberdeen, at least as represented by its leading men and public bodies. There were gentlemen in Aberdeen—gentlemen of great intelligence —and whose opinion was deserving of the highest respect—whom he had supposed, on the occasion of his visit, to be entirely in favour of a union to a greater or less extent, but whom he found now taking the most active part against any fusion. And as for the Town Council, he had been furnished with a striking account of the way in which that body had changed its views. The noble Lord then read a series of extracts from Resolutions of the Town Council, beginning in 1854 and ending in May last, showing considerable diversity of opinion at different times. Some such plan as he had proposed would, he thought, be found advantageous; but, if that could not be got, he hoped the House would pass the measure introduced by the Lord Advocate.

wished to add his testimony to that of the noble Lord (Lord Haddo) as to the strong feeling in Aberdeen against the fusion of the two Colleges in question. The general feeling in the country was also strongly against the proposal.

said, that although he had not the honour of being a Scotch Member, he was a Scotchman, and had, though he feared unworthily, received the degree of M.A. from the Marischal College. He should, indeed, be ungrateful for the instruction which he received under the excellent teaching of Dr. Brown if he did not stand up in defence of that College. The people of the north of Scotland were shrewd enough, and might, he thought, be allowed to understand their own business. They did not want the advice either of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) or of the hon. Gentleman below him (Sir William Dunbar). The noble Lord had been in Aberdeen in a sort of dilletanti character, had enjoyed a pleasant walk, and got some information from the boys on the road. It was, he presumed, summer when the noble Lord was there. But he would have found the walk rather more unpleasant if, as the students were com- pelled to do, he had to take it twice a day in the five winter months, the period of the session, which lasts from November till March. A union of the two Universities might be a step in the right direction; but a union of the Universities did not necessarily involve a union of the Colleges. For his own part, he would not object to the union of the whole of the Scotch Universities as Universities; probably the standard of education would by that means be placed higher, and then a Scotch degree would come to have more value than had hitherto been put upon it. The union of the two Universities of Aberdeen went so far that way, and, therefore, he approved of it; but he must object to the fusion of the Colleges or the swamping of either. He was influenced not by public feeling in this matter, but by a wish to promote education; and, in his opinion, the more emulative colleges they had the better, provided they were maintained in such a state of efficiency as, on the whole, the Aberdeen Colleges had been; but, at the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the sagacious inhabitants of the city and county of Aberdeen, and the other parts of the north of Scotland, were opposed to the union of the Colleges. He might be allowed to refer to his recollection what these Colleges were, and the kind of education they furnished. Marischal College could then boast of Dr. Brown, who was the best classical scholar of his day; of Dr. Hamilton, the author of the excellent work on the National Debt; of Dr. Beattie, the Professor of Moral Philosophy; Processor Copland; and many other eminent men. And the teaching in Marischal College was of a practical kind, such as could not then, and, he believed, could not yet, be obtained in the great Universities of England. They got not merely the dry abstract study of mathematics. He himself had gone out with the Professor and his theodolite and other apparatus to apply the knowledge acquired to surveying and land-measuring. It was the same in Professor Copland's admirable class. Everything had a practical direction. In this way were reared those enterprising Scotchmen who were to be found pushing their fortune and spreading the fame of their country in every part of the world. He was satisfied that he (Mr. Ellice) and his father between them had seen from the north of Scotland sixty or seventy such men who had prospered in North America. He knew students who lodged at the bakers or butchers of Aberdeen for five months on £10, in order to study at Marischal College, and then returned to work on their fathers' farm during the harvest. A great portion of Aberdeenshire and Kin-cardineshire during the last two or three generations had been purchased by men who received their education at Marischal College, went to the Colonies, made fortunes, and returned to their country to adorn it. They should take care how they dealt with institutions of that kind. Let them improve this College at Aberdeen as much as they wished; but let them have provision for training young men, the sons of hard-working clergymen and farmers in the north of Scotland, who might go out into the world, earn their fortunes, and return to their native country to benefit and adorn it. He thought, notwithstanding what he said, that the learned Lord was entitled to praise for his efforts to improve education in Scotland. There were great difficulties in the way, which he was willing to allow for; but he thought he ought not to press this portion of his measure, which was not essential, against the strongly-expressed opinion of the people of the north of Scotland. With regard to the general provisions of the Bill, he was adverse to their application, generally speaking, of public funds to local purposes—the Scotch survey, for instance, he thought a lavish expenditure of a large sum of money —but he thought Scotch education had some little claim, and he thought the people of that country were very modest in asking only for £10,000 to improve their national education. At the same time, he wished that vigilance should be exercised over the expenditure of that money, and that no portion of it should be applied to sectarian purposes.

said, he wished to express his gratification that there appeared to be an almost universal feeling in favour of the general scope of the Bill under consideration. With respect to the particular clause before the Committee he was at a loss to understand how the union of the two colleges of Aberdeen could impair the efficiency of the education imparted at the University, or limit the class of students who would resort to it. So far as he could gather there was no opposition to the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen, but with respect to the colleges there appeared to be at all events a division of opinion. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), following up his present Amendment, proposed to keep the property and funds and revenues of the two colleges distinct; but yet he did not propose that there should be double professorships in all the faculties. There would, therefore, be a union of the professorships in three out of the four faculties—law, art, and medicine, and the consequence would be that it would be impossible, at least to that extent, to keep the funds and revenues of the two colleges distinct. He contended then, that in this respect the plan of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was inconsistent and impracticable. The supporters of the Amendment seemed to take it for granted that the clause would inflict a hardship upon Marischal College; but why it should inflict a hardship upon Marischal College and not upon King s College he was unable to understand; or, rather, he could not see what injury would be done to either by substituting one substantial well-provided and efficient University for two half-starved inefficient and antagonistic institutions. He had heard no tangible objection urged to the scheme of union as proposed in the Bill, and while he had all authority on his side, and was fortified by the report of the Commissioners, he had arrayed against him nothing but what he must term local views and prejudices. The Earl of Aberdeen had recently expressed himself in favour of a complete union of both Colleges and Universities; and, speaking of the prejudice which prevailed in the north of Scotland against it, he described it as doing more credit to their feeling than their judgment. The report of the recent Commission had certainly surprised him not a little; for, while the Commissioners expressed themselves strongly in favour of a complete fusion and amalgamation, they stated that there was a strong prejudice against it on the part of a great mass of the community whom it was intended to benefit, and in deference to that prejudice they recommended the adoption of the least preferable measure. A Royal Commission was the last body whom he should expect to act on the principle video meliora proboque, deteriora seqor. On the whole, he saw no reason for agreeing to the Amendment, and he hoped that the Committee would reject it.

said, that the speech of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Elcho) had greatly enhanced the opinion he had of the noble Lord's activity. He had dwelt at great length on his visit to Aberdeen. He had put up at the "Union Hotel," and had thence derived a good omen—a proof that he had not gone there without a preconceived notion—he had seen everything and everybody, and had talked to many of the little boys in the streets. All this he had told with great care and minuteness; but he did not mention the fact that the time spent on the careful and impartial inquiry which enabled him to make up his mind so conclusively was only twenty-four hours. [Lord ELCHO—"Forty-eight hours."] The Commissioners went to Aberdeen as well as his noble Friend (Lord Elcho). They remained there ten days, and the result was the Report on the table which spoke for itself. If the Bill as it stood was carried into effect the Commissioners would stand in a strange and difficult position in Aberdeen. Public feeling there was very strong, but he did not think it would be shown in an indecorous or improper manner. The plan of his learned Friend was, perhaps, more symmetrical and more reasonable, but did they always legislate in that House on the rules of pure symmetry and reason? Did they legislate for India on principles of pure reason? The Earl of Aberdeen, whose authority, no doubt, was of great weight, at the same time that he expressed himself in favour of the fusion, also said he would not be responsible for the feeling which would be generated by such a scheme. The scheme of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) came nearer to what the Commissioners proposed, and he should, therefore, support his Ammendment.

said, that if the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) adopted the suggestion that there should be duplicate chairs for Greek, Latin, and mathematics, he should not be disposed to oppose his Amendment. He denied that the whole of the North of Scotland was in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, as lie was of opinion that all unprejudiced persons in every part of Scotland were in favour of the union of the two Colleges. For his own part he certainly felt much unwillingness to sanction the payment of £2,000 or £3,000 a year for the maintenance of a rivalry between the two Universities of Aberdeen, which had existed for centuries to the great detriment of the cause of education.

said, that he should raise the Question again on the bringing up of the Report.

said, he rose to Move to leave out "appointed in the same manner as at present," and insert "elected by the general council hereinafter mentioned," with the view of providing that the Chancellors, instead of being appointed as at present, should be elected by the General Council.

said, that the Chancellors were now elected by the Senatus Academicus, and as they had hitherto elected the very class of persons whom one would wish to see Chancellors, he saw no reason for the Amendment.

said, he would prefer that the appointment should be made by Her Majesty. In Edinburgh there was at present no Chancellor, and the learned Lord Advocate showed what his opinion was by proposing that the new Chancellor for the University of Edinburgh should be appointed by Her Majesty. He should support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend in preference to the mode of appointment proposed by the Bill.

said, he should support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie).

said, he thought that too much power was given throughout the Bill to the Senatus Academicus. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

, said that, as the appointment of the Chancellor by the General Council would carry more weight with it, he was authorized by the Lord Advocate to say that he would accept the Amendment.

said, he would propose an Amendment to the effect that the Court of the University should be open so that the public might know what was going on. This was in consonance with the recommendation of the Commissioners.

said, this was a matter which should be left to the discretion of the University authorities. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment. Many subjects were discussed which it might not be desirable to make public. He deprecated any attempt to force upon the University and authorities to keep their courts always open. There was nothing in the Bill which prevented the Courts from being open if the authorities thought fit to have them open.

said, he should move as an Amendment in page 2, line 26, after "vote," to insert "four shall be a quorum; and the rector and assessors hereinafter mentioned shall continue in office for four years, and no principal or professor of any university shall be eligible to the office of Rector."

opposed the Amendment.

said, he wished to give notice that he would take the sense of the House on the bringing up of the Report on certain Amendments which stood on the paper in his name, but would not now detain the Committee.

proposed, in line 28, to leave out "and whole professors," and insert "and of two professors to be annually elected as delegates by the whole professors of each of the faculties of arts, medicine, law, and theology existing."

said, he must oppose the Amendment, as he was satisfied with the clause as it stood in the Bill.

said, he also opposed the Amendment.

said, he should propose, as an Amendment, to omit certain words which gave to the Senatus the power of administering the property and revenues of the University.

opposed the Amendment.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any arrangement has yet been made for the more speedy and regu- lar delivery to Members at their residences of papers "presented by Command?"

said, that if the hon. Baronet would refer to the paper of the 22nd June he would find a list of papers with the notification, "The undermentioned papers have been presented by Command; copies will be delivered to Members applying at the Office for the sale of Parliamentary Papers." A similar notification constantly appeared in the Votes. Formerly all papers so presented were delivered to every Member, but as the expense was very great a restriction was introduced by the late Government. The Papers wore left at Hansard's Office, and any Member wishing for them had only to call there and sign an order. The papers were delivered at his residence next day.

said, the Report of the Department of Science and Art had not yet been delivered to many Members who had applied for it.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the judgment delivered in the Court of Exchequer on the 25th of May last in the case of "Furber v. Sturmey," and if so, whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill to alter and amend the 43rd section of the Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, or take any other course to place the state of the Law in this respect on a more satisfactory footing.

said, his attention had been called to the judgment alluded to by his hon. Friend, and if the Law were such as from that judgment it appeared to be, he thought it was an unfortunate state of things. His noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was about to bring in a Bill with reference to the County Courts, in which he proposed to insert a clause to amend the 43rd section of the Act referred to.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Sale of Commissions for the benefit of Widows and Children under the sole authority of the Commander in Chief has been discontinued since the year 1825.

said, he had no doubt the question of his hon. and gallant Friend was put in consequence of a letter winch appeared in The Times newspaper on Tuesday last with reference to the answer he (General Peel) gave to his noble Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Lord Burghley) on the previous night. He could only express his great astonishment that the writer of that letter could have had any doubt upon the subject, seeing that he made reference to the page of the Report containing the evidence taken as to the sale of Commissions, and also to the marginal note. But it was impossible that the writer could have read the evidence, for it was distinctly stated in the passage referred to that the sale of these Commissions under the sole authority of the Commander in Chief was abolished in the year 1825.

said, he wished to know whether the practice had simply been discontinued, or whether any positive rule was adopted which rendered it impossible for the Commander in Chief to sell these Commissions.

said, it was impossible for the Commander in Chief to sell a Commission without the sanction of the Secretary of State for War.

said, he would beg to ask the Attorney General whether he contemplates proposing any change in the Law affecting Accommodation Bills of Exchange.

said, that the object to which the question of the hon. Gentleman related was one of very considerable importance, but it was also one of very considerable difficulty. There could be no doubt but that the mode in which these Accommodation Bills were employed had become an evil of very great magnitude, but on the other hand they should not forget that any measure which might be passed upon the matter must necessarily have a general operation, and ought not to interfere with legitimate commercial operations. The Law Officers of the Crown had attentively considered the question, and they had resolved on introducing a provision with respect to it into a Bill for a reform of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, which his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would shortly bring forward in the other House. By that provision it would be enacted that a Bank- rupt should not obtain a release or discharge from a debt, if it could be shown that he had dealt in Accommodation Bills that did not bear the character which appeared on the face of these documents. He hoped that provision would have the effect of checking the evil in question; but the Government were not prepared to go further with their legislation upon the subject for the present.

said, he wished to be informed when the Bill for the reform of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency would be introduced into the other House.

replied, that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had given notice of bringing the subject before the House of Commons, and simultaneously with his doing so the Lord Chancellor would introduce his measure into the House of Lords that the question would be discussed in both Houses at one and the same time.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether the intention he lately signified with respect to the Wellington Monument was to give (in disregard of the decision of the Judges) the preference to the design numbered eighteen over the designs which obtained premiums; or whether he intends to employ Mr. Stevens to make another design more suitable for erection in the side Chapel of the Cathedral without affording to any other sculptors an opportunity of competition in respect to the new site; and also whether he does not think that it would be desirable, as the site had been changed, there should be a fresh competition.

said, that with regard to the question which the right hon. Gentleman had put to him, he must answer, in the first place, that he had not stated it to be his intention to give the preference to a design which had not obtained a premium over a design which had. On the contrary, when referring to this subject on a former occasion, he distinctly stated that he felt it his duty to respect the choice of the Commissioners by adopting one of the designs they had singled out for a premium. He thought he had some reason, therefore, to complain of the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman had couched his question. With regard to the second question, he begged leave to say that he did not think it would be necessary or desirable to enter into a second competition for a design; and he could only add that he thought that, by a certain adaptation of the design No. 18 which could be made, a monument worthy of the great man whose memory it was intended to celebrate, and of the new site selected for it, would be insured.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the putrid state of the River Thames, and to suggest that a Commission be appointed by the Crown to carry out the embankment of the River Thames, and the prevention of the Sewage of the Metropolis from flowing into the river within the tidal limits of reflux; and that a Bill be introduced by the Government this Session to repeal so much of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, as gave powers to the Metropolitan Board to embank the River Thames, and to confer the necessary powers on the Commissioners to enable them to carry out the necessary works without delay; also to ask several questions with reference to the supposed causes of the existing nuisance. He wished first of all to assure the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Roupell) who had given notice of a similar Motion upon going into Supply, that he did not wish to step in and take the subject out of his hands. It would be in the recollection of the House thst similar questions were put to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady), and by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), and that the noble Lord in both instances stated the nuisance was not under his control. He (Mr. Stanley) quite believed that the answer was made in perfect good faith, and that the Government were not to blame. That fact, however, rendered it necessary that the extent of the evil should be pointed out, in order that some means might be taken for abating it. With regard to the extent of the evil in that House, he had only to appeal to Mr. Speaker and to those hon. Members who were in attendance on their duty from day to day in the House or the Committee rooms, to be borne out by their experience in saying that the nuisance was intolerable, both in the Committee rooms, and latterly in the House itself. It was no wish of his, however, to confine the complaint to their own case, and yet he was glad the evil had come home to themselves, as the public were the more likely to obtain, he hoped, a speedy relief. It was an intolerable nuisance which had poisoned the whole air of the metropolis, and which, if continued a few weeks longer, or even a few days at the present high temperature, would probably produce a pestilence in the metropolis. To bear him out in what he had said of the nuisance, he would refer to two or three cases he had extracted from the public papers, Mr. Gurney, who had charge of the ventilation of that House, had, as it was understood, addressed a letter to the Speaker, in which he said:—

"That he can be no longer responsible for the health of the House; that the stench has made most rapid advance within two days; that up to Tuesday he got fresh air draughts from the Star Chamber Court; but that when night came the poisonous enemy took possession of the Court, and so beat him outright."

The next was a Report of what had taken place in the Court of Queen's Bench:—

"Mr. James called the attention of his Lordship to the foul state of the Court and passages.

"Lord Campbell said, that if he were assured that the state of the atmosphere was such as to be dangerous to the lives of the counsel, jurymen, and witnesses, he should feel it to be his duty to adjourn the Court. His Lordship inquired whether there was any medical man in Court?

"Mr. John Bredall, who was attending the Court as a witness in the cause which was being tried, here came forward, and, being sworn, in answer to questions put by Lord Campbell, he said he was a surgeon, at No. 3, Moor Hall-place, Kennington Lane, and had been compelled to leave the Court three times in consequence of the bad smells. The atmosphere in Court became irrespirable, and it was quite as bad in the passages. The smells came from the Thames, or from sewage of some kind. He gave it as his opinion, as a medical man, that it was dangerous to breathe this atmosphere. He thought it would be dangerous to the lives of the jurymen, counsel, and witnesses, to remain. It would produce malaria, and perhaps typhus fever.

"Lord Campbell said that, in the discharge of his duty, he would adjourn the Court; but, addressing the counsel, his Lordship said that if they were willing to remain he was quite ready to do so.

"Mr. Serjeant Shee said, counsel were ready to do whatever his Lordship thought best.

"Lord Campbell said, he would not keep the jurymen against their will.

"The jury said the smell was very offensive in the passages, but they did not smell it so much in Court."

In the Court of Exchequer the Lord Chief Baron also was obliged to notice the same pestiferous invader:—

"The Lord Chief Baron said—Gentlemen, I will, if you desire it, read over the whole of the evidence to you, but if not, I will be as brief as possible in my remarks, for this reason, that the river at low tide becomes so offensive, as many of you doubtless know, that it behoves all who can to get away from its banks as soon as possible.

"A Juror—I went home very ill from it the first day of this trial, my Lord.

"The Lord Chief Baron—I am sorry to hear it, but many have likewise suffered. The stench from the river is most offensive, and I think it right to take public notice of this, that in trying this case we are really sitting in the midst of a stinking nuisance."

Since then a woman had attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the river, and the surgeon who examined her stated, that the offensive nature of the water which she took into her stomach nearly caused her death. There had been an inquest upon the body of a lighterman who died from cholera, and the jury had returned a verdict that it was caused by the effluvia from the Thames. An engineer had been taken to St. Thomas's Hospital suffering from the same cause. He would not quote other cases, and only referred to these to show that not only in that House but in the courts of law, and all along the shores of the river, this nuisance was quite intolerable. He believed that the offensive smell extended from Chelsea to Greenwich, and, having himself taken several trips by steamers in order to ascertain what was really tare state of the river, he could say that it was all he could do to remain on deck. The medical officer of the Dreadnought, in his last week's Report, said:—

"The water of the Thames stinks most abominably. I cannot but think that the foul air has a deleterious effect generally on the health of the patients of this hospital, and I know that it has had something to do with the inducting of fever in two cases on the orlop deck, the portals of which are only a few feet above the surface of the water. Several men on board, myself among the number, have suffered slightly from diarrhœa."

He had also heard that all along the banks of the Thames, particularly on the Lambeth side, the men employed hr different works were yesterday suffering from diarrhœa, and many of thorn were obliged to leave their work and go either to their homes or to the hospitals. They all knew that offensive effluvia of this sort did not at once produce fever or cholera; that result was only brought about when the system had become enfeebled and the blood impoverished; and if this nuisance continued, the metropolis might yet suffer from such a pestilence as had not been known since the time of the great plague. It was not his wish to exaggerate any of the circumstances of this nuisance; but, regarding Her Majesty's Ministers as the guardians of the public health, he must remind them that this matter concerned not only the lighterman and workmen on the Thames, but also the Sovereign in her palace, and that it was no use their having expended thousands in the purification of the lake in St. James's Park if the air breathed by those who walked upon its banks was charged with pestilence and the forerunner of disease. He had with great submission ventured to suggest a remedy —or rather a means of remedy—for this state of things, similar to one which was foreshadowed by the late First Commissioner of Works the other evening. We had, in this matter, recently suffered from a double government more intolerable than that of India, or of the Horse Guards and the Ministry for War—a double government which had brought everything to a deadlock. On the one side we had the Metropolitan Board of Works, with its staff of engineers, and on the other the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works with Iris advisers and engineers. Two propositions for the draining of the metropolis and the cleansing of the river had been submitted by the Metropolitan Board to the Chief Commissioner, and both had been rejected by him. A third scheme had been submitted by him to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and, although he (Mr. O. Stanley) could not say that they had absolutely rejected it, they had postponed its consideration till October. The time had now arrived when something must be done. He believed that the only way in which the matter could be remedied would be to place the responsibility where it ought to rest—upon Her Majesty's Ministers, and especially upon the Chief Commissioner of Works. Let the Government propose the appointment of a Commission —a paid Commission, if they pleased—to carry out so much of the drainage of the metropolis as related to the sewage when it came immediately upon the banks of the Thames, and let them bring in a Bill empowering the Commissioners to purchase land, and do everything necessary for the official discharge of the duty intrusted to them. He trusted they would act immediately, for the matter was one of the most pressing nature, and could not be neglected without danger to the lives of the community. The Commissioners of Sewers, who had been in active operation for many years, had completed the first portion of their duties, and every house in the metropolitan area now emptied its sewage into certain main drains which discharged their contents into the Thames, poisoning the water to an intolerable extent. As yet, however, no plan had been devised for carrying away that accumulation of filth from the metropolis. He might be permitted to mention the case of the Victoria Sewer, with regard to which, as it appeared to him, considerable blame really attached to the authorities. That sewer was begun in 1849 or 1850. The original contract was £12,300; but the drain was so badly constructed, that a portion of it tumbled in and had to be entirely renewed. Upon that renewal about £16,000 more was spent; and according to the last Return he could find, dated 1855, the expenditure on the Victoria Sewer, up to that time, amounted to no less a sum than £60,000. Probably about half as much again had been expended since. But that was not all. The outlet at Percy's Wharf had been closed for many months, and the House might imagine the accumulation of filth which had taken place during that time, A few weeks ago an outlet was opened for the Victoria Sewer in the immediate neighbourhood of Westminster Bridge, and he believed it was the accumulation of sewage at that point which caused the poisonous atmosphere from which every hon. Member of the house was now suffering so severely. Having thus stated the case to which he wished to call attention, he would also beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works the following questions:

"Whether it be true that the Victoria Street Sewer has had no proper outlet for many months past, owing to its defective construction and partial falling in?

"Whether it be true that an outlet for all the accumulated contents of the Victoria Street Sewer has quite recently been made in close proximity to Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament?

"How large an area of London is drained into the Victoria Street Sewer?

"How much money has the Victoria Street Sewer cost, from its construction to the present day?"

asked permission to state a few facts in connection with this important question. Having bestowed a great deal of attention to the subject he found that the quantity of sewage discharged daily into the Thames amounted to 90,000,000 of gallons. There were 87,560,000 of gallons of water supplied by the various water companies, the whole of which, after passing through the sewers, was returned to the Thames in the state in which we now found it. Now, the quantity of pure water which daily fell over Teddington Lock was only 400,000,000 gallons; so that the bulk of wholesome water which daily flowed down the river was not more than four times that of the sewage with which it mixed. Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney had recently proved before a Select Committee that the sewage which fell into the Thames was carried down to the sea, but that, instead of mixing with the sea, only a small portion was decomposed, the greater part returning up the river with every flood tide—in fact, that that from which the metropolis was now suffering was the sewage returning front the sea, carried by the salt water below it. Such being the case the remedy was undoubtedly a difficult one. He had the honour of accompanying the Chief Commissioner down the river the other day for the purpose of ascertaining the general condition of the water. They found that the most offensive part of the river was at the mouth of the London Docks. That portion of the evil was certainly remediable. The dock company had the power and the means of pumping in an adequate supply of pure water at a proper state of the tide; but this at present they did not do; they allowed exceedingly impure water to accumulate, and then to flow into the Thames; now all that was requisite to remedy the evil was that they should adopt measures for having a sufficient body of water poured into their docks from time to time, and he had no doubt that if the matter were fairly represented to them they would take care to provide a proper remedy for the existing state of things. The greater part of the evil under which the metropolis was now suffering was, he apprehended, due to the extraordinary state of the atmosphere, which had checked the upper streams, and he was afraid there was no immediate remedy for it. He wished, however, to draw attention to some practical scheme for the purification of the Thames. Some gentleman had proposed the embankment of the river; but if what he bad stated was true—that the sewage returned from the sea—what would be the use of embanking the Thames? The Commission of 1844, presided over by Lord Lincoln, and composed of some of the most eminent men of the day, assisted by Sir Robert Smirke and Sir Charles Barry, reported in favour of embanking the Thames and making the stream more rapid. The question was then asked what ought to be done with the enormous spaces at those points where the breadth of the river was unusually great; and after consideration it was proposed to make docks of them. But if that were done it would be impossible to fill them up, and they would only be additional accumulations of impure water, producing an infinitely greater evil than the present. In 1845 a Bill was actually brought in for embanking the Thames from the Houses of Parliament to Black friars Bridge, the expense of which was estimated at the moderate sum of £300,000; but it was defeated by those carrying on business on the shores of the river, and to buy up the rights of all those who possessed wharves and wharehouses along the banks was out of the question. What then, he might be asked, could be done? In 1854 two engineers of great eminence, Mr. Bazalgette and Mr. Haywood, were appointed to consider this question. They proposed a scheme by which the sewage was to be intercepted on both banks of the river, and carried down on either side to a distance of about ten miles from the metropolis—on the north side to Barking Creek, and on the south to a place about the same distance. This project, he believed, would be perfectly practicable, and would answer its purpose, if in addition there was added the plan of obtaining sufficient land to deodorize the sewers at those two points, by which a mass of water would be procured limpid, colourless, and tasteless. The deposit matter must, of course, be carried away. The expense, he believed, would not be considerable—and, in fact, he had been assured that day by Mr. Bidder, that for a sum of £40,000 a year, the whole sewerage of this metropolis might be deodorized and returned to the river in the same pure state as was the case at Leicester. This scheme of sewerage might be carried out for £2,500,000. He could not suggest to the House that the sewage matter would produce one shilling, for he thought it would be found useless as manure, as it had been at Leicester. Now, what other practicable project had been proposed? It had been proposed to take these intercepting sewers twenty miles further down, and pour their contents out in Sea Reach. Now, if it were poured into the sea there, a very large proportion of it would be returned up the river at flood tide, owing to its inclination to float on the surface of the sea, consequently the evil complained of would be by no means remedied by carrying the sewage further off: but if they added to this the plan of deodorising, he had been assured that this plan would cost £10,000,000 of money. With respect to the state of the water at the London Docks, he thought it would be perfectly easy for the First Commissioner to induce the dock companies to look into the matter as far as they were concerned—indeed they were indictable for a nuisance; but he believed from the high character of the gentlemen connected with those companies that they would readily take measures to put an end to the nuisance they occasioned. The case of cholera which had been referred to occurred exactly at the spot—the eastern entrance to the London Docks—where the offence from foul matter was something inconceivably great. He believed very much of the evil was to be attributed to this. Government could do this: they could call on the Metropolitan Board of Works to proceed in the direction he had pointed out. This would not at all prevent a larger scheme. if they carried the sewer down to Barking, and found it did not answer, they could go further—to Sea Reach—and the first expense would not be in the least thrown away. His only object in addressing them was that, having paid some attention to the subject, he was desirous to direct the public mind in the right direction at this very important moment. He believed they had neither time nor means to set about embanking the river, but if they set about carrying out the plan of intercepting sewers, to which he bad referred, he believed it would lead to a good result. He wished to I refer to another point. Mr. Gurney had made a valuable suggestion, to this effect; that if the shores of the river, which were dry at low water, were arranged so as to present an even surface of gravel at an inclination of one in twelve, that mud would not deposit on a slope so arranged. To that he added dredging two trenches in the middle of the Thames; but on that proposition there might be different opinions. He would urge the Government to call on the Metropolitan Board of Works to proceed at once with this question. They were now justified in concluding, upon the opinion of the most eminent men, that the extensive scheme of sewerage proposed by the Government Referees if not impracticable was nearly so, not only from the expense but from other circumstances, and if that were so, they ought at once to return to the scheme of Messrs. Bazalgette and Haywood which was practicable. With regard to the present mischief, it was due to atmospheric causes which they could not control. It was a great blessing that there was not now any epidemic, and he prayed that God in His mercy might not visit us with one. As to this House, there was one thing hon. Members might do, and that was by shortening their speeches, bring their labours sooner to a close.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had very much anticipated what he had wished to suggest to the House. In considering this very great and grave question, he had not proposed to himself to recommend to the House any particular scheme for the purpose of curing the great nuisance which they all felt so much. His hon. Friend had mentioned that the points at issue were not points connected with London itself. In fact, all the plans proposed for the purification of the Thames had very nearly one common plan down to Barking Creek and below Woolwich. The question was as to the difficulty of taking the sewers beyond that point. If they referred to all plans, from those of Mr. Bazalgette to those of Mr. Frank Foster, who originated the whole scheme of the drainage of London, they would find that they all came to one common terminus below London. What he wanted to suggest, therefore, was that they should immediately set about carrying the sewage to that point, and whether it should afterwards be carried to the sea was a matter that might be discussed in the meantime. Of the various plans suggested there was one which had never had proper attention paid to it, and that was the plan of an eminent engineer (Mr. McLean) who, in 1849, was the first person to suggest intercepting sewers. That gentleman, after making out his scheme, got Sir Morton Peto, and other eminent contractors, to offer to carry the sewage down to Sea Reach. It could be done, according to Messrs. Peto's estimate, for £1,600,000, and Mr. Bidder, Mr. Hawkshaw, and Mr. Bazalgette reported that the previous part of the sewer could be constructed for £2,300,000; so that the sewage could be taken to the German Ocean for £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. It was important that the matter should not be done in a niggardly way, and if London was to be drained it should be done effectually. He believed with his hon. Friend that to begin with embanking the Thames was to begin in the wrong direction, for in walking at low water mark to London Bridge one would hardly get over the soles of his feet, except in a few places in mud. They ought to embark in the question of intercepting sewers, and carry down the sewerage to Barking Reach. He did not see the use of the proposed Commission, which would only have the effect of delaying action. The Government were in a position to deal with the matter, and he thought it might be safely trusted in their hands.

said, he fully intended to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice on going into Committee of Supply, as he was averse to discussions without practical result, as discussions on the adjournment of the House generally were. When the hon. Gentleman alluded to Victoria Street sewer, he omitted to state that the original contract for that work was under £12,000. Now, to his own knowledge, he knew that there was already £70,000 expended on it, and he believed that there were new claims to be satisfied, which would make the whole cost something near £200,000. It appeared that in this enlightened age we must have everything of great magnitude —great ships, a great Crystal Palace, and great sewers. No doubt the evil of the Victoria sewer arose from its situation, and with the two enormous sewers proposed they would be in the same position. The great sewers would be subject to the swampy condition of the sod, and the filtration of the water into them the same as the Victoria sewer. They should consider these thing before they embarked in any colossal scheme. He would only add a remark as to the effects on the health of those living on the borders of the river: the teeming thousands on the borders of the river were in a state of chronic cholera, and if we had a warm rain or the continuance of warm weather, we might fully expect some severe visitation of Providence, without which he feared the evil never would be arrested.

said, that as Chairman of the Committee which had been appointed to consider this subject, he wished to say a few words. He wanted to impress upon the House that even if they had been prepared to report to the House, as the law now stood nothing whatever could be done to amend the existing state of things. If the Committee were to determine to-morrow what ought in their opinion to be done, there were no means of carrying their decision into effect. There were the Board of Works, the Chief Commissioner of Works, the Thames Conservancy, and the Sewage Commissioners, each of which bodies was armed with certain powers in the matter. The House might appoint Commissions or do what they liked, but no remedial measures could be adopted unless the Government took the matter into their own hands. If they were to appoint three men competent and above suspicion the work would be done. There must, however, be some responsible body; for no irresponsible body could deal with the question. The Committee sat as close as they could, but as many of the members were engaged elsewhere, they could not sit de die in diem, and it was useless for them to make a Report, unless the Government were prepared to carry out their Report practically. A plan had last year been laid by the Board of Works before the Chief Commissioner of Works, who submitted it to certain referees, but they recommended a plan of their own, and the matter ultimately dropped. The House might appoint Committees on the subject, but the terrible state of things which at present existed would still continue. He must say that from the medical evidence given before the Committee, and from the opinions he had heard expressed privately by medicul men he was sure that none of the statements which had been made in that House or elsewhere exaggerated the evils which were to be feared. Something must be done, but he was convinced that nothing effectual would be done unless the subject was taken up by Her Majesty's Government.

said, that after all this was a money question. The main question with reference to this subject was whether the whole expense of the works, which might be necessary, should be thrown upon the metropolitan parishes, or whether a portion of it should be borne by the Imperial Government. It would be absurd to hand over such an enormous scheme to the Board of Works without affording them the means of carrying it fully into effect. He could speak on this subject with impartiality as he was not a regular resident in London, and he must say, he thought it was not the business of the metropolis alone to construct the extensive works which were required. Those works would be constructed not merely for the residents of London, but for the Sovereign of this vast empire—for the Legislature of the realm, who sat in this metropolis during those months when the nuisance and the consequent danger were at their height—for the courts of law of the whole kingdom; and it would be a shame and a scandal to the Legislature if they endeavoured to shuffle off the responsibility upon the parishes of London. In his opinion it was the duty of the Government to take up the subject, and the expense of the works which were indispensable might be divided, by equitable arbitration, between the parishes of London and the national treasury. It was said that the work was one of great magnitude, and that a long time would be required for its completion, but it would never be accomplished at all unless it was commenced. He was sure that, under the pressure of the existing nuisance, the House would assent most readily to any practicable scheme which was submitted to it, and the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works would then enjoy the credit of performing a far greater work than that achieved by Hercules in cleansing the Augean stables.

In the first instance, I wish to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member opposite. I beg leave to inform him that I have no connection whatever with the management of the Victoria Street sewer. I was, therefore, obliged to apply to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works for information upon the subject, and, with the leave of the Hence, I will read the statement with which he furnished me:—

"Sir,—Adverting to the contents of your letter of the 24th instant, I am directed by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works to apprise you, for the information of the First Commissioner of her Majesty's Works, that the answers to the questions referred to in that communication are as follows:—1. The outlet at the Victoria Street sewer has for some years past been frequently, and now is, under repair, and during the present and all periods of repair, it has not a proper outlet for the discharge of its sew age. The sewer has been under repair for the last three months. 2. An outlet has not been recently made for all the accumulated contents of the Victoria Street sewer in close proximity to Westminster Bridge. All the sewage flowing into that portion of the Victoria Street sewer which is above Westminster Bridge, has for the last three months been directed into that old sewer as on all previous occasions of repair to the Victoria Street outlet. The Westminster Bridge sewer outlet is extended to low water and trapped at its mouth, and it is believed to be connected with Mr. Gurney's system of sewer ventilation. 3. The area drained into the Victoria Street sewer is about one-third of a square mile. 4. The amount expended on the same sewer up to May last was £73,321 16s. 6d. I beg to add, that by direction of the Chairman a quantity of lime will be immediately applied at the outlet of the Bridge Street sewer for the purpose of deodorising the sewage."

Having read the letter, I can assure the House that all the steps which can be taken to secure a proper outfall for the Victoria Street sewer are being now taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works. With respect to the many questions raised by the hon. Gentleman who commenced the discussion, I regret that it will be impossible for me to answer them satisfactorily to the hon. Gentleman. We are all fully agreed as to the existence of the evil, and the source from which it arises, and, as a natural consequence, every hon. Member expresses a desire that something should be immediately done to rectify it. But beyond these two elementary positions, I do not think that any great light has been thrown upon what ought really to be done immediately. The hon. Member who commenced the discussion appeared most anxious to throw the whole responsibility upon the Government. Now, on behalf of the Government, I distinctly repudiate that responsibility. The law gives us no power of action whatever in the matter and without legal power, even if the means were at hand, I need scarcely say it is impossible for any Government or body to supply a satisfactory solution to the difficulty. I beg to call the attention of the House to the short history of the question, and to the way in which it was originated. It was thought by all classes most desirable that this great metropolis should be placed in a position in which its authorities could deal effectually with all municipal and local questions. An Act was consequently passed, only three years ago, to give effect to that principle, and in the same Act direct reference was made to the sewage of London. The House will recollect that the Metropolitan Board of Works have done what they could to carry into effect the wishes of the Legislature, as expressed in the Act to which I have referred. I have no wish whatever to throw the smallest blame upon that body, or any other authority vested with power for the better government of the metropolis. I believe that all parties have been actuated by the best and most honourable motives in their endeavours to fulfil those important functions that have been allotted to them. That they have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion in those matters appears to me to be a strong proof of the great difficulty of the question itself. The Metropolitan Board of Works has not refused to consider any plan that has been or may be submitted to them by either the late or the present Government; nor have they adjourned the discussion of the subject until October next. Quite the reverse; this very day the Metropolitan Board of Works has been sitting for the purpose of considering whether some plan could not be devised to rectify the nuisance, of which loud and just complaints have been made. No plan has been, or could be by law, submitted by the Government to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Gentleman who made the statement is alike ignorant of the law on the matter and of the facts. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) has given the House a clear exposé of his views upon the question. The hon. Chairman of the Committee at present sitting (Mr. Kendall) has likewise favoured us with some suggestions. When, then, I find so many eminent authorities differing in opinion as to what is the precise source of the evil, and still more as to the proper remedy that ought to be applied—when we find that the remedy which is so much in fashion is one involving an enormous expenditure of the public money—that the metropolitan districts repudiate the idea of being exclusively responsible for the expenditure of that money—when all those facts are set before us, Her Majesty's Government have very naturally refused to take upon itself the responsibility of incurring this large expenditure, the amount of which no one can at pre- sent foresee. It does not become me to declare hastily, in answer to the appeals that have been made to us, that we are prepared to take upon ourselves the responsibility of carrying out the operations suggested, and to set ourselves to work to spend millions upon a scheme which is still sub judice, and in respect to which the most eminent medical and scientific gentlemen have not as yet come to a satisfactory or unanimous conclusion. What I can assure the House is, that the question is occupying the serious attention of the Government, and we will do our best before the Session closes to introduce a measure, if necessary, which shall confer sufficient power upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, or upon any other department existing, or to be created, for the satisfactory solution of this question. I will not go into the details of a question so complicated as this; I will not go into the inquiry how far the sewage ought to be carried down the river so as to insure its not being brought back, nor into the probable benefits to be derived from a system of embankment. Without entering into those questions, I trust that the House will be satisfied with the statement that the Metropolitan Board of Works, aided by all that experience which they have acquired during the last three years, are now sedulously engaged in the task of endeavouring to find a remedy for the evil, and Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act cordially with that body with the view of securing that desirable object. In the event, then, of the present law standing in the way of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion upon the matter, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to submit to the consideration of Parliament a scheme in aid of the existing law, by which they think the evil will be abated. I admit I have not perhaps sufficiently explained the mode Her Majesty's Government intend to take in respect to this matter, but as I may have to explain it at greater length on a future occasion, I will now content myself with saying, that so far as my knowledge extends of the deodorising system adopted in Leicestershire, all that the hon. Member for Bath has said as to the success of that system was fully borne out by the facts. I am able to say so, too, from my own personal knowledge; and one of the leading physicians in Leicester has given his opinion that nothing can be more complete than the success of that system, so far as the sanitary results are concerned. I hope, Sir, it will not be considered that Her Majesty's Government are neglecting their duty, because we are unwilling to take the matter out of the hands of the proper authorities, but are rather anxious to afford them every assistance in our power to enable them to discharge their difficult duties with the greatest efficacy and effect.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the impracticability of carrying on the public business of the country with due care, attention, and deliberation in the pestilential atmosphere of the Thames. For this reason he would urge the expediency of presenting an Address to Her Majesty, suggesting the propriety of holding the remaining portion of this Session in some healthy portion of Her Majesty's dominions. During the last thirty years he had known the River Thames, it was never in such a dreadful state as at present. Unless something was done immediately to remedy the nuisance another plague of London might be expected. The traffic of the steam boats up the river greatly aggravated the evil. He believed that the Metropolitan Board of Works had been thwarted in every act by which they attempted to remedy the nuisance. He would warn the House, that unless it exerted its authority in the matter it would be responsible for the calamities that might arise. Disease, possibly of a new and fearful character, would show itself if something were not soon done. He could state of his own knowledge that families were already flying from the metropolis to avoid the coming pestilence, and a complete panic was commencing. As an illustration of the extent of the nuisance, he could state that, as he was riding in an omnibus en route Kennington to Westminster, the passengers were compelled to put their handkerchiefs to their noses as they crossed the bridge, and that the smelling bottle which a lady produced was greedily seized by all the passengers.

said, that he could not allow the discussion to close without protesting against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles). He quite concurred with that hon. Gentleman as to the magnitude of the evil, and as to the necessity of remedying it in the most summary way possible. It was, in his opinion, the duty of the Government to adopt immediate measures to remedy the evil, the consequences of which no one could foresee. All he wanted to say was this, that the money necessary for this purpose should not be paid out of the wrong pocket. It was generally the practice of the metropolitan Members on all such occasions to try to saddle the country with the cost of the local improvements of the metropolis. In deference to the wishes of their constituents they came down to that House with their begging boxes in their hands for money out of the Imperial treasury to defray the expenses of their own peculiar works, instead of paying for them out of their own purses. Parliament was first asked for money for a park for the metropolis, and next a bridge was constructed, and they were asked to forego the security of the tolls; and then, when there came the question of the sewers, it was immediately stated that this was an Imperial question, and that the whole country was bound to contribute. It was monstrous that the richest city in all the world, which was surrounded by two of the richest counties in England, should be always trying to relieve itself from the just obligations that attached to it-self alone. The way to look at the question was this: what would become of London if it did not possess a good sewerage? Why, it would be deserted, and that desertion would involve a pecuniary loss ten times greater than the sum which was required to effect a remedy for the existing evil. On those grounds it appeared to him monstrous to suppose that the country should be taxed for those works. He therefore entered his protest against any such outlay of the Imperial fund.

said, he rose to repel the imputation which had been made, that metropolitan Members, in deference to the wishes of their constituents, came down to the House to ask for public money for local purposes. He had not only voted but spoken in that House against such grants. The difficulty did not lie in the demands of the metropolis, but in the fact that not merely for years, but for centuries, the metropolis had been a bugbear in the eyes of the Executive Government, and had been refused municipal privileges, lest municipal intelligence should go far to counteract the want of intelligence on the part of the Executive. It was only ten years since a Whig Prime Minister had declared that it would be impossible to grant municipal institutions to the metropolis because the population was so enormous. It was but three years since any approach to municipal institutions had been given, and did they suppose that the blunders of centuries were to be remedied in a moment? Had the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir B. Hall) been able to carry his measure in its integrity, practical measures would have been taken ere now, but the municipal body had been counteracted by a Commission, and the result had been to cover the whole affair with absurdity and ridicule. He should astound the House by acquainting it with what this Commission proposed to do. It proposed to provide at once what might be necessary forty years hence, thus quadrupling the expense, and not only to carry away the sewage of the metropolis, but to make provision for ten times the quantity, besides all the rainfall of the surrounding districts. In his opinion, the simple mode of dealing with this question was to leave it to the metropolis. If it were left to men who would be practically responsible for its solution and settlement they would, by dealing with this as a practical sewage question, do as much as was really necessary to make the Thames, if not as pure as a mountain rivulet, at least free from injury to the health of the inhabitants. The amount required for that purpose would be comparatively small, and the work itself comparatively easy. The present was one of the difficulties which would occur on every question connected with the metropolis; and there was no escape from the dilemma except by giving the metropolis real and effective municipal institutions, and so putting it on the footing in that respect of every considerable town in the kingdom. A municipality would be able to deal with all these subjects with a practical intelligence and a practical responsibility, such as had never been exhibited by any Minister of the Crown.

wished to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken, and who had, however, misrepresented the facts of the case. As soon as the Metropolitan Board presented him (Sir B. Hall) with a plan which had an outfall, but which was not at variance with the provisions of the Act of 1855, he put it into the hands of three of the most eminent engineers in England, and further, he asked them if they did not approve of it, to suggest some other plan themselves. They did propose a plan which he sent to the Metropolitan Board of Works without any delay, and the latter placed it in the hands of their own engineer. All he had to regret was that the Board of Works, when they received the Report of their own engineer, did not take it in hand at once, but postponed its consideration for many months—namely, till October next. On one point he agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and that was that the Metroplis was placed in a peculiar difficulty. In all other towns in England and in Europe there was a municipality for the whole of the city; but the London municipality extended over a very small area, and regulated the affairs of but 129,000 out of two and a half millions of people. Other municipalities could levy money for the improvement of the whole city; but in London the power of levy ranged over a very small portion of the metropolis, and was expended within a very small area. This was a matter which required the consideration of Parliament. After what had passed on the previous day in that House respecting the Corporation Reform Bill, it was quite impossible it could pass during the present Session, and therefore there would be time for its consideration. He should refrain from further observations because the Chief Commissioners of Works had indicated that it was his intention to put himself in communication with the Board of Works, and see whether, in order that the main drainage should be carried out, it would be necessary to alter the law. Should he think it advisable to alter the law he (Sir B. Hall) recommended the noble Lord to look at the 141st section of the Bill, which was first presented in 1855, and which the noble Lord's party opposed, and which clause he (Sir B. Hall) was in consequence obliged to withdraw. The object of that clause was to enable the Treasury to advance money on the security of the rates, and in consequence of its withdrawal it was impossible for the Metropolitan Board to raise money on as easy terms as they desired. Should there be any new legislation he would strongly advise the re-insertion of this clause. If any scheme, such as that put forward by the hon. Member for Bath, should be considered, a new Bill would be necessary, because an outfall was already fixed, not only outside the metropolis, but was fixed so low down, in deference to the wishes of the House, as to preclude the possibility of the waters ever coming back. He ventured to throw out these suggestions in case the noble Lord should find it necessary to submit any new Bill to the House.

I think, Sir, that the discussion, so far as it has gone, must be considered satisfactory to the House. My noble Friend the President of the Board of Works has dealt with this question in so candid and clear a manner that it is really unnecessary for me to touch it at any length. An hon. Gentleman, I think, has charged the Government with the responsibility of this matter. After what has been stated, it is unnecessary for me to say that no legal responsibility can devolve on the Government in respect to it; but I admit that a moral responsibility lies upon us to do all in our power to prevent public disaster, and I am sure no set of men in our position would for a moment wish to avoid that responsibility. For the last three or four days our earliest and constant attention has been given to the subject, and I trust the result of that attention will be for the public advantage. The Commissions and Committees on this question have, no doubt, in many respects done their duty well, but the time has come when it is absolutely necessary that action should commence. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in the observation which he made as to the delay that had taken place in the establishment of this new Board in this great metropolis. But, although there is much truth in his observations, it is also impossible to deny that what has occurred has been the natural consequence of what probably could not have been prevented—the jealousy which always exists when new institutions are rising by the side of ancient ones. We must not forget all that, and we must remember that under the pressure and consciousness of these circumstances Parliament a few years ago determined to establish a great Corporation—I mean the Metropolitan Board, to which so much reference has been made. But, although we have established this Corporation, although we have invested it with great powers, unfortunately this great Corporation, which has to guard the interest and regulate the management of probably a hundred times more people and property than are entrusted to the guardianship of the Corporation of the City of London, although invested with an unlimited power of rating, has found itself in possession of only a theo- retical revenue. It cannot carry its power into effect. It has experienced, in its local direct taxation, the same obstacles which we experience with regard to Imperial direct taxation. I, therefore, think that the time has come when, having thrown upon this Corporation so great a responsibility, we should consider whether we ought not to furnish it with those means which are adequate to the due fulfilment of duties. Now, I believe that it is in want of funds. It is to that fact, and not to any system of double government, as has been suggested, that the inefficiency of the Metropolitan Board of Works is to be attributed. I think that Parliament would act prudently in providing that body with sufficient means for the adequate fulfilment of its duties. In the present situation of affairs, there are two duties which Her Majesty's Government have to fulfil—one towards this House, and one towards the population of this metropolis generally. With regard to their duty to this House, I certainly am perfectly prepared, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to say that there shall be no lack of energy and no want of zeal on our part to bring the business of this House to a conclusion as soon as we can consistently with our public duty. We shall not hesitate to sacrifice many measures which, though important, may, if it should be necessary to make that sacrifice, be regarded as of only secondary importance. But I trust that the House will respond to this desire on our part, and assist us as much as possible by not entering upon unnecessary discussions. There are, however, certain measures which I think it is absolutely necessary should be carried, and I trust that the House will assist us in carrying them. But it is not our desire that they should not undergo adequate discussion, for which opportunity will be given. These measures I trust the House will, with all their energy, assist us in carrying. With regard to the community, our responsibility will not cease with the termination of the Session; and I can only again repeat that there shall be, on the part of Her Majesty's Government no want of energy in their endeavours to make those arrangements which are adequate to the occasion, or in the exercise of the powers they possess for preserving the public health. And if we find it is necessary to appeal to Parliament before it is prorogued for powers to carry the necessary operations into effect, we will not hesitate to appeal to Parliament with confidence for such powers. Before I sit down I hope I may be permitted to refer to a question which was addressed to me on a subject of a very different character, and to which I should not feel it necessary under those circumstances to reply; but I thought it might be deemed a want of courtesy if I were to give no answer to the hon. Gentleman. It appears that the hon. Gentleman has discovered that a considerable part of the data on which his inquiry is founded is inaccurate. I think the House will feel that there is nothing more inconvenient than to found an inquiry upon second-hand information of a conversation which has taken place beyond the walls of the House. I shall not touch in detail upon those allusions which are contained in the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman, because I understand he himself now admits that he has discovered that they are founded on incorrect information. [Mr. P. O'BRIEN: it is only the first part of my notice that is incorrect.] Well; the first part is incorrect, and the other is inaccurate. Now, with regard to the intention of the Government on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, that of landlord and tenant in Ireland, I may say this, that it is a great many years—some five or six—since that question was introduced into the discussions of this House, and it has been frequently, and almost constantly, debated since its introduction. I think and hope that all of us—Gentlemen on both sides of the House—have profited by those frequent discussions. It certainly is the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the recess to give their earliest consideration to that question. My right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has already directed his attention to it, and I shall be happy if he may be able at the reassembling of Parliament to introduce a measure upon the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland which may prove a satisfactory and conclusive settlement of the question.

Sir, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is neither advantageous to the country, nor convenient to this House, that we should occupy our time, in profitless discussions; but it is not owing to any fault of mine that I am compelled to claim attention for a few moments, while I reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. O'Brien) who has so personally alluded to me. The allusions of that hon. Gentleman, in reference to the part which I took in the late interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, render it necessary that I should say something in my own vindication; and I regret, Sir, that I should be obliged to speak in a manner that would appear egotistical. I have been, Sir, a Member of the House since the year 1852. Since that time my Parliamentary career has been open to the observations of Gentlemen on both sides, and of all parties; and I think I may safely assert that I have ever acted the part of an upright and independent Member. If I have not done so, then I have failed in act, but certainly not in intention. It was not by any act of mine that the Government of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was broken up. I voted for the noble Lord against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton; and I would have gone into the lobby one hundred times over with the noble Lord, and against the right hon. Gentleman on any such Motion. But the present Government being in office, though by no vote of mine, I conceived that I should not be doing my part as an independent Member, as the representative of an Irish constituency, and as a fair, impartial, and upright politician, if I did not give that Government fair play, and a fair trial, so that they might have sufficient opportunity of developing their policy, whether that policy was for the good of the country, or the contrary. I believe that, so far as the present Government have gone, they have done great things for the cause of progress. They have done things that no other Government, at least within my remembrance, have ever attempted to do. I care not by what motives they have been actuated—whether they were pressed by superior numbers, or coerced by their own judgment; but the fact is before the country, that they have done more for the cause of progress than any of their Whip predecessors who have been in office for the last ten years. Therefore, as a liberal of advanced opinions,— fully as advanced as those held by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the King's County—I submit to the House whether that hon. Gentleman has a right to assail me because I am anxious to give fair play to the present Government, and to avoid all those miserable squabbles and factious proceedings, which bring disgrace on those who join in them, and even sully the name and fame of the highest and proudest states man in the land? Now, as to the tenant question. I ask, is it owing to any fault of mine that the tenant question has been brought to its present position in this House? Was it I—was it my hon. Friends with whom I act—who rendered the passing of such a measure as was asked for impossible? Was it we who rose to place and power upon the ruin of a great party? —was it we who, by deliberate treachery, clove asunder a noble national organization. and reduced it to a hopeless mockery? It was not my hon. Friends who sold the Irish party to the Government of the day, and sacrificed the cause of the tenant to their own selfish purposes. It is then no fault of mine—it is no fault of my hon. Friends—that this question has not been brought ere this to a satisfactory settlement. The Bill which I brought in this Session was rejected by an overwhelming majority—a majority of something like three to one. Why did it fail? Because it contained what is known as the retospective principle, with regard to compensation for improvements. That principle was emphatically denounced by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, in the debate on the Motion for the second reading this year; and it was equally condemned by the noble Lord last year, on the occasion of an interview with the noble Lord, when my hon. Friend Mr. Moore, the Member for Mayo, with some forty other Irish Members, waited on the noble Lord, and urged him to allow the Bill to be read a second time. Thus on two occasions the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, declared his decided opposition to the "retrospective clause;" and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas) also denounced this clause, or its principle, on the part of the present Government. Here, then, were the representatives of the two great parties protesting against this principle, and proclaiming their determined opposition to it; and the House adopted the views of those noble Lords, and of those whom they represented, by a majority of three to one. What was I to do then? what were my hon. Friends to do? was I—were they —to Keep that Bill, or a Bill of a similar character, before the House, for a mere election cry? If we had done so, we would have deserved the scorn of this House, and the contempt of our countrymen. Instead of doing this—instead of keeping up a dishonest sham—instead of again bringing in a Bill which we knew, in our souls and consciences, we could not carry—my hon. Friends and myself endeavoured to do something practical. We considered that, by our fair and impartial conduct, we had a just claim upon the consideration of the Government; and, therefore, not wanting anything for ourselves—not being desirous of a seat on the Treasury bench, and not being applicants for a Lordship of the Treasury, or such other offices as are thrown to minor politicians—we did beg of the Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to bring in a measure which would effect a settlement of the question. It is quite true that I did say, and that my hon. Friends did say, that we were not unreasonable enough to insist on the Government embodying the retrospective principle in any Bill they brought in, and simply for this reason—that, after the emphatic repudiation of that principle by the house, and its condemnation by the leaders of the two great parties, it would not only be a hopeless attempt to carry it, but its introduction would be fatal to any Bill which contained it. We did not ask for a "moderato," or "very moderate measure," as has been erroneously represented; what we did ask for was a large and a liberal measure, such as would effectually—protect the industry of the tenant, and develope the resources of the country. The hon. Gentleman has made some kind of insinuation against newspaper proprietors and writers. I am a newspaper proprietor and writer, and I am not ashamed of my profession. It is true, if I had followed the profession of the Bar, I might now be in a different position; but I am not the less proud of that which I occupy. I, however, am not one of those newspaper writers who stab in the dark, or slander either enemy or friend under the concealment of anonymous writings—I am not one of those who, from behind the shield of individual irresponsibility, would damage his own party, or even strike at the breast of a colleague; but I attach my signature to what I write, so that all men may know who is responsible for what those writings contain. But the hon. Member appears to labour under some strange hallucination—I know not its cause, whether the state of the weather or Thames—when he imagines that any writer in Ireland would select him as a fitting theme for his article. Why, Sir, I venture to assert that the very humblest editor in my country would not make the hon. Gentleman or his eccentricities the subject even of an ordinary pa- ragraph. For my own part, I have never been guilty of even so grave an offence as that of mentioning Ids name, in any sense whatever; and I can safely promise him, I shall be equally guiltless for the future, as I have been for the past. The hon. Gentleman is anxious to know why he. "a member of the Independent party," was not invited to take part in the interview with the Chancellor. I shall tell him why he was not asked. It was simply because it would have been a ridiculous mockery to have asked him, or to have joined with him. Those Members only went who, by their fairness and neutrality, had a just claim on the consideration of the Government, But what was the fact with respect to the hon. Gentleman? Hardly had the present Government been twenty-four hours old, and certainly before they had warmed in their seats, than the hon. Member rushed down to this House, and, speaking in the name of all Ireland, made a tremendous attack upon them, intending to destroy them on the instant. It is true, that terrible attack did not shake them to the centre. The hon. Gentleman then appeared to speak in the name of all Ireland, and of a great and united Irish party; but where was the responsible echo from Ireland, to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman? Where the petitions winch, it might naturally be supposed, would have crowded the table of the House after such a denunciation? Why, Sir, we can perceive that the Government have outlived his assault, and even survived his eloquence. It would, then, have been a practical mockery to have represented that hon. Gentleman as having given a fair consideration to the Government which he—I shall not say so absurdly, for that would be wrong—but so discreetly assailed. The hon. Member also labours under some delusion in supposing that he is, or ever was, authorised to speak in behalf of any party whatever. Where are his followers? nay, where is the single human being over whom he has influence? Yes, there is one distinguished individual whom he does lead, and whom lie does follow, too—himself—but even between the hon. Gentleman and himself there are at times strange misunderstandings. I can now assure the hon. Gentleman that I treat any attack of his as the idle wind that plays over my head, or, as is suggested by an hon. Friend near me, as a puff of the Thames nuisance—an evil to which we are all liable, and must all submit. I shall, in conclusion, only express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his promise to introduce a measure on the landlord and tenant question, which measure I earnestly hope may settle a long-standing cause of difficulty and dispute.

said, that a personal attack of a kind very unusual in that House had been made upon him. He would tell the hon. Gentleman, as he had told him in "another place," where matters were treated differently from what they were in that House ["Order, order!"]—

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to explanation.

said, that the hon. Member had insinuated that he had resorted to anonymous attacks in newspapers.

I never intended to say, nor did say anything of the kind.

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he considered this one of the most important measures that had ever come before the House. It was of far too great importance to be made a matter of party feeling, and he, for one, should abstain from offering any factious opposition to its progress. They were about to deal with an immense territory, with an immense population, and the subject should, therefore, be dealt with with the greatest deliberation. India had for almost a thousand years been the victim of almost as many sufferings as could afflict a community. It had suffered under the Mahomedan rule. The East India Company, also, during the sixty years they had borne sway in India, had confined their attention to raising revenue, and had neglected their duty of elevating the people. The consequence was, that the latter were at the present time probably in the worst condition of any people on the face of the earth. It was our duty in now transferring the government of that empire from the East India Company to the Crown, to take measures for improving the condition of the people, and to carry out those material improvements which would not only raise the condition of the inhabitants of India, but increase the commerce between that country and this, and be the ultimate means of in- troducing a better and a sounder religion into Hindostan.

said, that if he understood this clause aright, the Secretary of State would exercise the powers over the finances of India which were now exercised by the Directors of the East India Company, under the check of the Board of Control and the Court of Proprietors. It was right that the Committee should consider thus early whether they thought it desirable that the Secretary of State should exercise this great power. At the same time he hoped that the President of the Board of Control would give a clear explanation of the intentions of the Government as to the extent of the power which they thought should be committed to the Secretary of State, and also as to whether they had any objection to the addition of the words "in council," after the words "Secretary of State," thus sharing the powers of the former with the latter.

said, he was prepared to move the Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet. His wish was to make the Council a substantial and essential part of the governing power. He thought the way in which the Act of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was drawn in this respect was much better than the present Bill. If they had a Council at all, it was far better that such Council should be a reality and not a mere form. For his own part, he felt quite convinced that the responsibility of the Indian Minister in that House would always be most imperfect. His idea of the proper functions of the Council was, that it should take a vital and constant part in the whole transaction of Indian business, and that it should in all matters offer its advice and submit its decisions to the Indian Minister, of course reserving to him the right of disregarding such advice and overruling such decision. The model, in fact, which he would propose for the constitution of the Minister and his Council was that of the relative positions and functions of the Governor General in India and his Council. In a communication that had been sent by the Court of Directors to the President of the Board of Control that day, and which he trusted had been read by hon. Gentlemen present, it was set forth that the only mode by which the direct action of the Minister and the existence of the Council, as a co-operative body, could be brought into complete harmony would be by transacting, as far as possible, all business by the Minister and the Council. From the principle of No. 2 Bill, and of the present measure, so far as regarded the constitution of the Council, he differed very widely, and he thought they were much better dealt with in the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. With the view, then, of carrying out the principles he had advocated, he would move the insertion in page 2, line 23, after the words "Secretaries of State," the words and "Council."

said, that before the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control rose to address the Committee, he should wish to make a few observations in reference to the clause under discussion. The noble Lord, in moving the second reading of the Bill upon the previous evening, had adverted to several important alterations which he proposed to introduce into it at a subsequent stage, and he (Sir J. Graham) for one could not help thinking that it would be more convenient if the Bill had been committed pro forma, and the promised alterations introduced before they were called upon to discuss them. The clause under discussion was one of the utmost importance. Its operation, as it was at present drawn, would be to transfer to the new Minister for India, and to him alone, all those powers which were now exercised by the President of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors,—not in India merely, but also in this country. Now, it was, in his opinion, extremely expedient to ascertain what limitations were imposed upon the scope of the clause by other portions of the Bill, because as it now stood the transfer of power for which it provided was of a character entirely unlimited. The Committee must bear in mind that under the present system the President of the Board of Control had no authority whatever to expend in England one shilling of the money drawn from Indian revenue. He could not, for instance, without the sanction of the Board of Directors, pay pensions from that source, while any order for expenditure in India itself which he might make must be issued through the medium of the Secret Committee. The clause, however, in its present shape would confer upon the new Minister unlimited power to order the outlay of money in India without the concurrence of a single member of his Conned, while his authority to grant pensions and order expenditure for general purposes in this country would be uncontrolled. Now, what limitations, he should like to know, did any other portion of the Bill impose upon the exercise of a power so extensive? He found no indication of any limitation whatsoever with respect to expenditure, except, perhaps, in Clause 58, which, however, was very equivocally worded, and which, in his opinion, would operate inefficiently as a restraint upon the Minister. With regard to the question of patronage, the power which the clause would confer would also be of a character almost totally unrestricted. The whole of the appointments in India, with the exception of some first appointments in the army, and the first appointments to clerkships in the civil service, would be in the hands of the Minister. The Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton placed those questions upon a different footing. In accordance with the 12th clause of that measure there could be no expenditure of Indian revenues in England without the concurrence of four members of the Council —or, in other words, half the entire body as proposed by the noble Lord. If he (Sir J. Graham) understood the remarks which had fallen from the President of the Board of Control on the previous evening rightly, he seemed disposed to look upon any such limitation as that as inexpedient, deeming that a sufficient check upon the expenditure of the Indian revenues would be afforded by bringing it under the supervision of that House by means of accounts to be laid before them long after the expenditure might have taken place. Now, he must say that the check which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton proposed would, in his opinion, be far more likely to prove efficient than that which, by a general supervision, such as he had mentioned, upon the part of the House of Commons would be secured. The question was one of considerable importance, and he should, therefore, before he assented to the passing of the clause, wish to learn from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control what checks he proposed to put upon the new Minister: first, in regard to expenditure in England, in place of the control now exercised by the Court of Directors; secondly, as to expenditure in India in lieu of the check now existing in the shape of the Secret Committee; and lastly, what limitations he proposed to put upon them in respect to the distribution of patronage.

said, that with respect to the comparison which had been drawn by the right hon. Baronet between the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and that under discussion, it must be borne in mind that the members of the Council which the noble Lord proposed to appoint were to hold office only for eight years, while the present Government proposed the appointment of a Council whose members should hold office for life. In the former case the Council, being nominated for only eight years, would, in point of fact, be responsible for its acts, inasmuch as its members would at the end of that period have to retire from office or to be re-chosen; while in the latter case the Council, being nominated for life, would be practically irresponsible. He should therefore wish to know what check would, under these circumstances, be exercised over their proceedings.

said, that as the Committee were now discussing the third clause, which transferred the power and authority of the East India Company to the Crown, it appeared to him inexpedient to consider at present the constitution of the proposed Council. He wished, however, the Government would state whether they intended to transfer to the Minister, without limitation, the patronage of the Company and the whole power with respect to the revenue both in England and in India.

said, that at present the President of the Board of Control had not the power to expend a single shilling in England, though he could expend any amount he liked through the Secret Committee, as was done in one case when £120,000 had been expended in the construction of certain war steamers in India. The Court of Directors could not expend any amount of money without the concurrence of the President of the Board of Control, and then only to the extent of £500 in single grants, or £200 per annum in pensions. If the expenditure exceeded that amount, the Directors were obliged to obtain the sanction of the Court of Proprietors. The clause as it stood did away with the check now imposed by the Court of Proprietors, and empowered the Minister to give any order he pleased for the payment of sums out of the revenues of India. He decidedly objected to such a provision, which he thought had never been contemplated, and should therefore vote for the Amendment.

said, the House bad already decided in favour of a responsible Minister, and he hoped that question would not again be raised. The clause undoubtedly gave the Secretary of State an unlimited power over the expenditure in India. In considering the propriety of that provision it was necessary to look at the existing practice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, although a member of the Court of Directors, had not accurately stated what the powers of that body were. The Court of Directors had power to expend any money in London which might be requisite for carrying on the home Government, but neither they nor the President of the Board of Control had the power of making any donation to an individual exceeding £600, or of granting a pension exceeding £200 per annum, without the sanction of the Court of Proprietors. He thought the Committee would agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that some such cheek should be introduced into the present Bill. It was his intention to propose at a future state that no gratuity to an individual exceeding £600, or no pension exceeding £200 per annum should be granted by the Secretary of State without the sanction of that House. That would be an effective check, would bring the affairs of India from time to time before the House in a legitimate manner, and would enable Parliament to ascertain whether the increased expenditure of the Indian revenue was justifiable or not.

said, he would beg to remind the Committee that the clause commenced with the words "save as herein otherwise provided," and as extensive alterations might be made in subsequent parts of the Bill, the discussion of many of the questions which had been raised might well be postponed till some future occasion. His own opinion was that there was only one constitutional mode of supervising the expenditure of India, and that was to have an annual Appropriation Act. That had been found to be a sound principle in the conduct of our home finances and expenditure, and it would be of similar advantage in dealing with the revenues and outlay of India, inasmuch as the Government would have to come to Parliament on the subject.

said, it was clear, as stated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that the words "save a6 here in otherwise provided" included any check which the Committe might thereafter think proper to impose. It could not therefore be said that by passing the clause as it stood they would prevent themselves from imposing upon the Minister any check which they might deem either expedient or necessary. An hon. Gentleman had proposed to add, after "the Secretary of State," the words "and Council," which would have the effect of dividing all the powers to be given by the present Bill between the Minister and those by whom he was to be assisted. That was a fair proposition considered abstractedly, but it entirely did away with the whole professed object of legislation for India. If there was one impression more distinctly left than another upon the minds of those who heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton at the beginning of the Session, it was that the principle which he desired to assert and carry out in practice was the principle of undivided responsibility on the part of the Minister for India. Now, if they were to lay down that principle they must not shrink from conferring at the same time that which was necessary to undivided responsibility—namely, undivided authority. He had been told of provisions in the Bill of the late Government which made it necessary that in all matters of expenditure a certain number of the Council should concur. His reply was that the Council proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was one of an entirely different character and constitution from that proposed by the present Government. The Council of the late Government was composed of nominees appointed for a short time, whereas the one now proposed was to be appointed for life, a half of the members not being nominated by the Crown. It appeared to him that such an alteration as that now proposed would introduce a double responsibility, first to the Council and then to Parliament. No one could desire that the Minister should be otherwise than responsible; and he felt all the difficulty of providing such a machinery as would satisfactorily answer the purpose intended—namely, to make that responsibility real and effectual. But he was convinced that if they legislated on the principle uniformily laid down by the majority of the House that Session they must make the Minister for India responsible to Parliament. He had been asked whether this clause would not give the Minister the control over the patronage as well as over the expenditure of India. He thought it was a sufficient answer to that to point to the clauses from thirty-one to thirty-four, in which regulations were prescribed more especially as to patronage. The civil service appointments were there provided for by open competition, as were also those connected with the scientific branches of the army. As to the other admissions to the army, a scheme was laid down by which the patronage was so divided that the great bulk of it would belong to the Council, What, however, he wished to impress upon the Committee was, that if they inserted in the clause general words dividing the power between the Minister and the Council, it would probably be found that they had taken away from the Minister more authority than they had intended to take away, and that they had, in fact, introduced in the very first step of their new legislation that double and divided responsibility which it was the professed object of that legislation to prevent.

said, he fully agreed with the noble Lord that this clause must be considered in connection with others in the Bill; although the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was quite right in saying, that if the clause stood alone it would give unlimited power to the Secretary for India. With regard to patronage, the objection had been answered; but as regarded expenditure, in India and in this country, the Bill provided no limitation to the power of the Minister. He considered that the present Council was more obstructive than that proposed by his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston). He was sure that the Committee would think that there ought to be some check in this respect on the Minister for India, for if not, he would possess the most enormous power ever given to any Minister. It would enable him, as the clause then stood, to distribute the revenues of India at his pleasure among his political creatures, without any control from Parliament or any other body. Accounts were, indeed, to be submitted periodically to Parliament, but they all knew how illusory that formality was as a security against improper expenditure. Even the suggestion that all Indian pensions beyond a certain amount should be voted by Parliament would not much mend the matter. The reason why the Members of that House looked after the Estimates for the United Kingdom was, because they were answerable to their constituents if they sanctioned any unnecessary Votes. But in the case of Indian expenditure it was manifest that no such motive would operate. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets proposed that there should be an Appropriation Act for India, but he (Mr. Vernon Smith) thought such a Bill would share the fate of the Indian Budget; and it would not, in the month of August, excite much attention, or cause payments to be looked into which ought to have been made by the Minister. Either by means of the Council, or otherwise, sonic check must be placed on a Minister invested with such extraordinary powers.

begged to add his request that the noble Lord would consider the power which he was about to grant to the Minister with regard to the finances of India. He admitted that, in considering the question of the government of India, they must put aside their notions of freedom, and proceed as if they were enacting an arbitrary measure. But there must be some security for expenditure. There was no security that the Council would act as a check, for the whole power of the President of the Board of Control was handed over to the Minister for India without even the intervention of the Secret Committee, and he might order any expenditure he chose. Was that a power to give to any man? He would further ask if the Minister was to have the power of raising loans without even the knowledge of the Council? Might it not be enacted that no order for the payment of money should be given without its going through the Council and being known to them? That would act as a check in some degree. As to the check proposed, of laying the accounts before Parliament, that would not be of the least use. It was absurd to think the House would attend to periodical financial accounts, which were too often laid on the table of the House only to be forgotten.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had evidently not read the whole Bill, as it was clear that, when he put his question with regard to the power of raising loans being vested in the Minister, he had not looked at Clause 45, by which the powers of borrowing now possessed by the East India Company were transferred to the Council, to be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of State; so that there could be no loan without their knowledge. The 39th clause also required, that the revenues remitted to Great Britain and moneys arising in Great Britain, should be placed to the credit of "the account of the Council of India," and that all such moneys should be paid out upon drafts signed by three members of the Council.

said, the Bill clearly provided that all the home expenditure should pass through the Council, and that no money should be paid out by order of the Secretary of State for any purpose whatever. That was a much better security than the production of accounts in Parliament or the introduction of an Appropriation Bill.

said, he was aware of the clause in question, but it was so inconsistent with the argument of the noble Lord with regard to the responsibility of the Minister, that he thought it provided for a mere formal signature, just as three Lords of the Treasury signed certain warrants. If he was to understand that the members of Council did not merely sign, but had placed on them the responsibility of their signature, he had got a great deal of that he was anxious to obtain.

said, he understood that the effect of the 39th clause was, that when the Secretary of State by his authority ordered money to be paid out of the home Treasury, and it was paid by draft, it was signed by three members of the Council; but the Secretary of State had the power to order money to be paid.

said, that if it was intended under the 39th clause that the Secretary of State should have no power to order the payment of money at home without the consent of a majority, or at least a certain number of the Council, all he had to say was that some words must be added to make the meaning clear. The clause, however, was confined to home expenditure and did not touch the much larger item of Indian expenditure, on which there appeared to be absolutely no check whatever. At present the President of the Board of Control could certainly order an extraordinary expenditure for war purposes through the Secret Committee, which in itself was some sort of control, but with regard to ordinary expenditure he had not the power to increase a single salary except through the Court of Directors. But in this Bill there was no check whatever upon the Indian expenditure.

said, that if money was to be voted by the Council, what was the meaning of the 23rd clause, which provided, that in case of any difference of opinion in the Council, the determination of the Secretary of State should be final. If the Secretary of State had not the power to order the payment of money, that exception ought to be included in the claim.

said, he must really deprecate verbal criticism on clauses which were not before the Committee. It was plain from the clause now before them that a check, more or less effective, was intended to be provided in subsequent clauses. When those clauses came up, then would be the time to consider whether the check they offered was sufficient. If he were to give an opinion, which he would rather not, he would say that it was intended that the expenditure should be determined by the President and Council, but how they were to determine it was to be left to themselves. He would, however, much prefer that the checks should not be discussed till the clauses containing them came on for consideration.

said, that Clause 39 referred to monies remitted from India, but Clause 3 put the whole of the revenues of India at the disposal of the Minister.

said, he would be contented to take the discussion on this point on the subsequent clauses, but he begged to remind the House that the noble Lord himself had set the example of referring to them by stating that those clauses were sufficient for the purpose, whereas he (Sir C. Wood) thought he could see that they were not. He was satisfied to let this clause pass after what had been said.

said, if there was any blame to be attached for the discursiveness of the debate, the blame rested with him, for it appeared to him that this clause transferred to the Secretary of State unbounded power over the whole resources of India. In saying this he begged to observe that the words of the clause that professed to limit the power had not escaped him; and therefore he asked the noble Lord what were the provisions which limited those general powers. With regard to the home expenditure, he must say he did not find the words of the 39th clause, to which the noble Lord had referred him, sufficiently explicit, and with regard to the Indian expenditure, he did not find in the Bill any restraint whatever. The Secret Committee, as it stood now, was an effi cient moral restraint upon the President of the Board of Control; but even that restraint was taken away in the present Bill, and the Secretary of State would have it in his power to increase salaries or to raise the expenditure to an unlimited extent, without the Council knowing anything of the matter, or Parliament either, till at some distant period the accounts were laid upon the table of that House. So much with regard to the expenditure. With regard to the patronage, he found that there was no check upon the home patronage, except that the first appointment of clerks was to rest with the Council; but all the other appointments and all promotions were to be in the hands of the Minister alone.

said, he hoped that the clause would be modified in such a way as to afford some check on the power of the Secretary of State. He would suggest, however, to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Fortescue) that he should alter the terms of his Amendment from "and Council" to "in Council."

said, was a mistake to suppose that the President of the Board of Control could not increase the ordinary expenditure in India. It was true he could not do so directly, but he could order the Court of Directors to do it; and if they refused, he could compel them by mandamus.

said, that the Secretary of State, in this Bill, was in the same position with regard to his power over revenue as the President of the Board of Control. The clause which the Committee ought to look to was not only the 39th but the 24th, which provided that no communication of any kind should be sent to India by the Secretary of State without the knowledge of the Council. This would give the Council that supervision and control which it was thought they ought to exercise.

said, that according to the interpretation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the power of the President could not be exercised without the knowledge of the Council, but still they would possess no control over him. On the other hand, if a veto was given to them, it would take out of the Secretary's hands the power vested in him by the Bill, as if the Council could prevent the Secretary from ordering any expenditure, they could prevent him from making any alteration of policy which would involve an increase of expenditure. For this reason he was opposed to inserting the words "Secretary of State and Council," as they would give the Council a veto; whereas the words "Secretary of State in Council" would require the business to be transacted with the advice and in presence of the Council, and this latter he thought more in keeping with the rest of the Bill.

said the 24th clause only provided that the orders of the Secretary of State should be submitted to the Council, not that the Council should have any power to impede their execution. The President of the Board of Control could only now enforce his orders by application for a mandamus, which was a very different proceeding from that which would take place under the 24th clause. The Secretary of State would, by this Bill, have greater powers than the President of the Board of Control, and he was of opinion that some greater restraint was necessary.

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had overlooked the 27th clause, which provided that orders now sent through the Secret Committee might be sent by the Secretary of State without communicating with the Council. Suppose a Minister chose to expend half a million of money on steamers in a war with China, the Council would not be able to interfere in the matter. It was clear that the power of the Minister would be most arbitrary and despotic. He wished to know from the Government, therefore, whether it was intended that the Minister should be allowed to expend any sum he might please without the knowledge of the Council or the knowledge of Parliament.

said, he must protest against this inconvenient mode of discussing clauses which were not before them. The clause was a plain transfer of power to the Secretary of State, subject to certain checks in subsequent clauses; and, as a plain man, he would recommend hon. Gentlemen to reserve their objections till these clauses came up, and in the meantime to give notice of the Amendments they intended to propose.

said, he would alter his Amendment by moving, after the words, "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," to insert the words "in Council." The effect of this Amendment would be that in ordinary matters the Council would be cognizant of what was contemplated by the Secretary of State, though they would not have power to overrule his decisions.

said, he thought the effect of the Amendment would not be that which was intended. if the Government would adopt the course followed on this point in the Bill of the late Ministry he believed they would solve the difficulty. That Bill contained a clause that no grant whatever by way of increase of actual charge on the revenues of India should be made without the concurrence of the President and at least four members of the Council. If it was the intention of the Government that no new grant—he was not now speaking of an order relating to war or to public works—should be made out of the revenues of India by the Secretary of State without the consent of the members of Council, a distinct clause to that effect had better be brought up subsequently.

said, the present clause was a mere sequitur of the provision that the Government of India should be handed over to the Crown. If the Amendment should be adopted the Minister would be completely controlled by the Council. He trusted, therefore, that it would be withdrawn. After they had decided on this clause, he did not see anything to delay the Committee until they arrived at the 7th clause, on which he had given notice of his intention to move an Amendment.

said, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Fortescue), as he thought it would change the whole character of the measure, and hoped the Government would pay some attention to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis).

said, that nothing more was required with respect to the new Council than existed with regard to the Council and the Governor General of India. All the official business must be done by the Governor General in Council, and he thought the new Minister ought to hear his Council and take their advice. That system had acted admirably in the Indian branch of the Government, and he did not see why it should not adequately well in the English branch.

said, he should sup- port the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth, because he believed it would be the best check against the misuse of money and the misuse of patronage.

said, that by the present law three Secretaries of State and one President of the Board of Control might sit in the House of Commons. There was, therefore, no objection to the new Secretary of State being empowered to sit.

said, he did not feel any constitutional jealousy at giving the Government the appointment to fifteen new places. He was not all apprehensive that it would affect the liberties of the country, but he thought that fifteen would be a cumbrous and inconvenient number for the Council. There was a great deal of force in what was urged by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), that a large transmission of matter from India to London would no longer take place. They all knew that an infinite number of details and records of transactions and orders need not be transmitted. A system prevailed somewhat like that which was complained of in Lombardy with regard to the Austrian management, that even horse-shoes were sent from Vienna. Everything which was wanted in India was sent from England. Records of the most minute transactions, accompanied by an infinite number of pages of writing, were sent home, and, having been settled ten months before in India, there was nothing to be done but to put the papers up and think no more about them. If there were Committees, he had no doubt they would refer such documents to the chief clerk of the department to make a short abstract, in order that the matter might be brought into a narrow compass, and the Committee saved the trouble of reading all the papers. He, therefore, begged to suggest that at all events they should come back to the number which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control seemed disposed to adopt, and, instead of fifteen, make twelve the maximum number, leaving the Govern- ment, if they thought proper, hereafter to reduce that number. It seemed to him that in framing the Bill the Government had been unable to divest themselves of the impression that the new arrangement must in some degree resemble the old one, and that because the Court of Directors consisted of eighteen they must have for the Council as nearly as possible the same number.

said, that in his opinion the noble Lord was entirely mistaken in supposing that the Indian business transacted in this country had at present a tendency to decrease. The fact was that a considerable addition had been made to it of late years in consequence of the construction of railways and other public works, and that addition must continue in active operation for a long time to come. He should also say that, as far as he could judge, India must, under the present conditions of her existence, continue to receive all her manufactured articles from this country. It was true that she possessed raw material in abundance, but she was utterly deficient in manufacturing power, and many years must elapse before that deficiency would disappear. The noble Lord had followed in the steps of the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr.Vernon Smith), who thought the Committees did nothing at all, but that the Chairman transacted the whole business; and he even went a step further, and said the clerks did the principal portion of the business. The right hon. Member for Northampton said, if a record were kept of the attendances it would show how little the Directors attended; but there had been a record kept for the last fifty years, and it would show the right hon. Member how regularly they had attended on Committees. He hoped the Committee would not diminish the number of fifteen.

said, he was prepared to support the proposal of Her Majesty's Government that the number of the Councillors should be fifteen. He would state why he preferred that number to twelve. There were two ideas of an Indian Council. One was, that it should be a body to be consulted by the Minister only occasionally and as his convenience might dictate, and on which the ordinary transaction of business was not to be dependent. Now, if he contemplated the creation of such a Council as that, he should prefer to have the number stand at twelve, or even at that smaller number which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had proposed in his Bill. But that was not his idea of the Council. He thought it essential that that body should be a party to the India business from its inception to its close; and he understood that the number fifteen was chosen with a view to have a Council sufficiently large to admit of its division into Committees. In reference to that latter point, however, there was a defect in the Bill. He had understood his noble Friend the President of the Board of Control to say, that the Government intended that the Council should be divided into Committees, and that the ordinary business of India should be initiated in those Committees, passing from them to the Council and from the Council to the Minister as was the case with the Committees of the Court of Directors. That seemed to him to be a very proper proposal, and not only proper, but very important, and even essential to a wise settlement of the question. But he did not find in the Bill any provision for giving effect to such an arrangement, and he would suggest that a provision to that effect should be introduced into the measure before it passed through Committee.

said, it appeared from the evidence given by Sir James Melvill before the Committee of 1853, that ninety-five portions out of one hundred of all the real business of the Company were transacted by the clerks who drew up the draughts of reports, and that the remaining five portions in every hundred were all that were initiated or transacted by the Committees. Nor need they fear that any great addition would be made to the business of the Indian Government in this country in consequence of the construction of railways. The Committee which was at present inquiring into that subject found that the railway business which devolved on the Government was less than it was generally supposed to be, and he believed the Members of that Committee were disposed to think that it ought to be greatly diminished by leaving the railway arrangements in the hands of the railway companies. ["Order!"] Then, with regard to public works, the communications relative to every culvert and bridge from the Board of Works in India involved an unnecessary amount of correspondence. He did not believe that the members of the committees of the Court of Directors read through all this business. He would vote for the number of twelve, because it was a nearer approximation to the number of four, which was ample for the Council of India. In India, where all the real business was transacted, there were only four members of the Supreme Council, and twelve members would be quite enough to review the business done in India.

said, that they had already travelled over the ground so frequently that he should pass over it rapidly upon that occasion. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford that the number of the Council must depend very much on that other question, of the nature of the duties which they would have to discharge. He had stated on the preceding day, that the Government proposed that the Council should be divided into committees for the transaction of business. His right hon. Friend wished that division should be made obligatory in the Bill. If he looked to the 20th clause he would there find, not, indeed, an absolute obligation, but a provision to the effect that "it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to divide the Council into committees for the more convenient transaction of business." He mentioned that merely for the purpose of showing that the plan of dividing the Council into committees had been contemplated from the first by the Government. But they had been told that the business of the Indian department would henceforward be less than that which had hitherto devolved on the Court of Directors and on the Board of Control. He would not undertake to say how that might be in future years; but it was clear that no such reduction of business could be effected at once, or, indeed, for a considerable period of time. He believed they could not draw any parallel in that case between what had taken place in the colonies and what was likely to take place in India. The colonial business had been diminished, because the Colonies had been allowed to have a large share in the administration of their own affairs; but it would be premature to contemplate the adoption of any similar arrangement for India; and if any control was to be exercised over the local government of that country, that control must be left in the hands of the Indian Government at home. He should be prepared to yield to any decision at which the Committee might arrive upon the point then under their consideration; but he should say that the more he saw of the business to be transacted by the new Indian administration, and of the duties that would probably devolve on the Council, the less was he disposed to reduce below fifteen the number of the Councillors.

said, he could not imagine what this Council of fifteen gentlemen would have to do. The eighteen Directors of the East India Company not only found time to read through the business of the Company, but to do a great many things beside. The late Chairman (Mr. Mangles) was a Director of several other public companies. Several other Directors were bankers. One of the ablest Directors, who seemed made by nature to be the prop of decaying corporations, had been the Chairman of the East India Company, the life and soul of the Hudson's Bay Company, and everything at the Trinity House. He referred to Captain Shepherd. He wondered, therefore, how the Council would employ their time, and when he saw how useful every thousand pounds would be in India he owned he grudged the money that was to go in salaries to the Council. The Board of Control was divided into six departments—the financial, the revenue, the political, the military, naval and civil, the judicial and ecclesiastical, and the public and miscellaneous. At the head of each was a clerk who managed the business of his department, and the Secretary of the Board afterwards read alone all the matters concerning these six departments which were to occupy the time of the Council. He had done it himself, and his health did not suffer from the labour. If the Minister of India had six departments, and six heads of departments, he might consult them and derive great advantage from their labours. But these fifteen gentlemen, whose time would not be over occupied, would make it out in debating matters in general. Was the Secretary of State to be present at their deliberations or not? If not, and the Council were to deliberate under a Vice President, they were now reconstructing a double Government with all its delay. If he were to be present it would be impossible for him to get through the papers and at the same time to attend to Ids duties in that House and as a Cabinet Minister. He knew that the Minister for India would not attempt to be present, but would leave them to deliberate by themselves. What would happen would be this:—When the President wished to send a despatch he would give the Secretary of that department instructions to prepare it. He would then send the despatch to the Council. If they altered it he would alter it back, and all that would he got would be so much delay. The House had determined to appoint this Council, but he would say liberavi animam meam. In two or three years the Council would fall into contempt, and then the House would wonder that it had ever been appointed.

said, that he could state, from his own experience, that as the case stood at present twelve persons were competent to transact the business. At present the Court of Directors were divided into three Committees, consisting respectively of five, five, and six, two being abstracted for the offices of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Of these Committees three were a quorum, so that nine were sufficient to perform the business. The only result of the increase in the number of the Councillors and Directors was that a greater margin was allowed. But there was a more important consideration than the mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. They had to form a large independent body, whose opinions should be respected by, and should command the attention of, the Secretary of State. Although, therefore, he thought that twelve world be sufficient in a utilitarian view of the question, still he should prefer fifteen on broad grounds of general policy. As to the constitution of committees, the noble Lord had proposed to divivide the Council into six committees. But if they had a committee of two it would be practically useless, as they would be certain to have one on one side of the question and the other on the other. Three were, therefore, required for the casting vote. The only other point he would allude to was as to the initiative. The two statements which had been made were quite reconcilable. The Chairman of the Court was ex officio chairman of every committee; and when a letter was drafted by a committee, he took the initiative in the name of the committee.

said, as the Committee had now decided that the Council was to consist of fifteen members, he would propose to insert in the clause that they should be appointed under warrant of the Crown by sign manual. The Committee would remember that the original proposal of the Government was that a large proportion of the Council should be elected by the votes of an extraordinary description of constituency. That proposal, however, had been abandoned by Government on further consideration, and step by step they approached nearer to the principle of nomination. He entertained a strong opinion that the rule and analogy of the constitution, in accordance with which every person connected with the administration of the Executive Government was elected by the Crown, ought to apply to the appointment of this Council. It was not only at variance with the principles of the constitution that such officers should be otherwise appointed, but it was also to be deprecated that the Committee should be led into an attempt to perpetuate the system of self-election. They ought not to be led away by a vain image of election imprinted upon the retina of the mind that, because the Court of Directors were in some measure an elected body, they were carrying out the elective principle in leaving to them the nomination of a portion of the Council. It was a perfect fallacy to say that the Court of Directors had been elected in the sense of the Resolution to which the Committee upon the Resolutions had approved of. They were now called upon to transfer to the Crown the same governing power as was at present possessed by the East India Company, and with that power it ought to have the same latitude in the appointment of governing officers. If the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford were the correct one, the Council should be appointed by the Sovereign power, whether that power was the Crown or the East India Company. It was thus that the Directors had been appointed, for they had not been elected to office by any one extraneous to the Sovereign power. They had, in fact, been appointed in the only way in which it was possible for an aggregate body to appoint them. As no part of the Court of Directors had been appointed by any other authority than by the Sovereign power, then, by a constitutional analogy, the Crown should have the appointment of the Executive Council of India. Without detaining the Committee longer in regard to a question which had been already argued, he would content himself by moving the insertion of a proviso that the Council should be appointed by Her Majesty's warrant under the sign manual.

Sir, I do not intend to enter into any lengthened discussion on this point, which has been urged so frequently upon the House. Having determined that part of the Council should be elected, we have also expressed the reasons which induced us to come to that conclusion—namely, that in our opinion it is desirable that the Council of India should be of a mixed character. The House, in resolving that a portion of the Council should be elected, came also to the conclusion that the best contrivance which could be adopted for the introduction of the elective principle should be the one which should give the greatest independence to the Council, and that is the one which has been presented to it. The fallacy, as I think, into which the noble Lord has fallen is that of supposing that the Council of India is to be an Executive Council. But it is not to be an Executive Council, and by assuming that it is, the noble Lord has been induced to arrive at a conclusion which is utterly invalid. The plan which has been recommended by the Government is that which seems to them the most practicable one. The Committee is not now asked to object to this particular application of the elective principle, but to object to that principle altogether, on the ground that the Council now proposed is an Executive Council. That is an entire fallacy, and I trust that the Committee will adhere to the Resolution which they have already sanctioned and the policy they have approved, that it is of the greatest importance that the Council shall be an independent one. To maintain that principle the mixed element is necessary, and to maintain that mixed element it is requisite that the elective principle should be called into action. There can be no doubt that the application of the elective principle is on the whole the wisest thing that could be done. That is the simple question before the Committee, and I trust that it will not sanction the Amendment of the noble Lord.

was understood to say, that he objected to the principle advo- cated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should support the Amendment. The question before the Committee was whether any part of the Council should be elected, or whether it should be nominated. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his Bill, the constituency was large, but had since melted away till the principle of selection alone remained. A few minutes ago they decided that the whole of the Indian business, which had been ably transacted by five gentlemen, was too much to be done by fifteen; having decided that, it now behoved them to decide how the fifteen were to be chosen. Eight were to be nominated by the Crown, and seven chosen by persons holding Indian stock or railway shares in India. Even supposing the seven to be elected, the Crown would have the majority. It was the principle of nomination and irresponsibility. That was not a principle that ought to be adopted. If the nomination of this Council was to be by the responsible Minister, the best men would be chosen.

said, it was impossible to deny that all the members of the Executive Administration were technically and strictly nominated by the Crown, but it could not be contended that they were nominated by the Crown, simply without any mixture of election. The members of the Cabinet must be in Parliament, and therefore, they were in a degree elected by the people. It was recorded by the late Sir R. Peel in those memoirs the publication of which he had intrusted to the able hands of his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of Oxford and Earl Stanhope, that the Crown was deprived of the services of Sir G. Murray as Paymaster of the Ordinance in consequence of his having lost the Perthshire election, and that the Crown was compelled to appoint another person. Again, in much more recent times, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir G. B. Lytton) could not join the Earl of Derby's Administration on the Accession of that noble Lord to office, because there was a doubt (which proved afterwards to have been groundless) whether, if he were appointed Colonial Minister, he would be able to get returned for Hertfordshire. Would Fox ever have been Minister, of the Crown if the Crown alone had the power of nominating? Was it not notorious that it was the influence which Fox had in the House of Commons that forced the Crown to point him?

said, he had a proposal to make to the Committee, the subject of which, although it had been Mentioned, had not, so far as they had gone, been discussed. It was to the effect that the first members of the Council should be named in the Act. He was entirely in the hands of the Committee as to commencing the subject. [Cries ofProgress!"] In deference to the wishes of the Committee he would move that the Chairman report progress—and his proposal would assume the form of a notice that he would move as an Amendment to insert at the end of line twenty the words, "and it shall consist of the following persons," leaving to the Government the selection of the names.

Sir, as the right hon. Gentleman has moved that you report progress, I think it candid to state, without entering at present upon the discussion of the principle his proposal involves, that I think there are very grave objections to insert names in the Bill. We did upon one occasion propose names. (Ironical cheers.) I think I am obliged to refer to that fact in order to show that personally I have no objection to such an arrangement; but I think it right to add, that after the proposition was made we had reason to believe that its adoption would be very inconvenient and injurious to the public service, and that it would be much better not to establish such a precedent, and when the occasion offers I shall respectfully submit to the Committee the reasons we had for so thinking. I will not resist the Motion to report progress, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to avail myself of this opportunity to state the course which I think it desirable we should pursue. There are very urgent reasons why we should take Supply on Monday, and I therefore propose that we should not proceed with the Committee on the India Bill until Thursday; but I make that proposition in the hope and with the belief that on Thursday and Friday we may be able to complete our labours on this stage of the Bill. On Monday we shall take the Funded Debt Bill, and then go into Committee of Supply; and I should be very glad if it would be for the convenience of the House to have a morning sitting on Monday, in order to finish the Scotch Universi- ties Bill; it is a matter of great importance to Scotch Members, and the wish is, I believe, unanimous that the public business should be transacted, not in haste, but with all reasonable despatch. At all events, we propose to take the Funded Debt Bill on Monday, and on Thursday and Friday the Committee on the India Bill.

said, he must protest against the Bill being proceeded with at that late hour (half-past twelve). He must also complain that Clause 51, which was one of the most important clauses of the Bill, had been disposed of at such a late hour on a previous evening in a very thin House.

reminded the hon. Member that he was out of order in referring to a clause which had been passed.

, said, he should then move that the Chairman report progress, and he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he should move that Clause 51 be expunged.

opposed the Motion. There was no Amendment of importance on the paper with reference to this Bill, and he was surprised that any opposition should have been raised to the further progress of the Bill.

supported the Motion for reporting progress.

said, that Clause 51 of the Bill had been agreed to after considerable discussion, and after a division in which there were 130 in the majority, and seven or eight in the minority. He hoped that the Committee on the Bill would be allowed to proceed.

said, he hoped that no opposition would be made to the progress of the Bill in Committee, at ail events by those who, like himself, regarded the measure as one of great importance and value.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to proceed with the Bill at that late hour (half past twelve o'clock).

said, that he should not think of proceeding with any discussion of importance at that late hour, if it were not the wish of the Committee. It was said that there was some objection to the mode in which Clause 51 had been passed, but he knew of nothing more fair than the manner in which that clause was carried; it was discussed at some length, and was then carried by an overwhelming majority. They could not re-discuss that clause then: and without unduly pressing the Committee to proceed, he hoped that they would proceed with the remaining clauses of the Bill, on the understanding that an opportunity should be given to discuss the 51st clause on a future occasion.