said, he was desirous of calling attention to the mode in which the Government proposed to deal with this subject. He thought they ought to have contented themselves, especially at that period of the Session, with simply proposing a continuance Bill. Instead of this, however, they now sought to introduce a novel, and probably very mischievous principle into the measure. He alluded to the clause legalizing the payment of a voter's travelling expenses in going to the poll—a provision which could not now undergo adequate discussion, and which, moverover, was contrary to a recent decision of the House of Lords. This clause took a low view of the franchise, instead of regarding it as an important public trust which the voter was bound to fulfil independently. It also implied that the electors were apathetic and indifferent to the exercise of their privilege, and treated it as a means of paying a mere compliment to a candidate. Besides, the Government were soon to direct their attention to the general question of Parliamentary Reform, and therefore this point ought not now to be dealt with prematurely and by anticipation. Under all the circumstances, he would recommend them to rest satisfied with passing a simple continuance Bill for the present year.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was correct in one respect—that this was not simply a continuance Bill. There were three Amendments made in the Bill, arising from the state of the law, which, from its ambiguity, required legislation on the subject. If he, however, thought that he was introducing any principle into the Bill which was new to the House, he would be most reluctant to press it at that period of the Session. He should have no personal objection to make the Bill a mere continuance Bill; but he did not think he would be acting fairly to the House if he did not submit to the House the state in which he was of opinion the law ought to be put. There was a great deal of pressure put upon the Government to make alterations in the Act in respect to election auditors, and a good deal of difference existed on the point whether those officers should be mere ministerial officers, or whether they should exercise a certain amount of judicial authority in determining whether the expenses in particular cases should be allowed or otherwise. That was no doubt a grave question, which he thought ought not to be decided at the end of a Session. He had not, therefore, included any Amendment upon that question in the present Bill. Now, with reference to the three Amendments to which he referred, he would take the last first. The last had for its object to define what was a candidate at an election. The words of the Act were vague and ambiguous upon the question. The interpretation clause merely used the expression of a "candidate at an election." The question had never been settled, and he proposed that that ambiguity should be removed by a distinct definition of what was a candidate in this Bill. The next Amendment involved an alteration in the law as to the payments made to the election auditor. There were many complaints made to him that the auditor, under the existing law, received a large sum of money for doing little or nothing. He thought that those objections were reasonable; and he therefore introduced a clause declaring how that officer was to be remunerated. What he suggested was, that the fee of £10 allowed to this officer by the Act should cover any expenses which he might incur at an election, where the bills which he had to examine did not exceed £200, and that his percentage on the amount expended should commence after that limit had been passed, instead of, as at present, at the first pound. To those two Amendments he believed no exception would be taken. But the main question related to travelling expenses, whether they should be simply allowed or disallowed, or whether they should be allowed upon conditions—upon that point the state of the law was anything but satisfactory. In the very last contest which had taken place—namely, in the county of Norfolk—the advice of eminent lawyers was taken whether these expenses were or were not, under any circumstances, legal. The opinions of those authorities differed; and the fact was, that the law on this point now remained as unsettled, after the decision in the case of "Cooper v. Slade" by the House of Lords, as it was before that event. The question upon which that decision turned was, whether, assuming that a certain letter had been written to an elector stating that his expenses would be paid if he came to vote for a particular candidate, there was any evidence before the jury that the defendant had been guilty of bribery within the meaning of the Act. The decision did not say whether the mere offer to pay expenses was bribery; it simply declared, contrary to the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that there was in that particular case a conditional promise held out, and that, as the vote was a conditional vote given under that promise, there had consequently been bribery. But whether it would have been bribery, if no such promise or condition had been previously made, was no more decided now than it ever had been. The matter which the House would therefore have to discuss, when it went into Committee, was, whether a voter's travelling expenses ought or ought not to be allowed.

observed, that the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire was most irregular, as its consequence was to raise a discussion at this stage of the Bill.

said, he considered it was the duty of the Legislature to settle a question that was altogether left in doubt by the decision of the House of Lords.

believed that the clause as it stood would produce endless litigation. Some fixed scale of mileage ought to be established for a voter's travelling expenses. The returning officer ought to have some better security than he now enjoyed for the recovery from the candidate of the hustings and other expenses attendant upon an election. This was rendered indispensable by recent legislation on the property qualification of Members. Another defect in the present law was, that it was made the election auditor's interest, for the sake of his percentage, that the candidate's expenses should be as heavy as possible. When the House went into Committee, he should be prepared to submit such Amendments as he thought necessary.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was perfectly justified in raising the questions which he had done upon this continuance Bill, with a view to challenge the opinion of the House upon them. For the interest of candidates, as well as of the election officers, the law ought to be put into a more definite shape. With regard to the remuneration hitherto allowed to the auditor, he agreed that the complaints as to the amount paid were well grounded.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) had requested him, in his absence, to ask the Government whether they intended this Bill to last for a limited period, and meant next year to introduce a permanent measure on the same subject? In the latter event his hon. Friend would move the insertion of clauses establishing the ballot, as practised in Australia.

said, he thought it would be necessary next year to introduce another Bill on this subject. In regard to the other point noticed by the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Walpole) need not remind the House that his opinions on the subject had been already distinctly declared.

said, he had gived notice of a Motion to omit the clause altogether, but he would now propose to accomplish the same object by inserting the word "not" before the word "lawful." He maintained that if they allowed the voter, upon any pretence whatever, to receive hard cash from the candidate, they opened the door to endless abuse. Baron Parke had expressed an opinion that such payment was bribery, and he understood that most of the Judges in "Cooper v. Slade," discountenanced the principle, though on appeal to the House of Lords the matter went off upon the ground that they could not connect the candidate with what had taken place. Lord Mansfield had also expressed an opinion against the principle of the clause now before them. If they legalized the payment of an elector's travelling expenses, they could neither, logically nor morally, refuse him the refreshment necessary to enable him to fulfil the object of his journey. Were they, for example, to pay a man's railway fare from London to Liverpool, and give him nothing to eat or drink on the way? In that case, in what condition could they expect him to reach the polling booth? But, assuming that he was to be allowed some sustenance, what must be the ingredients of his hotel bill? Was he to drink beer or wine? Morever, if they conceded all this, how could they deny the right of a hard-working mechanic, with a large family to support, to some compensation for his loss of time in going to vote? Where, then, were they to stop? And what would become of purity of election? Political purity ought to be as much the point of honour with public men as personal purity was with the other sex, and they ought not by their legislation to permit it to be endangered. Their maxim should be, "Principiis obsta."

said, that six weeks ago the decision in "Cooper v. Slade" was brought under the attention of the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Durham, and he then stated, apparently in concurrence with the view of the House, that he intended to introduce the provision embodied in the clause now before the Committee. This was not, however, the first time that the subject had been brought under their notice. In the year 1854, Lord R. Grosvenor proposed that a clause should be inserted in the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill exposing the candidate paying these expenses to a certain penalty, and that proposition was discussed at considerable length, but on a division it was negatived by a majority of 101. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London then brought forward a different proposition—namely, a clause to remove doubts that existed, and to declare that a candidate might pay the reasonable expenses of an elector coming up to vote, but the Amendment was afterwards withdrawn, because the great lawyers in the House stood up one after another and assured them that by the existing law to pay the actual travelling expenses was not illegal. The case, however, now came before them under a different state of circumstances. There was much doubt and uncertainty created by the ambiguous language of the law, as shown in the decision in the case of Cooper v. Slade, which had been correctly described by the right hon. Secretary of State. Mr. Justice Willes gave it as his opinion that it was bribery within the meaning of the statute to promise to pay the voter's travelling expenses on the condition of his voting for a particular candidate. There was, however, some doubt whether it would have been bribery if there had been no such promise made beforehand. Whether travelling expenses should or should not be allowed was a minor question. The important matter was to have the point clearly settled on one side or the other. At the same time he could not see how purity or independence of elections could be sacrificed by merely reimbursing the voter in some shape or other for the expense of his conveyance to the poll. Whatever might be the case in England, it would be absolutely impossible in many Irish counties for a candidate to conduct his election without providing the means of conveyance for the voters.

said, he wished to submit to the Committee what was his view of what the law as it now stood. It had not been decided that the payment of money for the line of carriages to carry voters to the poll was illegal. If it were illegal, there was no Member of the House who had not been guilty of illegality, except those who had been so fortunate as to have no opposition. There was no doubt that, providing food for a voter was illegal, and therefore the only question now was confined strictly to travelling expenses. On the one hand they were asked to declare the conveyance of voters to the poll illegal, which would lead to such absurdities as this, that a candidate who, going along in his carriage, overtook a voter and asked him to ride with him, would do an illegal act. On the other hand, if candidates, however, were allowed to pay money to voters for conveyance, a number of subsequent questions would arise such as whether an elector who always travelled third class would be allowed to charge first class? It would be utterly impracticable for the candidate or his agent to investigate minutely every claim of this kind which might be made upon him. Thus the clause would open a door to corruption and to the plundering of candidates, and would eventuate in the establishment of a regular system of mileage and head money, wholly disproportionate to the sums which electors were really out of pocket by their journey to the polling place. Under these circumstances he thought that they could neither affirm nor negative the proposition before the Committee. The proper way of meeting the difficulty was by a clause such as he had placed on the paper, which was to the effect that a candidate might provide conveyance for any voter for the purpose of an election, but that it should not be lawful to pay any money or to give any valuable consideration to a voter for or in respect of his travelling expenses for such purpose.

believed the clause in its present shape would not attain its object. The question of the legality of travelling expenses had long been doubtful; and that doubt had not been removed by the decision in "Cooper v. Slade." The Judges had declined to express an opinion whether travelling expenses per se were legal or illegal; but they held that the promise to pay them on the condition that the person receiving the money voted for a given candidate constituted bribery. Even Mr. Justice Coleridge, who thought such expenses legal, regarded this promise as a corrupt inducement, and as contrary to the 17 and 18 Vict. Therefore, though the Legislature were now to declare travelling expenses per se to be legal, no candidate could venture to pay them, because it would be next to impossible to satisfy a Committee of that House that there had not been either a tacit or an express understanding between the voters and the person who had paid them. The candidate would therefore be liable to be unseated, and to all the penalties of the statute. The only effectual mode of getting rid of the consequences of the decision in "Cooper v. Slade" would be by declaring in express terms that neither the offer nor promise of payment of travelling expenses, whether conditional or not on the elector's voting for a particular candidate, nor the payment of such expenses on account of having voted, should be taken to be bribery within the sense of the Act. But if they passed such a clause as that, the time, he thought, would not be far distant when the voters in such large towns as Liverpool or Manchester would put in a claim for loss of time, which could not consistently be repudiated.

said, as the discussion had been raised by an Amendment involving a distinct declaration of the illegality of those expenses, he thought it might be convenient to consider the three points of the question. The first was, whether the travelling expenses should in no case be allowed. The second, whether the travelling expenses merely should be, under all circumstances, allowed; and the third was, whether those expenses might not be allowed or disallowed, under certain conditions or restrictions. As to the first point, he would venture to say that the Committee could not assent to it, and for this reason, that the House would be, for the first time, making an absolute declaration that it was illegal, under any circumstances, to pay the travelling expenses of a voter. It would follow as a natural consequence that it would be a misdemeanour under the Act for any person to take his friend to the polling place in his carriage, or to convey him to the poll in any way. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members cried "No!" but he apprehended it was quite obvious that if by Act of Parliament they declared that a certain thing should not be done, the doing of it afterwards would be a misdemeanour. In many places in Scotland and Ireland it was necessary that such expenses should be paid. Take the case of an election for Invernesshire or for the Orkneys, where the electors had to cross the sea in order to reach the polling-place. Ought it to be made illegal for them to have their expenses paid, when many of the voters would be utterly unable to exercise their franchise unless some means were provided to convey them to the mainland. He, therefore, could never accede to the recognition of such a principle. He now came to the question whether they should allow these expenses under all circumstances, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake) opposite said would be the effect of passing the clause as it stood. Now, if the clause were to have really that effect, he thought it would be wise to guard against such a general application of it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) whose opinion upon the clauses of an Act of Parliament was, perhaps, more shrewd than that of any other man in that House, had suggested a slight alteration in this provision to prevent colourable payments which might have taken place under its original wording. The words proposed to be substituted at the instance of his right hon. Friend were these:—

"It shall be lawful for any candidate to pay the actual cost of conveyance bone fide incurred in bringing any voter to or from the poll."

The effect of this was, that the mere payment of the cost of conveyance should not be bribery. The whole principle of their legislation had been, that where the payment was colourable, so as to enable the person making it to exercise a corrupt influence over the voter, there was a case of bribery. But the simple payment of expenses actually incurred had not been held to be bribery by any Committee or Court of Law of which he was aware. If they went beyond this limit, and sought to make the law too rigid, they would shock the feelings of the community, and defeat their own object. He should, therefore, propose at the proper time to amend the clause in the way he had stated. He should also, in order to obviate the doubt suggested by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake) propose a proviso, declaring that the payment of those expenses was not bribery within the meaning of the Act, and another proviso, that all such expenses should be paid through the election auditor.

aaid, he objected to the clause, which he wished to see entirely omitted, instead of being nullified by the insertion of the word "not." It was unconstitutional to require the candidate to bring the voters up to the poll; and if the voters would not take the trouble to exercise their constitutional privilege, they were virtually self-disfranchised, and he felt no sympathy for them. The difficulties suggested might be obviated by increasing the number of polling places, so that no voter should have to go more than two or three miles to give his vote. If a candidate were allowed to pay travelling expenses, he would be entrapped into the payment of illegal expenses; and therefore, if the candidate was to be under the necessity of providing conveyance, the payments ought not to be made to each voter individually, but directly by the candidate himself or his agents.

said, he could confirm what had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), as to the difficulty which the voters of Invernessshire and the Orkneys had to encounter in attending their elections. The voters from the Orkneys had to travel twenty, thirty, or even forty miles to reach the mainland. They could not cross those seas in open boats, and it was the practice for the candidates to hire steamers for their conveyance. The case was the same with the electors of the Western Isles and of Invernessshire; and if some such clause as this were not adopted, they would be all practically disfranchised. In dealing with a question of this kind, then, they must have regard to the peculiarities of Scotland and Ireland, as well as to the circumstances of England.

said, what had taken place convinced him that he was right in the suggestion that he had made that such a principle as this should not be introduced in a continuance Bill. They were laying down for the first time this rule, that it was a favour and an act of grace for a constituent to vote for a candidate, and not an honourable privilege. Indeed, he defied them to prevent bribery or check abuse, with such a clause as this. If the clause had remained as it originally stood, including the words "actual travelling expenses," there would have been the difficulty of saying what such expenses were. if a man took a two days' journey, his travelling expenses would include his bed at the inn. The term now proposed was, "actual cost of conveyance;" but would it not be bribery to take a man in a first class carriage whose proper position was in the third class? If voters bad great distances to travel, let the number of polling places he multiplied. A citizen had other duties to perform to the State at his own charge, and why should the exercise of his franchise form an exception to the general rule? He called the attention of his Radical friends to one point. They talked of abolishing the property qualification, but here was a proposal creating a new and more aristocratic qualification than ever. No man who was not possessed of very considerable property could contest a county, for the cost of carriage under this system would form one of the heaviest items in election expenses. If this Bill passed they would, in fact, have a property qualification of £1,000 a year, which would be about the expense to which candidates would be put, considering that each Parliament lasted on an average only three or four years. He could not, however, vote for the Amendment; but what be would suggest was, that the Committee should negative the present clause, and leave the Secretary of State to bring up an amended one, in accordance with the views be had that day expressed upon the Report.

said, he must deny that the carriage of voters formed the greatest clement of expense in county elections. If they multiplied polling places, they would very much increase the expense of elections by rendering a greater number of; agents necessary, who even at present; were a greater source of expense than the conveyance of voters.

said, he would suggest that the clause making it lawful for "any person" to pay the actual travelling expenses of bringing any voters to the poll should be so altered that "any candidate by his appointed election agent" should be substituted for "any person."

said, he believed the Bill to be a sham, and should therefore oppose it at every stage. He contended, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), that carriage did form a very large item in the expense of a county election contest, knowing, as he did, that several county Members had expended upwards of £600 in that way at one election.

said, he apprehended the effect of the clause under consideration would be to legalize bribery. If he believed that the giving a vote for a candidate fur a seat in that House was a personal service, he should say it was right that that candidate should compensate the elector for that personal service; but if it was a great constitutional privilege for the elector to appear in the House of Commons by his representative, since he could not appear there himself, he ought to discharge the public duty of polling for the candidate whom he wished to represent him at his own costs and charges; and if he was too poor, or too lukewarm, the country ought to dispense with his services altogether.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing that the Committee was about to establish a novel principle. It had never yet been decided that the simple payment of the expenses of a voter going to the poll by a candidate at an election was illegal; and that being so, if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster was a good one, bribery must have been practised at every election in this country from time immemorial. He did not think any Judge would ever listen to the question, whether a third, a second, or a first-class carriage, was fit for a particular voter, if the matter were brought forward as a charge of bribery. The law, however, being in a most uncertain state, he submitted it was the duty of the Legislature to settle this question by a distinct enactment. The clause, as proposed to be amended by his right hon. Friend, removed all uncertainty on the matter; and the Government, in adopting it, left it to the common sense of the country to form its opinion upon it.

contended that by the clause under consideration candidates at an election might not stand on equal terms. A good man, though poor, might say he was prepared to pay all the necessary legal expenses; but another, possessing great wealth, might say he was determined to carry the election, cost what it might, and therefore was ready to spend large sums of money in bringing his voters to the poll. It would be easy to foresee the result of so unequal a contest. The poor man would retire or be beaten, and the rich candidate would carry his election.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down. In a borough like Kidderminster nothing could be more easy or proper than to prohibit the system of conveying voters to the poll; but in counties, where the freeholders were scattered over an extensive area, it was obvious that great numbers of them would be practically disfranchised if they were not furnished with the means of travelling to the poll. He thought that the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was the one which would best meet the case; but with regard to the proposition made that all these payments should be illegal, he should have no hesitation in negativing that.

said, he would suggest that the risk of the allowance of travelling expenses being used as an instrument of bribery might be prevented by making the payment of such expenses through an impartial medium, rather than through an agent of any of the candidates.

insisted, on the very principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), that the poor or infirm voter ought to be conveyed to the poll, and to be placed in a position to express his opinions in that House, through the representative of his choice, as well as his richer neighbour. He denied that in counties they would ever do away with the necessity of the voters having to travel some distance to the poll, however much they might multiply the number of polling places; besides, by multiplying polling places, almost as many poll clerks might be required as there were voters.

said, the proposition now before them was to insert the word "not;" but he trusted that the Committee would permit him to put the question upon its real merits. If not, and the Amendment was carried, he should have to amend the rest of the clause according to his own views.

said, he thought this clause would introduce a system of ruinous expense into elections for counties; and that where travelling was not really necessary a charge would be made by voters. He thought that the course suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was the best that could be taken.

said, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]

said, he proposed in Clause 1, after the word "lawful," to insert "in election of knights of the shire, but shall not be lawful in elections of burgesses." The object of his Amendment was to prevent the clause applying to cities and boroughs where he thought it was not necessary that conveyances should be provided for voters, in consequence of their having but a very short distance to go.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that what was good for the counties was also applicable to the boroughs. He had never witnessed an election going on in a metropolitan borough without seeing omnibuses and cabs provided without number for the purpose of bringing voters to the poll.

said, Shoreham was a borough which was sixteen miles in length, and Oldham, which he represented, was also very large, many of the voters living in outlying townships. If this Amendment were agreed to, it would disfranchise half the constituents of Oldham. He thought that the course proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was the best that could be adopted.

said, there were many boroughs in the kingdom in which it would be quite impossible for some of the electors, living at a distance, to come to the poll unless a means of conveyance were supplied to them. He had, however, the utmost contempt for everything in the shape of bribery.

said, he thought the question in dispute was really whether the Members of that House were to pay for their seats or not; and, considering how hon. Members sat there night after night throughout half the year, and often far into the morning, to their own personal inconvenience, it was not too much to ask the constituencies to make some little sacrifice in the exercise of the franchise. There was a feeling however that if they could only make elections expensive, they would prevent persons who were not rich from getting into the House.

said, he was in favour of legalizing bare travelling expenses, and therefore he wished to see an express de- claration of the legality of such expenses in the Bill.

contended that, after the decision in "Cooper v. Slade," which was a proper and righteous one, if the Committee now interfered to legalize travelling expenses they would reopen the whole question, and put it in the power of any one to make a corrupt bargain with a voter.

said, he would now move to amend the clause, so as to make it lawful for "any candidate, or his agents by him appointed in writing, according to the provisions of the first-mentioned Act" (the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102), instead of "any person," as the clause originally stood, to pay the actual travelling expenses bonâ fide incurred in bringing any voter to the poll.

said, the question between him and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was, whether candidates should pay voters money, or only provide them with the means of conveyance. He now rose to propose the Amendment to which he had alluded, and to move the omission of the words "to pay the actual travelling expenses," and the substitution of the words "to provide conveyance for any voter for the purpose of an election, but it shall not be lawful to pay any money or give any valuable consideration to a voter for or in respect of his travelling expenses for such purpose." He proposed that Amendment in the Radical interest, because he wanted the poor voters to come to the poll, and the rich gentlemen to understand that there were poor people whose interests required protection.

said, he wished to call attention to an Amendment he had put upon the paper, which was in Clause 1, line 15, to leave out all after "pay," and insert "travelling expenses to voters resident above one mile from their place of polling; provided always, that such payments should not exceed ls. per mile to every such voter for any distance less than ten miles, and 6d. per mile for every additional mile; provided also, that if the distance to be travelled by any such voter exceed ten miles, and there be available railway accommodation, the payment of travelling expenses shall not exceed the maximum rate of fare chargeable on such railway for such dis- tance." if the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets were rejected, he would take the sense of the Committee upon his (Mr. Hugessen's) proposition, and under that arrangement no advantage could be taken by one candidate over another.

said, he thought this Amendment would more legitimately come before the Committee after the clause proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had been disposed of. With regard to that proposition, he should be prepared at once to adopt it, as he thought it was an improvement on the original clause. If they put the money into the hands of a voter, they ran the risk of its being otherwise used than for his conveyance to the poll, but there could be no objection to pay the bonâ fide cost of such conveyance.

said, if this Amendment were agreed to, they would require to have an agent at every railway station.

said, arrangements might be made to get rid of the inconvenience suggested in a hundred ways; there would be no real difficulty in carrying his Amendment into execution.

suggested that the terms of the clause should be "reasonable" conveyance.

said, he thought that there would be great difficulty in carrying this Amendment into effect. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was bound to show how it could be worked in practice. He was prepared to resist this Bill in every possible way. This clause was an attempt to upset a solemn decision in the House of Lords, which was calculated to protect them against bribery. If this Bill passed, it would be clear that the House was not honest in trying to put down bribery.

said he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposed to do with the Civil Service Superannuation Bill, or when he intended to bring it forward?

said, that it was not his intention to bring on the Bill that evening; but he would defer giving a more definite answer to the question for a couple of days.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dreadful explosion at the Firework Manufactories in the Westminster Road, and whether he proposes to introduce any measure to prevent the manufacture of dangerous substances within a certain distance of inhabited houses.

said, that his attention had been called, and was now directed to the subject of the late accident in the Westminster Road, arising from the manufacture of fireworks: but he had not yet had time to determine whether any, and if so what, legislative measure should be introduced on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be pleased to grant him a day to bring on his Motion respecting the Subalterns of the Army, which he has been the last four months endeavouring to effect?

replied, that the moment the necessary business of the country was concluded he should be very happy if he could meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members on this subject. All he could say at present was that he should remember the question of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Barber, the British Consul at Naples, has received any promotion, or other mark of approbation, from Government for his great kindness to the English engineers of the Cagliari while imprisoned, and for his successful exertions in procuring their release.

said, that he was so sensible of the zeal and intelligence which had been displayed by Mr. Barber that he did not wish factiously to criticise the terms of the question put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow; but he must say that when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the successful exertions of Mr. Barber in procuring the release of the engineers he attributed to that Gentleman a monopoly remembering the exertions and ability of Mr. Lyons, he (Mr. FitzGerald) should not be inclined to admit. Passing that by, he might say that no one had been more sensible of the merits of Mr. Barber, or of the value of his services, than were Her Majesty's Government, nor had any one been more anxious to give to him at the proper time a fitting recompense for his services. That was shown by the fact that when the Cagliari was to be restored to Sardinia Her Majesty's Government appointed Mr. Barber, although not a naval officer, to perform that duty, because it would place him in a position to receive the personal thanks of the Sardinian Government, and of the Sovereign of that country. At the first moment they had it in their power the Government expressed to Mr. Barber, their approbation of his services, and within the last few days, subject to the approval of Her Majesty, they had appointed him to a post which, amid other advantages, was of double the value of that which he had hitherto held in Naples.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, whether he intends, before the Recess, to propose to Parliament any measure for altering the present sale of payment to Medical officers of Poor Law Unions?

said, that he was willing to admit that the state of the law on this subject was very unsatisfactory, but nothing could be done in the way of legislation upon it until the next Session of Parliament. The subject was under his consideration, and he hoped to be able in the course of the autumn to communicate with the parties concerned, and thus to obtain such an amount of information as would enable him to lay a Bill on the Table of the House at an early period next Session.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received any information as to the occupation by the Cape Colonists of the territory between the Kei and Keiskamma, which has been temporarily evacuated by the Kafirs driven forth by starvation, and whether such a policy has received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government? Whether the last advices from the Cape afford any probability of the early termination of the hostilities now raging between the Orange Free State and Moshesh, the chief of the Bassutas; and whether Sir George Grey has offered to exercise his friendly offices as mediator between the two parties?

said, the Government had not received information of the occupation by the Cape Colonists of the territory between the Kei and Keiskamma. The Governor had expressed a wish to establish military villages composed of German immigrants, but his suggestion had not received the sanction of the Government at home. With respect to the hostilities between the Boers and the Bassutas, the last accounts indicated no approach to a termination of hostilities. Sir George Grey had offered to act as mediator, but it appeared that at the same time the Boers had called upon the South African Republic for aid, and the latter was sending an armed force into the country.

said, he wished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give him a day for bringing forward his Motion on the subject of the Hudson's Bay territories?

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had a claim upon the Government for an arrangement with respect to his Motion, and to-morrow or on Monday, at the latest, he would make a statement as to the way in which he intended to proceed with the business before the House.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended, in the next Session of Parliament, to extend the provisions of the Titles to Land (Scotland) Bill to property held by burgage tenure?

said, that it was intended to bring in a Bill to amend the law on Tenures in Scotland next Session.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall have signified their intention of recommending that the Duchy of Cornwall shall be placed on the same footing as the Crown with respect to the period of limitation of title, Her Majesty's Government will insert a clause in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Bill to give effect to that recommendation; or, if that can not be done, whether they will bring in a Bill for that purpose early next Session.

said, it was intended to provide, by a legislative enactment, that those persons who formerly held under the Duchy of Cornwall, but would in future, as the result of the recent arbitration, hold under the Crown, should not be placed in a worse position than they were formerly, particularly with reference to the application of the Statute of Limitations. He thought it would, however, be inconvenient to introduce a clause to that effect in the Bill relating to the Duchy of Cornwall now before the House, but he should feel it his duty to introduce a measure to that effect in the early part of next Session.

said, he wished to inquire whether it was proposed to take the New Caledonia Bill that evening, and suggested that as Amendments were to be introduced it should be recommitted for that purpose, and printed with the Amendments previous to the third reading.

asked if the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies would have any objection to lay before the House an estimate of the charge which he anticipated would be cast upon the Exchequer by the formation and defence of this new colony?

replied, that it was his intention to move the third reading that evening.

Sir, I took the liberty of moving that the orders of the day should be postponed in order that I might bring under the attention of the House a Bill the object of which is the purification of the river Thames. The condition of the waters of that river has fallen upon the inhabitants of this metropolis, generally speaking, as an unexpected calamity; but I believe there has always been an observant minority in the community which has expected the catastrophe that has recently occurred; and I find that several years back, when this House, in pursuit of health, determined that the sewage of the metropolis should be diverted to the waters of the Thames, there were some persons of great authority on such matters who forsaw the consequences of that measure. Sir, all that they then predicted has been more than fulfilled. That noble river, so long the pride and joy of Englishmen, which has hitherto been associated with the noblest feats of our commerce and the most beautiful passages of our poetry, has really become a Stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors. The public health is at stake; almost all living things that existed in the waters of the Thames have disappeared or been destroyed; a very natural fear has arisen that living beings upon its banks may share the same fate; there is a pervading apprehension of pestilence in this great city; and I am sure I am only taking a step that will have been anticipated when I ask for leave to introduce a Bill which will attempt—and I trust the attempt will be successful—to terminate a state of affairs so unsatisfactory and fraught with so much danger to the public health. "If this be your object, it will be asked, what is the quarter from which a remedy is to be provided? Where are we to find the means and where the machinery for attaining these remedial results?" In fact, the question at once arises, which has been asked by everybody in this city during the last few weeks,—"Is this a local or a national business?" Now, at the first glance it certainly does appear that the inhabitants of a great city should be responsible for the purity of the river that washes its walls; but then it is urged, and no doubt with considerable force and plausibility, that the position of the City of London is of a peculiar character. It is not merely a city in Her Majesty's dominions, but it is the Metropolis of Her Majesty's dominions. It is a city of paramount importance. Here the Court is present; here the Parliament holds its sittings; here are the halls of justice; here is the centre of administration; and upon these grounds it is alleged that in a city which includes so many national interests, and where so many national institutions exist, the inconveniences which are experienced are of a national character and should be remedied at the national expense. It is alleged, however, on the other hand, that the very circumstances which are adduced to substantiate a claim on behalf of this afflicted metropolis to assistance from the national resources tend—when impartially considered—to a directly opposite conclusion; because, it is said, with equal plausibility, that the very facts that the Sovereign, the Legislature, the courts of justice, and the centre of administration, are to be found in this city, show that they must necessarily have greatly contributed to the importance and prosperity of the metropolis, and that if not the principal, they are, at least, among the chief causes of the splendour and power of the Capital. Under these circumstances, one is naturally inclined to ask—Are we, or are we not, to trust to that municipal principle which is so often eulogized in this House, and of which we are all so proud, as one of the chief characteristics of our constitution? What is the value of this municipal principle if it is limited in its application? Ought it to be so limited? If it is the duty of a population of 30,000 to cleanse their streets and clear their river, why should not such a duty be equally imperative upon a population which may be counted by millions? What becomes of that admirable principle of self-government, that system of local administration, of which we are all so proud, to which we appeal so frequently in our legislation, and in the influence and efficiency of which we have so much confidence, if when a great trial like the present arrives we abandon, as defective, the system of local administration, and we admit the inefficiency of the municipal principle; giving up all hope of relief from such sources, and declaring that this is a case which must be taken up by the nation, and which must be met from the aggregate resources of the people of this country. Sir, Her Majesty's Government having considered this question without prejudice, and with the utmost anxiety to submit to the House a proposition which would be adequate to the occasion, are of opinion that this is an instance which must be met by local resources. The object is to remedy or diminish a local inconvenience, and in their opinion means for applying a competent remedy should be provided from local resources. But then it is said that though in theory that is a very sound position it must be borne in mind, as I need scarcely remind the House is the fact, that, with the exception of a very small portion of the metropolis, which has been under the control of an ancient and celebrated corporation, the municipal administration of this great city of London—a city, not only the most extensive of modern times, but greater than any ancient cities of which we have authentic records—is still really in its infancy. In the disagreeable and difficult position in which the inhabitants of the metropolis have found themselves during the last six or eight weeks, they have naturally contrasted the enormous extent of the evils with which they have had to contend with the feebleness of the muncipal machinery by which only a remedy could be provided. We have looked into that question, and I trust also without prejudice. We have examined the conduct of that Metropolitan Board of Works which, not much more than two years ago, was instituted by Parliament to constitute the powerful and efficient municipality of this great city. That body has, however, beyond all question, not hitherto proved itself to be very effective in carrying out those works which come within its control. It must at the same time be borne in mind that the period of its existence has, as yet, been brief, and that although the Legislature has committed to its hands the performance of great and important duties, we have not combined with those duties the power adequate to their due discharge. I hope that I have now given a fair and impartial summary of the position in which the Metropolitan Board of Works has been placed by Parliament. Well, the question then arises, can we invest that body—which occupies the influential position of the municipality of this metropolis, and which is, as a consequence, the body to which we ought to appeal in those instances in which grievances connected with the metropolis should be remedied—with powers adequate to the accomplishment of that great work which we are all so anxious to promote? You will, generally speaking, find the corporation of a great city like London—the capital of an ancient kingdom—in possession of considerable estates, and when under those circumstances a large and unexpected demand upon its resources and energies arises, it has the means of raising the funds necessary for the performance of the work which it may be called upon to execute. We have, however, in the present instance to deal with a corporation which has great duties to discharge, and which nominally is intrusted with great powers for the purpose, but which in reality is almost completely denuded of all means of raising a considerable sum of money. In theory, it is true, its members have the power to avail themselves of large resources. They possess the power of rating, and of rating, I believe, to an unlimited extent, the inhabitants of those districts the affairs of which they administer. The House must, however, on reflection perceive that nothing is more illusory than a rate, and no means of raising money is more unsatisfactory, no matter how liberal the language used by the Legislature may be, than a rating power whenever a large amount is sought to be obtained. A corporation being called upon to invest capital to a considerable extent in public works very naturally does not anticipate that it is to be furnished with that capital out of its income. If, indeed, it should happen to be in the possession of large estates it might raise the necessary sum of money at a moderate rate of interest; but in dealing with a simple power of rating you must bear in mind that the rate exists only for a single year, and that therefore it constitutes, practically speaking, a security upon which no person would be disposed to make any considerable advances. When, therefore, a rate is the only security which you have to offer you are in this position, that you can procure only a small sum of money, and that too at a high rate of interest—a result which would by no means meet the exigencies of the case with which we have this evening to deal. Now, Sir, the Metropolitan Board of Works have, I am bound to say, given to the question of the purification of the Thames and the main drainage of the Metropolis very careful consideration. They have employed in the investigation of the subject a long period of time. They have availed themselves of the knowledge, the science, and the practical and personal experience of the highest authorities. They have arrived, too, at results with respect to the subject in the accomplishment of which they place complete confidence. They in no way shrink from the responsibility of endeavouring to effect an object which we all have so much at heart, and which it will certainly become their paramount duty to use every means in their power to attain, provided Parliament will only place them in a position in which the remedies which they have in contemplation may be effectually brought to bear. Now, the expenditure which it would be necessary to incur in order to secure that end—in order to cleanse and purify our river and to complete the main drainage of the city—is estimated at a considerable amount. It cannot, indeed, be computed at much less than £3,000,000; and now comes the question, how is that expenditure to be met? In reply to that question, I have to state, in the first instance, that Her Majesty's Government propose, for the consideration and, as I trust, for the final adoption, of the House the following scheme. We propose to take steps by means of which this new corporation to which I have referred should find itself in the possession of a considerable income—I shall not say of a permanent, but at all events not of a transient character; that, in other words, it should have an income at its command for a considerable number of years, which will enable it to effect all those objects which we now seek to accomplish. In order to carry out those views we propose that Parliament should interpose and impose a rate on the inhabitants of the Metropolis, which shall form a special rate, for the purpose of purifying the river and completing the main drainage of the city; a rate which shall be confined to the promotion of those objects only, and which shall be denominated in legislation and practice "The Main Sewage rate of the Metropolis." We propose that it should be, both as regards its amount and the duration of the period of its imposition, a tax which should effect these two objects—namely, that it should supply the necessary funds for the accomplishment of the great work which I have mentioned—the cost of which, as I said before, we cannot estimate at a less sum than £3,000,000—and that it should furnish a basis upon which engagements may be entered into, conditions subscribed, and regulations made under the direction of competent authorities—to whom I shall subsequently more particularly refer—by means of which, at the expiration of the period during which the rate may be levied—a sinking fund having been in simultaneous action—the complete extinction of the whole of the debt which may be contracted for the attainment of the end which we have in view may take place. If that result can be brought about, it will, in our opinion, be found to furnish a satisfactory solution of the financial part of the question. Now, we are informed, and I have documents before me which afford evidence of the justice of the calculation, that a rate of not more than 3d. in the pound, levied for a term of forty years, will be sufficient to provide funds for the completion of the whole of the main drainage of the Metropolis, and at the same time furnish a sinking fund which, at the end of that period, will enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to liquidate the debt which they shall have incurred in order to carry this scheme into execution. That this result may be arrived at, an appeal—and to my mind an appeal of a legitimate character—has been made to Her Majesty's Government for assistance. It is not an appeal made on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works to aid them by an advance of the public money or by contributing by a tax levied upon the community generally to meet any portion of an expenditure which, although considerable in amount, is still of a local nature. They simply ask us to assist them, as we have been in the habit of assisting the prosecutors of public works in almost every portion of the kingdom. The House cannot fail to be aware that there is a machinery in existence through the medium of which pecuniary aid is extended at a moderate rate of interest, for the purpose of promoting public enterprises, such, for instance, as the building of bridges, gaols, and other public institutions, and which also provides the mode in which those advances should be repaid. The establishment through whose agency this is effected is known under the name of the Exchequer-bills Loan Commissioners Advances; but its powers and resources, I may add, are of too limited a character to enable us to avail ourselves of its interference in the present instance. We propose, however, to attain the end at which we aim by means of a machinery, if not of a precisely similar, at all events of an analogous character. The House will perceive that if we invest the Metropolitan Board of Works with the power of levying a rate of 3d. for a period of forty years, which would amount to about £140,000 per annum, they would then be in the possession of a considerable, though, not altogether permanent income, and would have it in their power to raise money. But another difficulty arises then—the money requisite. Most of those institutions in this metropolis which have large amounts of capital at their disposal, are prevented, either by by-laws or by conditions in their deeds of incorporation and settlement, from lending their capital except upon real securities or upon the security of the public funds. Therefore they would not be enabled to lend money to the Metropolitan Board of Works, even if it be endowed with this power of raising a revenue of £140,000 a year for forty years, and even if they would be satisfied with such security. What, under these circumstances, we propose is, that the Government should guarantee the principal and interest of the sums which the Metropolitan Board of Works may wish to raise for the fulfilment of the task imposed upon them upon certain conditions. We propose that the Government should guarantee capital and interest as to the sum of £3,000,000, provided the Metropolitan Board of Works raises this revenue of £140,000 a year for forty years, subject to conditions which are contained in this Bill, which will place the financial operation under the control of the Treasury, by which means we shall secure not only the payment of the interest, but also the regular operation of the sinking fund. We propose that we should guarantee these advances up to £3,000,000 during a term necessary for the construction of the works, and at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent, and thus, according to an estimate which we have drawn up, by the highest authority, the £140,000 per annum to be raised will not only pay the interest upon the £3,000,000, but will leave the debt incurred by the corporation entirely liquidated. It is possible, indeed, that the Government may not be called upon for a single shilling, for, with such a guarantee, there will be no difficulty at this moment in the way of the Metropolitan Board of Works raising as much money as they may require at that rate of interest. By these means the Metropolitan Board of Works will find themselves in possession of a sufficient and adequate income, not only for the construction of all works connected with the main drainage of the metropolis, but also for a sinking fund which at the end of the term will have liquidated all advances. Such, Sir, is the outline of the financial part of the plan we propose. Her Majesty's Government having now placed the Metropolitan Board of Works in an efficient position as regards finance—if this scheme be sanctioned by the House—had next to consider what should be their course as to the construction of the works themselves. After having given the subject all the consideration which its importance demands—and I assure the House with no desire of shrinking from responsibility—we are of opinion that it would be the wisest course, if our plan be adopted, to leave the Metropolitan Board of Works in perfect freedom as regards the construction of the works. We shall therefore propose, that all the regulations contained in the original Bill constituting the local government of the metropolis, which require that under certain circumstances it should be incumbent upon the Metropolitan Board of Works to apply for the sanction of the First Commissioner of Works, and under other circumstances to ask for the sanction of Parliament, shall be entirely repealed. We propose to give to that body ample and adequate means for the fulfilment of the duties imposed upon them, and we also propose that they should be left in the full enjoyment of freedom and of that responsibility which must result from the position in which we desire to place them. The Bill provides that the works shall be completed in the term of five years and a half—that is, by the end of 1863, and during that period the advances will be made. I anticipate, as far as I can at present form any opinion, that upon the whole we may reckon that £600,000 per annum, or £300,000 every six months, will probably be required to carry on these works. I believe I have now laid before the House a general outline of the scheme which we intend to recommend to Parliament. There are in the Bill many clauses of importance, but they are all details, and it would not be convenient for me now to enter fully upon what are proper subjects for consideration in Committee. The House will have to decide whether the course which we have taken is, upon the whole, the most prudent that could be devised, and at the same time adequate to the conjuncture. What we have sought to do is to make the Metropolitan Board of Works a real corporation; to invest it with sufficient funds—to endow it with sufficient power, and to give it not only power, but responsibility—a responsibility which cannot be expected unless we leave it perfectly unshackled and untrammelled. We have endeavoured to reconcile the attainment of these great objects without trenching in any degree upon the national resources in aid of what, after all, we cannot but consider to be a local work, and so far as we recommend Parliament to sanction any interference on the part of the Treasury, we have done so in unison with the general conduct of Parliament in such cases; and I trust the House will conclude that it is a legitimate and, under all the circumstances, a prudent application of that power. I have now, Sir, placed before the House the general features of this measure, and I ask for its leave to introduce a Bill to alter and amend the Metropolis Local Management Act (1855), and to extend the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames, and the main drainage of the metropolis.

was about to propose the question, when

rose to a point of order. He wished to put it to the Speaker whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to have moved for leave to bring in the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, seeing that it was a Bill imposing a tax. It appeared to him that, according to the Rules of the House, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have begun by moving the Speaker out of the Chair, and then have introduced a Resolution in Committee authorizing the introduction of such a Bill.

I beg, Mr. Speaker, to ask your opinion on this point. There is nothing in the Bill which levies a tax on the country. The character of the Bill is such as to show that it is not to Imperial but to local resources that we appeal.

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will not require a preliminary Resolution, provided the Bill is only an extension of the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but if it goes further, and pledges the public credit for any loan to be raised, you must proceed by Resolution, for the Standing Orders require that for a Bill for such a purpose you should proceed in that manner.

No doubt we propose to guarantee the payment of principal and interest of any money raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works. It is the main feature of the Bill.

I am not exactly acquainted with the form in which the Bill is drawn, but unquestionably if its main feature is the guaranteeing of money raised by loan, it may reach taxation, and the proper form of proceeding would then be by way of Resolution in Committee of the whole House.

I am not aware whether I can move to go into Committee without notice.

Notice may be given for going into Committee to-morrow; but by the rules of the House there must be a clear day between every stage of a money Bill from first to last.

suggested, that the right hon. Gentleman might bring in a Bill without the clause of guarantee, which might be subsequently moved in Committee, thus saving a day.

The question really turns on the form in which the Bill is framed. If it is framed for the purpose of draining the metropolis and granting increased power to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and there are clauses in it which refer to public money, there are many precedents in which in those particular clauses the House resolved itself into Committee and a Resolution was moved. But, not having any knowledge of the exact form in which this Bill is drawn, it is difficult for me to express a decided opinion.

said, he had a case in his mind in which the judgment of a Speaker of the House had been taken, and which certainly constituted a precedent which it might be convenient he should state to the House. The case to which he alluded involved these points; not only whether the House should proceed by preliminary Resolutions on the question of a money Bill affecting the Imperial Exchequer, but whether they were not subject to the same restriction in the case of a Bill for metropolitan taxation; and subject to that restriction also, even where the tax was purely incidental, and beside the main object of the Bill. The case was this: In 1843, it was his duty, on the part of the Government of Sir Robert Peel, to introduce a Bill which had for its object the purely social purpose of operating a change in the condition of the coal-whippers, and which Bill was obstinately contested at every stage. There happened to be a necessity for raising the sum of £1,000, entirely beside the general purposes of the Bill, in order to enable the Corporation of London to furnish the office of the coal-whippers with pens, ink, and paper, desks and forms, and it was proposed that that sum should be secured upon the coal duties by a purely incidental provision of the Bill. But when they came to, he believed, the third reading of the Bill, the present Sir Benjamin Hawes, who had been its keen opponent, took the objection that incidentally the clause which authorized the payment of the £1,000 might be the means of laying a tax upon the metropolis, inasmuch as it was a possible case that the £1,000 might not be forthcoming from the funds provided by the Bill, which were entirely voluntary, and in that case the coal duties might be continued, perhaps, for one day longer. In that event there would be a tax; and if there was a tax it would be fatal to the plan, and the plan of legislation would go to the winds. That point was formally submitted to the Speaker, and also to the law officers of the Crown, especially the late Sir William Follett, who were asked to give their opinion whether the powers conveyed by the Bill would be sufficient to enable the authorities of the City to levy the coal duties for one day longer; and in the end the Speaker decided that the powers granted by the Bill would not be sufficient for that purpose, but he also stated that if the powers of the Bill were sufficient, in that contingency, and in order to enable the City authorities to levy a single shilling additional on coal duties, the Bill was good for nothing, and there was no option but to abandon it, for the error was irremediable.

believed his right hon. Friend was perfectly right in the view he had taken of the precedent. He would suggest, however, that they might proceed in accordance with the forms and rules of the House, and not lose a stage by giving a new notice of Motion. There were clauses in the Bill, the object of which was to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to execute certain works, and which might clearly be brought in without violating the forms of the House. For that purpose he thought leave might be given to bring in the Bill; and in that case the portions of the Bill to be introduced would be those which affected neither the question of the extension of the rating powers now vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor the question of guaranteeing on the part of the country the repayment of the loan. The House would be entirely in order if the Bill were brought in in that form to-night, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hereafter move that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider Resolutions which would enable them to go on with the financial part of the measure.

suggested that the same object might be attained by introducing two Bills—one to extend the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the other to provide for the raising of the £3,000,000.

quoted the Standing Order which referred to the introduction of Bills by means of a preliminary Committee, and said, I have not the least doubt of the power of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the Bill; and if the clauses referring to the raising of the money were guarded by being passed through a preliminary Committee of the whole House, all that is required by the forms of the House will be accomplished.

called attention to another Standing Order, of the 29th of March, 1707, which provided—

"That this House will not proceed upon any Petition, Motion, or Bill, for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, but in Committee of the whole House."

That had been held to involve all questions of guarantee or whatever might become a charge upon the Consolidated Fund.

then put the Question,

"That Leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Main Drainage of the Metropolis."

said, he had also heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had always repudiated the idea of this metropolis being dependent upon the Executive Government for the management of its affairs. What he desired to remark, however, was, that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that he was disposed upon some future occasion to enter fully and completely into the question, and to consummate the good work which he had inaugurated that night. The right hon. Gentleman had truly observed that the metropolis had no corporate fund such as that which it would have possessed had it been an ancient institution like the Corporation of the City of London or Liverpool. Why was it in this position? Because it had been played and trifled with from century to century by the Ministers of the Crown. The Imperial Government, undertaking to some extent to manage the affairs of the metropolis, had indemnified itself for so doing by levying taxes upon the inhabitants and appropriating them to the public Exchequer. Now, that might have been justifiable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer took upon himself the responsibility of paying for all the great works, and it would have been equally justifiable to pursue the system if, for example, the right hon. Gentleman found money for the main drainage which was now required. But how did the Exchequer treat the inhabitants of the metropolis? In the first place, it had levied upon them a Hackney Coach Tax, which, in 1851, amounted to £95,000 per annum, and in 1855, after its reduction, to £73,000. This was entirely a local tax; and between this and the next Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared to employ his comprehensive mind in reviewing the whole of the circumstances of the case, for when he laid down the principle that the metropolis had no claim upon the national Exchequer, he must also adopt the principle that the national Exchequer had no claim upon the local resources of the metropolis. Another charge which, though professedly a national tax, bore with peculiar weight upon the metropolis was the Stage Coach Tax. How did that tax operate? Why, that in 1855 the metropolis, with its two millions and a half of inhabitants, paid no less than £80,000, whilst the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, with its twenty-five millions of people paid only £52,000. So that the metropolis was charged with £75,000 more than its just proportion of this tax, which, to that extent, was, in fact, a local tax upon its inhabitants. This was not all. For the Imperial Exchequer and the little Corporation of the City of London had the right to levy a Coal Tax. Here, then, was nearly £250,000 more per annum specially borne by the inhabitants of the metropolis. But there were other duties which this little corporation, in the centre of the metropolis, with its hundred thousand inhabitants, levied upon the two millions and a half of people who surrounded it, and appropriated to its own purposes, He did not desire to see this little corporation extinguished altogether, but he did wish to see it assume proportions which would remind us of its former power and dignity. He did not want great dignitaries like the Lord Mayor and other City functionaries to devote the whole of their time to the peddling affairs of a small community of 100,000 souls, for some of these civic offi- cers were men of great ability, in the receipt of emoluments equal to those enjoyed by the heads of State departments; but he desired to enlarge their powers, extending them over the entire metropolis, and making them more commensurate with their great abilities and their handsome salaries. He wished, in short, to see the Corporation of London superintend the whole affairs of the metropolis, instead of being a mere instrument for gratifying the pompous folly of a few people in the City. Again, the inhabitants of the metropolis were taxed £280,000 per annum for the police, and the Commissioner of Police expended the amount without being subject to any contest, nor did he condescend to render an account of his expenditure to any local authority. This, with other contingencies, brought up the amount levied annually upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, by or under the auspices of the Imperial Exchequer, to a sum little short of £700,000, over the expenditure of which the inhabitants had no control, and a considerable portion of which was applied to none but Imperial purposes. But whilst the inhabitants of the metropolis were thus unduly taxed, a great extent of property was exempted from contributing towards any local charge, on the pretence of its being public property. There was no just reason why the public establishments, such as the Houses of Parliament, should not pay their fair share of taxation as well as all property now enjoying special and peculiar privileges. In passing the proposed Bill, the metropolitan Members should enter their solemn protest against its being assumed for one moment that they had justice done them in these great questions, they should rather regard the course now being pursued as a foundation for the consideration of their demands in another Session. The inhabitants of the metropolis were pressed down by this indirect taxation, and they might be led to entertain a dangerous ill-feeling against the Government, which they must consider as the cause of it, if they were now to be called upon to pay an additional rate to remedy the evils which had been entailed on them by the mismanagement of their affairs in former times by the Ministers of the Crown. For the sake of the public tranquillity, therefore, it would be the duty of the Government between the present time and next Session to examine all these questions, and to provide a complement to the measure wisely and judiciously begun to-night, dealing with the questions to which he (Mr. Ayrton) had incidentally alluded, by giving to the whole metropolis real and effective municipal institutions, and providing the resources requisite to enable the municipality to discharge the important duties it would be required to perform.

said, he regretted that he could not feel all the satisfaction which had been expressed by his hon. Friends (Mr. Williams and Mr. Ayrton). In his opinion the Bill shadowed forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very much like the play of Hamlet, with the principal character omitted. The House and the public had been given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman was to bring on a measure for the purification of the Thames; but up to this moment the House was in utter ignorance whether any plan had been suggested either by the Metropolitan Board of Works or anybody else which Her Majesty's Government thought would be effectual for the grear object they had in view. Indeed, so fa from the Government having come forward and made any statement of the kind, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carefully guarded himself against expressing an opinion upon the subject. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman said he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works; that he would take from them the shackles which were placed upon them by the Act under which they were constituted—namely, that the Chief Commissioner of Works should have power to veto any outrageous scheme which that Board might choose to adopt; that he had entire confidence in that Board; that he would not exercise his own ingenuity and look into the question himself, but come down to the House, dilate at considerable length upon the impure state of the Thames, describe everything that everybody was already acquainted with, and finally content himself with giving the Board some new facilities for raising money through a Government guarantee, for the purpose of doing—what? That "what" nobody knew better now than he did before the right hon. Gentleman rose to address the House. Now, be (Mr. Locke) did not feel satisfied with the present position of affairs; and he would appeal to the late Commissioner of Works whether, in his opinion, the suns of three millions mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could by any possibility be sufficient to carry out the works which the Metropolitan Board of Works had had in view up to the present time. He knew not what was the nature of those works, but it was his opinion that they would never be executed for that sum. Moreover, they had no guarantee where the sewage was to be taken, or whether it was to be conveyed beyond the metropolis or not; and that was the great question at issue between the late Chief Commissioner of Works and the Metropolitan Board of Works. In the interview which took place between the Chief Commissioner and the head of the latter body, the right hon. Gentleman said, "You propose to convey the sewage down to such a spot; in the first place that is contrary to the Act of Parliament which gives you your powers, and in the next place, if you only carry it there, whilst you incur an enormous expenditure, it will be of no advantage at all." It was then suggested by the Chief Commissioner that the sewage should be carried to a spot beyond that, so as to relieve the metropolis from its coming back again. What was the answer of the head of the Metropolitan Board of Works? "Oh, if you do that it will cost eleven millions of money;" and, it appeared that the sum the Chief Commissioner was prepared to put it at was £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. The present, therefore, was the first occasion on which he (Mr. Locke) had heard of £3,000,000 being considered adequate for the great purposes which were to be attained by the Bill. What, then, was the meaning of the present Bill, which had been brought down to the House with such a great flourish. Nobody understood it. Her Majesty's Government had not explained what was to be done. All they said was, "We will place unlimited confidence in a body who have hitherto done nothing. They tell us they can do for three millions that which, up to the present time, they have always declared they could not do for less than five or six millions. Such is our confidence in them, however, that we will withdraw any wholesome restraint which has been placed upon them, leave the matter entirely in their hands, and give them facilities for raising money to do—what, we don't know," and it appeared they did not much care.

said, he could not entirely agree in all that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he should be wanting in his duty if he did not tender his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government for having endeavoured, as far as they could, to grapple with one of the most important subjects that could command the attention of the House at the present moment. Still, there were omissions in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he deeply regretted. As they would have eventually to consider how the purification of the Thames was to be carried out, he thought the Government ought to have kept in their hands the power of vetoing any proposal submitted to them by the Metropolitan Board of Works, until, at least, it was sanctioned by that House. He was confirmed in that opinion by the Parliamentary Papers recently presented, according to which it appeared that the Government referees had condemned, and in no measured language, the proposal which the Metropolitan Board were prepared to carry out, if the necessary powers were given to that body—he meant the plan of Messrs. Bidder, Hawksley, and Bazalgette. He believed that for carrying that plan into execution £3,000,000 would not be half enough. Again, there were circumstances connected with the Metropolitan Board of Works of recent date which required some explanation, and which ought to make the House careful how it gave to that Board the power of rating the metropolis. He referred to the intended purchase of Berkeley House, in Spring Gardens, for upwards of £40,000. He thought it but fair and right that the metropolis should pay for all that might be necessary in the way of drainage; but he trusted that the Government would take into consideration the propriety of subjecting the large amount of Crown property in London and the Government offices to a fair amount of taxation. He did not wish to enter into the various schemes that had been proposed, or to give an opinion upon them, seeing so many eminent men differed regarding them. He was not, however, disposed to agree to a rate of 3d. in the pound being imposed on the inhabitants of the metropolis for forty years until he had some explanation as to whether the Government were prepared to sanction the plan he had mentioned, or whether they intended to exercise the right of putting a veto on that or any other plan before the Bill passed into law.

said, that this was the first time that he had heard of Government advancing money on guarantee for such a purpose; and, instead of having a veto through the Chief Commissioner, as formerly, over the Metropolitan Board of Works, the responsibility would be shifted on to that body. If the propositions contained in the Bill were adopted they would be virtually voting £3,000,000 for carrying out a plan which was at this moment being pulled to pieces by three of the most eminent engineers in this country. A great deal of evidence had been given on this subject before a Committee of the House of Commons now sitting on the purification of the Thames, and from the evidence given it appeared that if the sewage was sent to Barking Creek the chances were, that almost all the sewage matter of a most disagreeable and dangerous kind would be floated back again and deposited on the banks of the Thames. The Government acknowledged the difficulty they were in, and they took steps adroitly to get out of it, and the House received the announcement with considerable pleasure, because no one would have to pay but those who lived within the metropolitan area, and he was afraid that would carry the Bill. But then came another point, and it was this:—Suppose the Metropolitan Board should be successful, what course would then be taken to prevent the Thames being offensive, as at present, from its mud banks? The Board would have no control to remove them or other nuisances. The Committee on the purification of the Thames had suggestions pouring in upon them from engineers, chemists, and all quarters in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and they were anxious not so much to go through plans as to arrive at principles which should be insisted on by Government. His fear was, that if the proposed plan was adopted, and power was given to the Metropolitan Board of Works to throw the sewage where they liked, the House might have no right to inquire into how they managed the matter. Before the Government let go their hold of the public purse it should be quite sure on the subject; and, although the Metropolitan Board of Works were answerable for the expenses, the Government ought to take care that the outlay was efficiently administered. He wished, in conclusion, to know what steps in the meantime, while these alterations were being carried out, which would occupy five or six years, were to be taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the shape of palliative measures.

said, he wished to describe what had occurred between him and the Metropolitan Board of Works when he was First Commissioner of Works. About six months after the Metropolitan Board was created, they sent him a plan for the main drainage of the metropolis having its outfall at or near Barking Creek. It was impossible for him to sanction this plan, because, according to the Metropolis Act of 1855, it was declared that the point of outfall should not be at any place in or near the metropolis. He had therefore no option in the matter, and immediately returned the plan, stating the ground of objection. The Board then sent another plan equally open to the same result, and which necessarily shared the same fate. He then appointed Captain Burstal to consider and report to him at what point the sewage could be discharged, so that the provisions of the Act might be complied with, and so that it should not reflow into the Metropolis. Captain Burstal reported that the nearest point was at one mile above Erith on the south side, and at a corresponding site on the north side. At an interview which he (Sir B. Hall) had with the Metropolitan Board in November, 1856, at which Captain Burstal was present, the Board agreed to adopt the points of out-fall suggested by Captain Burstal and subsequently submitted a plan generally known as B^*, as contradistinguished from a former plain B, which had its outfall much higher up the river, and was the second plan submitted and, as already stated, necessarily rejected. As soon as plan B^* was received it was without delay referred to Captain Douglas Galton, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Blackwell, with directions that they should report fully upon it, and further, that if in the course of their investigations any better scheme should be suggested they should submit that scheme to him, together with their report upon the plan of the Board. The referees did submit a scheme, which he immediately transmitted to the Metropolitan Board without any special recommendation, but merely suggesting that as the plan emanated from persons of such eminence it might be worthy the consideration of the Board; such were the facts of the case as far as he was concerned. Subsequently the Board referred that scheme of the three referees to their own engineer, and associated Messrs. Bidder and Hawkesley with him, and they had agreed upon a plan altering in some parts the plan originally submitted, which plan he under, stood had been laid before the present Government. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not mentioned this fact in his statement, he believed the Government had already, to a great extent, approved that plan, and were prepared to sanction a very ma- terial alteration in that part of the Metropolitan Act of 1855 which determined that the outfall of the drainage should not be at a point in or near the metropolis. The point of outfall now proposed was, he believed, on the south, two miles higher up than the point indicated by Captain Burstal and acquiesced in by the Board, and he thought some explanation on this subject was called for from the Government. Into the details of the plan submitted he would not go, but he approved entirely the principle that they should entertain none of the absurd projects and ridiculous notions which had been submitted to the Committee up stairs, but should have the work carried out by means of intercepting sewers to remove the drainage, as he hoped, out of the metropolitan area. The real question was, what was the nearest point at which the outfall should be fixed? And on this most important question he hoped the Government would, in the event of any alteration in the Act of 1855, propose proper safeguards, so that the metropolis should not be polluted by the reflux of sewage matter. If this was not secured the works would be incomplete, and the ratepayers would hereafter have to suffer. Although the principle of interception was one which, above all others, ought to be adopted in any scheme for the main drainage of the metropolls, yet he did not think that mere interception would carry out all that was absolutely desirable. He entertained a strong opinion that some day or other a much greater work must be undertaken—one which could not be borne by the metropolis, and which must be a national work—he meant the embankment of the Thames. Every civil engineer of any eminence who had investigated the subject arrived at the same conclusion, and believed that this was the only way to prevent the exhalations which otherwise would constantly arise from the river banks. As regarded local taxation, the metropolis was in a peculiar position on this point. To a certain extent, it possessed municipal institutions; certain local boards created under the Act of 1855 were invested with certain corporate powers; but, in point of fact, they bore no analogy whatever to corporate bodies existing in other parts of the empire. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) said the taxation which was levied upon the metropolis, and which was not placed at the disposal of the metropolitan ratepayers, or persons elected by them to represent their local interests, and to be expended for their use, was £400,000 a year, but it really amounted to much more. That calculation did not include the metage of corn and other articles, which was at present swallowed up by the City Corporation. Now, if those powers of levying taxes were given to the whole metropolis, and the proceeds expended for the benefit of the metropolitan area generally, instead of having that power placed in the hands of the Corporation of the City of London, which was now a most insignificant portion of the metropolis, he believed there would be no reason to complain, for the ratepayers generally would then have those proceeds of taxation in aid of the rates, and in diminution of the rates to which they might be subject. As to the means proposed for providing the necessary funds for the main drainage, he must of course approve of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as the 141st Section of his Bill in 1855, when first introduced, contained the same special provision as that now suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he must again remind the House that it was no fault of his that the Metropolitan Board had not this power of obtaining funds when that Board was first created. He (Sir B. Hall) had urged the point most strongly, but he was so strenuously opposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and then sitting on the Opposition benches, that he was actually compelled to strike the clause out of his Bill. Respecting the provision by which the approval of the First Commissioner of Works was rendered necessary in certain cases, it would have been a great gratification to him if that duty had not been imposed upon him. It was a very troublesome one, and the noble Lord, his successor in office, was no doubt glad to get rid of it. The Bill enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer now placed the whole of the main drainage in the hands of the Metropolitan Board—it gave them all they asked for in point of means, and he (Sir B. Hall) hoped that the Board would show some symptoms of vitality, and that the ratepayers would not eventually be called upon to pay more than the Board now said was sufficient for fully carrying out one of the great objects for which the Board was created.

observed, that his right hon. Friend, in introducing this measure, had confined his statement to the general principles on which it was proposed to legislate on this important metropolitan matter, and in doing so he acted wisely and well, because unless the House arrived at distinct and definite conclusions as to the general principles that ought to guide the future relations between the Government and the municipality of this great city on this question, it was in vain to come to that House with plans, be they definite or be they indefinite, either for draining the metropolis or for embanking the Thames, or for doing anything connected with the duties of this newly constituted municipal administration. Therefore it was that his right hon. Friend was contented with explaining the general principles on which the measure he proposed to introduce was founded. These general principles, he begged the House again to understand, were, that those who had to pay for the works under consideration should have the liberty of deciding what those works were to be; and he did not know that he could put it in terser or more apposite terms than those of the homely proverb, which said "that he who pays the fiddler has a right to call the tune." He should be very happy to furnish any supplementary information in his power to the right hon. Member who had just sat down, and who was naturally jealous lest any alteration should be made by the Board of Works as regarded the points of outfall specified in the Act of 1855. Now, he was sure that his hon. Friend (Mr. Kendall), the Chairman of the Committee on the purification of the Thames, would bear him out in saying that if there were one thing that was established more clearly than another in the course of their important investigation, it was this—that they cannot arrive at anything like a conclusion as to the points at which the sewage thrown into the Thames would not return back again to the metropolis. He alluded to this because there had been a tendency during the debate, especially on the part of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke) to argue the question on engineering grounds, and to bring before the consideration of the House all the schemes that had been or that might be proposed, and to ask it to express an opinion, either favourably or unfavourably, on every one of them. Now, any one who had paid attention to the investigations of the Committee up stairs would know that it was absolutely impossible for any set of gentlemen, however well intentioned they might be, who had not professional and practical knowledge and experience, to form a sound conclusion on the subject. It was impossible for the House of Commons, constituted as it was, to express on a measure of this kind what should be or what should not be the points of outfall from which the sewage thrown into the river with certainty could not come back. He, for one, in his official capacity, must decline all responsibility in expressing an opinion upon that question; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had a right to ask, there being such very considerable doubts upon the matter, what security was about to be taken, whatever point of outfall the Metropolitan Board of Works might in the exercise of their discretion fix upon—what security was to be taken that no nuisance should be created by any change in the point of outfall? He thought the Metropolitan Board of Works had done wisely and well in determining that, should they fix on the points of outfall at Barking Creek, on the north side of the river, and Crosse's Point upon the south, they would deodorise the sewage there during six months in the year; and in the event of their fixing on a point nearer the metropolis than these two points, that they would then deodorise the sewage previously to discharging it into the river during the whole year. He did not know that any more practical or secure guarantee could be given that the discharge of the sewage into the Thames at any point should not create a nuisance, than those that had been mentioned to the House, and provisions would be found in the Bill to that effect. The hon. Chairman of the Committee which had investigated this subject seemed to think that Her Majesty's Government were wrong in not satisfying their minds as to what plan the Metropolitan Board of Works should adopt previous to introducing this measure. Now, it was utterly beyond the competency of this or any Government to satisfy their minds upon plans that required the greatest amount of professional intelligence and skill, and devotion to scientific details, and on which, after all, he must say, there was not an amount of agreement amongst those most qualified to pass their opinion on the subject to induce this or any other Government to come to the House of Commons and say, this is a plan that above all others satisfies the requirements of the case; we recommend you not now to adopt this plan and to become responsible for it, but we ask you to tie up the hands of the Executive Board, who should defray the whole cost of the works, and compel them, whether they like it or not, to adopt the plan. His hon. Friend (Mr. Kendall) would remember, in the course of the investigation that had taken place in Committee, they had other gentlemen there connected with great cities besides that of London, and a great deal of very important evidence was given from Glasgow. It was notorious, and he betrayed no confidence when he said that Glasgow found itself in as disagreeable a plight with respect to the Clyde as the metropolis did with respect to the Thames; but he did not find that the Government had been called on to dictate to the corporation of Glasgow how they should deal with the Clyde. The Corporation of Glasgow had called in the highest and most intelligent engineering and chemical assistance for the purpose of purifying the Clyde and preventing the nuisance, which they were informed was almost as disgraceful as it was in London; but no one ever thought of asking the Government to advise the Corporation of Glasgow as to how the matter was to be done, as the cost of the necessary works were to be defrayed out of the pockets of the people of Glasgow; and the principle of the Bill now introduced by his right hon. Friend was perfectly in accordance with the principle that it was not the duty of the Government or the House of Commons to take upon themselves to say to the municipalities of London how these great works were to be carried out. He had heard with some surprise the inquiry of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke) as to who were the persons to whom they were going to entrust these great and extensive powers. Now, he should have thought that the liberal representative of a great metropolitan community would not have asked Her Majesty's Government who the elected representatives of the metropolis were for its local management. If he really wanted an answer to the question he would give it him. They were the elected of the people for the purposes of local management; and Her Majesty's Government thought they could not better perform their duty in this matter than by acting fairly and fully in accordance with the wishes and views of those who do unquestionably represent this great metropolitan community for all local purposes. That was the principle on which this Bill was based, and he believed it to be a sound one, and that it would settle this question as satisfactorily as did another great sanitary and municipal measure connected with interments, which he had the honour to introduce when he was last in office, and upon the same principle—namely, by giving power to the municipal authorities to take such measures as they deemed most advisable for the removal of a great and growing evil. The hon. Chairman of the Committee had asked what temporary palliative for the existing nuisance would be adopted before the great works which were requisite could be undertaken and rendered effective. The hon. Gentleman would find that the Bill contained a clause giving full power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to adopt such temporary palliatives as might be necessary to prevent the evils complained of. He believed that when the Bill was in the hands of hon. Members they would find it was carefully and skilfully framed, and he believed that if the House sanctioned the measure, as he trusted they would, the country, on the one hand, would be spared the expenditure of a single shilling, and on the other, the metropolis would have the credit and glory of removing these long-complained of evils through a machinery and in a manner entirely consistent with the habits and institutions of our old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon community.

thought the Government acted wisely in leaving the Board of Works responsible to those by whom they were elected for the expenditure of the loan; but he wished the House to consider whether the mode in which the loan was to be raised was the best and most economical that could have been adopted. As he understood the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, this Bill would authorize the Board of Works to impose a rate to the extent of 3d. in the pound upon the inhabitants of the metropolis for a period of forty years. He took it that the sinking fund would not be by way of annuities, but the fund would be allowed to accumulate at compound interest. He would suggest whether as the Government took all the responsibility it would not be better for them to make a loan for that specific purpose, and advance the money as required through the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, who had a perfect machinery for the purpose. That would be the more economical course, and would avoid the necessity of creating a new department in the Treasury, which was not at all fitted for the duty. With respect to a question that had been mooted, whether the public buildings ought not to be made liable to the proposed rate, he would observe that the Committee which had sat to consider the question of exemption from poor-rates now enjoyed by public buildings had reported that, with the exception of buildings in the personal occupation of the Sovereign and buildings for religious purposes, there should be no exemption from poor rates. He thought there was no reason why the same principle should not be applied in the case of this sewage rate, nor why that House, the occupants of which would certainly derive benefit from the contemplated works, should be exempted from all contribution to the expense.

hoped that her Majesty's Government and the First Commissioners of Works would avoid committing themselves to any particular scheme devised for carrying out the works. The entire responsibility ought to rest with the executive body, which should be entrusted with carrying out the scheme. A question had been raised as to whether the Board of Works ought to be entrusted with this duty, but in his opinion their conduct had been without reproach, and they were fully equal to carrying out this great undertaking.

did not desire to enter into any detail of the plan that might be adopted, but wished to remind the House that the evidence before the Committee clearly showed that if they deodorized the sewage, it mattered little at what part the sewage water was turned into the river. Therefore it would be unnecessary to continue the limits within which the outfalls were not to be made. The cost of deodorization would probably be about £40,000 a year, or an additional penny in the pound upon the proposed rate; although, he must confess, that he felt apprehension that all the results desired to be produced would not, in the first instance, be derived from this measure; yet he thought it was a step in the right direction, and could not help believing that, had it not been for the veto given by the Bill of the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), the sewage question would have been settled before now, as the plan which it was understood had been adopted was the same as that which was proposed five years ago. At first, no doubt, the ratepayers, when they were called upon to pay the rates, would endeavour to diminish the expenditure, and he therefore desired to see in the Bill some provision by which the operations of the Board should not be rendered imperfect by interference of that nature. The money, he had no doubt, would be easily raised at 4 per cent. The Metropolitan Board of Works, it appeared to him, had at first set to the consideration of this great measure with diligence and skill; but he was astonished to find that, a few days since, they had postponed further consideration till October. He was inclined to think that the Board was too numerous for an executive, and that if a few of the most experienced were selected, presided over by the Chairman, they would form a more manageable and efficient body for carrying out these works. At all events, he would congratulate the metropolis on the probability that the great nuisance and evil of which they justly complained was in a fair way of being got rid of.

said, he must deny that the Committee now sitting had come to any decisive opinion on the subject of deodorising the sewers—the efficacy of which system he very much doubted. At any rate the evidence which had been taken showed that for deodorization a large space was required, and he doubted much if it could be accomplished without being a nuisance of the greatest magnitude to the metropolis. The works at Leicester were in the country at some distance from the town, and the whole circumstances were quite different. He did not wish that it should go out that the opinion of the Committee was in favour of the deodorizing scheme. He was glad that this Bill had been brought forward, and he agreed with those who said that the whole difficulty had been one of money. That difficulty was owing to the 141st clause of the original draft of the Metropolis Local Management Act having been struck out. The guarantee of the Government was what the Metropolitan Board had asked for all along, and by giving it the Government would remove the difficulty which the Board had to contend with. He was very glad to think that they were likely now to arrive at some conclusion. With regard to the position which the Commissioners of Sewers held in regard to the question, he was bound to say that if they had agreed to the original plan of Mr. Bazalgette it was pretty clearly proved that the plan would have turned out an entire failure. He had always entertained the opinion that, to make the work complete, they ought to carry the sewage to a point so low that none of it should flow back again to the metropolis. He was satisfied by the papers now before them that there was considerable difficulty as to the point of outfall, but he felt that they had delayed long enough, and that the work must be begun. There was nothing in the plan now proposed, he believed, to prevent the sewage being ultimately carried to Sea Reach, if it should be found necessary. As to the period of forty years, which was proposed for the repayment of the money advanced, he thought that the period of fifty years might be given, as that would facilitate the borrowing of the money.

said, he could not allow one remark of the hon. Baronet to pass without remark. The hon. Baronet said, he rejoiced that the Commissioners had rejected the original plan of Mr. Bazalgette, for it would have turned out a total failure. Now he (Mr. Stephenson) happened to have been a party to that plan, and was, therefore, practically acquainted with its minutiæ. As the drainage of the metropolis then stood, the intercepting system, as originally proposed by Mr. Frank Foster, and afterwards by Mr. Bazalgette would have been effectual, and would have saved much subsequent alteration in the internal drainage of London. But since then the improvements in the sewerage had been extended most rapidly, and they were undergoing such continual alteration that the plan that was approved of now, would be rejected six or eight months hence. He believed Mr. Bazalgette's plan was the best for the drainage as it then existed, and if it had been carried out, it would have saved a great deal of money, as a great deal of the internal drainage of London would have been rendered unnecessary. He thought the House was labouring under an error as regarded the question of outfall. They seemed to be under the impression that by adopting the intercepting system and fixing an outfall, they would be fixing themselves to a certain plan. That was not the fact, because provided they adopted the intercepting system, it was a matter of indifference whether the outfall was at Barking Creek or at Sea Reach. One point he should like to see the Government insist upon, and that was that the intercepting system should be carried out. If thoroughly carried out between this and next year, it would produce the most important benefits in the river. It was essential, therefore, that the system should not be delayed, but that it should be vigorously persevered in. It possessed this striking advantage, every step you took you improved your condition, which could not be said of any other plan. The great difficulty in the matter was the storm-water which came down from the surrounding country and forced the sewage into the Thames in a mass. Few persons would believe that a large portion of the area of the metropolis was below high water-mark, and consequently, for a great part of the day, perfectly tide-locked; and the consequence was that that portion of London was practically undrained for eleven hours every day, and a great deal of the sewage was constantly accumulating in the sewers above low-water mark. The consequence was that when the storm waters came, all this mass of sewage was swept out into the Thames at once, a great deal of it was deposited on the banks which were uncovered at low water, and thence arose those periodical visitations of stench which were so much complained of. A system of intercepting sewers would, in a great degree, prevent that; and then when they were constructed they might proceed to arrange the internal drainage of London at their leisure.

Sir, there have been so many Thames doctors, with their prescriptions, both in the House and out of the House, that I have hitherto abstained from increasing the list and offering my nostrum. But there is now before the House a proposition to introduce a Bill specifically upon the drainage question, and as that Bill will sanction increased taxation of the inhabitants of the metroplis, I, as a house-owner and resident for more than twenty years, feel that the question comes home to myself, and I must offer therefore a few words upon it. Although the Bill will sanction increased taxation, I accept it willingly, because it is a step in the right direction; but at the same time I must express my regret that advantage is not taken of the occasion for a more comprehensive measure, in fact for taking the bull by the horns. Admitting that the proposed plan for the drainage of the metropolis proves effective at a cost of three millions of money—but in my opinion much more likely to prove five millions—the mud banks in the Thames will be still left to exhale their pestiferous gases, and both banks of the noble river will be still left in a state which has so long been a disgrace to the mightiest and wealthiest city in the world. Why not, therefore, combine the drainage, by means of intercepting sewers, with the embankment of the river; cover the mud banks with wharfs, which being made national property could be let out at an annual rent, and thus the outlay, whatever it might be, by the issue of Exchequer bills, would be more or less productive, whereas, the proposed plan involves the entire loss of the outlay and the per- petuation of taxation, to repay money borrowed and the annual cost of the management of the drainage. More than fifteen years ago the celebrated Belshazzer-feast painter, Martin, begged of me to look at his plans and drawings for the embankment of the river, and my attention has been called to the matter frequently since. Last week a series of plans and drawings were brought to me, which embraced the novel proposition of collecting a water head upon the areas of low lands about and above Battersea bridge, which are overflown at spring tides, for the purpose of flushing the intercepting sewers. It has been proposed to deodorize the feculent matters, and to burn some of the gases from the sewers: no doubt both these objects could be effected; but they would only prove palliatives, and the advantages would be wholly incommensurate with the cost and trouble. The only effective plan is that of intercepting sewers; which if combined with embankment and wharfage of the Thames, would, I repeat, not only be remunerating for the outlay, but remove a stigma from London.

said, that in reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson) he wished to explain that he had not intended to say anything against Mr. Bazalgette's professional ability; but only that, as the circumstances had altered, he was glad that his plan had not been adopted.

said, that the question of outfall had been treated as an important one for the health of London; but, besides the various districts of London, there were other localities, such as Woolwich, Deptford, and Greenwich, which ought to be considered. The object of the inhabitants of the metropolis as well as that of the Metropolitan Board was naturally to get rid of all the sewage from London, and they did not care much where it went to. There was however an important minority to be considered in this matter, and he hoped that when the details of the Bill were known, fair consideration would be given to the question, and that hon. Members would not forget the very large population which existed down the river.

Sir, I think that I may congratulate the inhabitants of the metropolis upon the manner in which, generally speaking, the proposition of the Government has been received. So far as we are concerned the measure is chiefly of a financial character, and I cannot say that I regret that the Government have thought proper to limit their interference to the financial part of the subject. One result of the Bill will be to convert the Metropolitan Board of Works into a real corporation. It will give them power; with that power they will feel a sense of duty, and I cannot doubt that a body of Englishmen, elected by a large and enlightened constituency, like the inhabitants of this great city, will do their duty, and that their conduct will entitle them to the confidence and respect of their fellow-citizens. We have given them great responsibility, but we have also given them considerable resources, and I think that the union will be satisfactory. I will not touch upon the scientific portion of the question, which scarcely comes within the scope of the Bill; but I may tell my hon. Friend, who speaks with authority on the subject (Mr. Stephenson), that we make it a condition with the Metropolitan Board of Works that in effecting the object which we desire, that result shall be attained by the system of intercepting sewers, and that provision shall be made for such temporary and permanent works of deodorization as the metropolis has a right to require. With respect to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), that assistance should be given to the Board of Works by the Exchequer-bill Loan Commissioners, I may repeat that we did consider that proposition, but that the result of our deliberations led us to a different conclusion from that at which the hon. Gentleman has arrived. I see no reason whatever why under this Bill any advance of public money need take place. The Board will have the power of issuing bonds and debentures, which probably they will do at a fixed rate of interest, and they will obtain for them a sum of money according to the rate of interest in the market. At all events, they will have the power to deal with their own bonds and debentures, ad I have no doubt that they will become a very popular and satisfactory security, supported, as they will be, by the guarantee of the Government. Another subject of importance, to which the hon. Gentleman called attention, was the necessity of considering whether a large and valuable portion of public buildings should continue to be exempted from rating. So far as I am concerned, and I believe I speak the opinions of my colleagues upon the subject, I think exemptions are bad in principle—and certainly in financial legislation they should always be avoided. The Government had it under consideration whether they should not meet this point in the Bill; but considering that a Committee has been appointed to investigate the whole question, and anticipating from that Committee such a report as we have learnt to-day it turned out to be, we did not think it advisable to include the matter in the Bill. I cannot, however, doubt, that we are approaching a time when exemptions from rating will cease altogether. The practical effect of this will, no doubt, be to increase the resources of the ratepayers, as it will involve a large contribution from the Consolidated Fund to the rates, but it will be a contribution based upon sound principles of finance. The inquiry of the Committee, no doubt, has been limited to the poor rate; but the poor rate regulates all other rates, and if the recommendations of the Committee are adopted by the House, it will, of course, influence all other rates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who last addressed the House, seemed alarmed lest the Bill should lead to the removal of the nuisance from London to Woolwich; but he will find in the Bill a proviso which renders it impossible for the Board of Works to create a nuisance anywhere or in any way. But if that proviso were not in the Bill, I think the law generally would have come to the rescue of the district which the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents. On the whole then, when the Bill shall be in the hands of hon. Members, and when it shall have been well considered by them, I hope their mature opinion will be in favour of its details as well as its general scope. I take, I confess, a more sanguine view of the consequences of the measure than some of the Gentlemen who have spoken upon it. I believe that not only will it further the object in view, and go very far towards attaining it; but that it will give to the country perfect security for the advances it will make, and if there should be any excess of expenditure beyond the £3,000,000, it will not at all affect the security provided for the country. That security is guarded by a clause that renders it necessary that a separate account shall be opened at the Bank, under the supervision of the Treasury, and the proceeds of the rates for forty years can only be applied to the objects specified in the Bill. At first sight it seems hardly credible that the large financial result contemplated by the Bill can be carried out, to construct public works to the extent of £3,000,000 with a threepenny rate, and yet at the end of the operation to find yourself entirely out of debt; but the calculation has been made by a person of the highest authority. I believe the House may rely upon that judgment, and that the result will display the magic influence of compound interest when applied with prudence and discretion. I propose to read the Bill a second time on Monday, and with regard to an objection which has been taken on the point of order, I am empowered to state, that I have made no mistake in introducing it in its present form, and that no stage of its progress need be delayed on that account.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had observed that he desired to make the Metropolitan Board of Works a true corporation. Now the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted upon the principle of double election; but if this Bill passed, it would be found in process of time that the people who paid the money would desire to have the power of directly electing the Board of Works.

said, that he had at one time intended to extend the operation of this Bill to Ireland. As he found, however, that this proposition was likely to give rise to a good deal of discussion, he should not press the Amendment at this period of the Session. But he should be glad to give his assistance in extending it to Ireland in a future Session, if any hon. Member should be of opinion that it ought to be so extended.

said, that he should in a future Session feel it his duty to introduce a measure extending this Bill to Ireland; and he should be prepared to take a similar course with respect to all measures dealing with the common law, in order to make the constitution of the two countries as far as possible the same.

said, he wished to explain that the opposition of the Irish Members arose from their being taken by surprise in the matter of the Attorney General's Amendments.

said, he was glad the Attorney General for Ireland had come to the determination he had expressed.

said, that to the principle of the Bill he believed there would not be the slightest opposition; but as he understood that several Scotch Members entertained objections to this particular clause, he would only say that he had no intention of pressing it, if such objections were still retained by those hon. Gentlemen. The clause had been introduced at the instance of his learned Friend the late Lord Advocate.

said, that he entertained objections to the clause, and therefore heard with satisfaction the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not anxious to press it.

said, he should view the withdrawal of the clause with much regret, more particularly as it had emanated from so high an authority as the late Lord Advocate.

said, he would then move that the Chairman do report progress. He must complain that the hon. and learned Attorney General should have given a pledge that he would withdraw the clause if there should be any opposition to it on the part of the Scotch Members, and yet, when a division took place, he voted with the "ayes." All the Scotch Members objected to the clause and it ought to be withdrawn. He felt it his duty to resist the further progress of the Bill, unless the Government gave an assurance that some Amendment upon this clause would be introduced. He concluded by moving, that the Chairman report progress and obtain leave to sit again.

He must deny that he had been guilty of any breach of faith. The clause was in the shape in which he had received it from the Lord Advocate, with the understanding that it had received the approval of the general body of Scotch Members. He had learnt from the House generally their opinion on the subject, and he had shown his readiness to withdraw the clause, but he had no power over the proceedings of the House. When, however, he was called upon to vote as an individual Member, he had voted for what he thought to be for the general benefit of both countries. In that belief he should oppose the present Motion.

said, in deference to what he understood to be the wish both of Scotch and English Members he should withdraw the 9th clause.

said, he must object to the withdrawal of the clause, which embraced a great principle of jurisprudence, by which, though a question of property already decided by act of competent jurisdiction, yet the question of status could be again raised. It was a sign of weakness to withdraw the clause. He appealed to the learned Attorney General not to withdraw this clause, but to give his vote in its favour. He should divide the House on this question, and hoped the Attorney General would vote with him.

said, he feared there was some mistake as to the clause the Committee was discussing. The principle of so-called jurisprudence embodied in the clause was this—it enacted that after a man had litigated to the utmost in the courts of this country, and had established his right to the last, and had been put in possession of his property, notwithstanding all that, and his status had been fully determined, for the purpose no doubt of establishing his right to the property. [Mr. BOWYER: No, no!] Yes, yes; yet, after all this, his right might again be disputed, and a new litigation might be set on foot to disturb his right, if not his possession, and establish that of another person. The clause was a most mischievous one, and must have been introduced into the Bill by mistake.

said, he thought the clause could not have been introduced by mistake, considering the three eminent lawyers whose names were on the back of the Bill.

said, he hoped the clause would be withdrawn. He thought it was a most dangerous one. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) to withdraw his opposition.

said, he had been informed that, whatever may be the opinion of the late Lord Advocate, the present Lord Advocate was wholly opposed to this clause.

said, he would then propose to introduce a clause providing that except in certain cases, the Act should not extend to Scotland.

said, the Act related only to England, and a provision might just as well be inserted that it did not apply to Ireland or the Colonies.

said, he considered that a Bill of such importance as the present ought not to have been delayed until this period of the Session, when many of the leading Irish Members who were opposed to it were necessarily absent, more especially as many constitutional principles were involved in the measure. The Bill proposed to alter the tenure of office of Assistant Barristers, and enabled the Lord Chancellor to certify to the Lord Lieutenant, who might remove these gentlemen for misconduct or infirmity. That portion of the Bill had been reconsidered, and now the Lord Lieutenant could only remove those gentlemen on account of permanent infirmity. He (Mr. Cogan) contended that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant had no more right to dismiss these gentlemen on account of infirmity than they had a right to discharge them on account of misbehaviour. These gentlemen had political duties to perform in the revision of the electoral lists, and they ought, therefore, to be kept aloof, as far as possible, from the Executive of the day, of whatever party that Executive might be composed. The only excuse he had heard for the measure was that the Lord Chancellor in this country had the power to dismiss County Court Judges, but there was no analogy between the two cases, because the County Court Judges of England had no civil jurisdiction, no criminal powers, no political functions. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day month.

in seconding the Motion, said that in England we had thought that the best mode of providing for the independence of Judges was to render them irremovable except on the Addresses of both Houses of Parliament. The English Judges had a civil and a criminal jurisdiction, and in certain cases a political jurisdiction. The assistant barrister in Ireland was a civil and a criminal Judge and a revising barrister. The Bill contained two provisions; the first was that in the statement of the Lord Chancellor, that an assistant barrister was incapable of performing his duties, he should be removable by the Lord Lieutenant; the next was that the Lord Lieutenant might transfer an assistant barrister to any other county than that to which he had been appointed. They called an assistant barrister a humble Judge, but the matters he determined were of as much importance as any decided in Westminster Hall; and his independence was of as great concern to the country at large as the independence of the Judges of the superior courts. He should like to know why the Bill had been introduced. There were Judges of the superior courts in Ireland totally incapable of performing the duties of the office, and it would have been more consistent to have begun at the top instead of the bottom of the tree in making this change in the law; but those who promoted this Bill dared not do so.

said, the hon. and learned Member had asked a pertinent question, and he would give him an answer which would show the extreme importance of passing the measure. Nothing was more important than that the assistant barristers, who were dispersed in different parts of Ireland, should be capable of discharging the functions cast upon them. There were thirty-two or thirty-three assis- tant barristers, and during the last three years there had been thirty instances in which their three-fold functions had, from infirmity or other causes, been discharged by somebody in their stead. The cause of that was that their retiring allowance was so small compared with their income, that they had no inducement to retire when, owing to infirmity or other causes, they ought to do so. There were three classes of assistant barristers; the first class received £1,100 a year; the second, £900; and the third, £700; and the retiring allowance for all of them was £400 a year; so that those having the largest salaries had a very strong inducement to remain in their office as long as possible. That was not a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue. Now, the object of the Bill was to have efficient Judges to discharge the important threefold functions cast upon the assistant barristers. The first clause of the Bill, therefore, proposed a remedy for this state of things by providing that the assistant banisters could retire on two-thirds of their salary. He admitted that there was a constitutional objection to the wording of the second clause, which gave the power of removal on account of permanent infirmity or for misconduct. The clause was taken from the County Court Act for England, but he admitted that the words "for misconduct" might be taken advantage of to remove a Judge without due cause. His right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was, therefore, ready to strike out the words "for misconduct," and make permanent infirmity the only ground on which a Judge could be removed, while the retiring allowance was to be increased to two-thirds of the salary. His learned Friend also proposed to introduce words which would meet the objection that the clause gave the Lord Lieutenant undue powers. The Lord Chancellor would only be authorized to remove, and the Lord Lieutenant to sanction this removal, when the Irish Privy Council, composed principally of Judges, deemed the case a proper one. The third clause provided for the removal, upon cause shown, of the assistant barrister from one district to another. In Ireland an assistant barrister, unlike a County Court Judge in England, was at liberty to practise, and this being so, circumstances might arise which would render his removal to another district desirable. In this case, also, however, his learned Friend would make such removal dependent on the sanction of the Council, and also would provide that he should never be removed from a higher class to a lower one; and if that were not enough the Government would be prepared to withdraw the clause altogether. All the Government asked, therefore, was, to allow the Bill to be read a second time, that these alterations might be made in Committee.

said, he must complement the right hon. Gentleman on the clearness of his statement, but at the same time he must express his regret that the whole system with regard to assistant barristers had not been remodelled. These appointments at present seemed much like the Pool of Bethesda—every man who could do nothing else was made an assistant barrister. He thought great mischief might result if those gentlemen were allowed to practise on circuit, and he should like to see them put on a respectable footing as Judges. As to the mode of removing them from their appointments, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Privy Council in Dublin was only called by the Government of the day, whereas publicity was insured by an Address to the Crown, which he looked upon as the constitutional and the proper mode of procedure. He suggested whether it would not be well to withdraw the Bill, and introduce next Session a new measure, having general reference to the status of assistant barristers.

said, that he had undertaken this Bill in consequence of a request made to him to revise the retiring allowances of the assistant barristers, it being stated, at the same time, that the late Government had intended something of that kind. And when he mentioned his intention to revise the system, a hope was expressed that in so doing he would follow the system pursued in the case of the sheriffs of Scotland, rather than that of the Judges of the county courts of England. As to the present mode of removing an assistant barrister, he could assure the House that nothing could be more troublesome and difficult than to do so; it required as much trouble as to impeach a Chief Justice. This Bill was framed to meet that objection, and he could see no just reason why the House should not agree to it. There were cases now in Ireland in which the assistant barristers were so paralysed that they could not move, and yet they would not retire, because the retiring allowance was so small. Within the last three years there had been at least thirty deputations complaining of their conduct in that respect. The result was that these Judges were in the habit of appointing incompetent persons, at small salaries, to do badly that work which they were paid a large salary to do well. At present, by the law as it stood, an assistant barrister could not be removed from one county to another without his own consent. The operation of this law was, that when an assistant barrister got his appointment, he never changed the scene of his labours during the natural period of his life, and therefore became inconveniently acquainted with all the persons with respect to whom he had to administer justice. As to the mode of removal, he asked the House whether it was reasonable that the business of the House should be ever and anon stopped to inquire into the question whether an assistant barrister in Ireland was or was not capable of performing his duties; and that too when there was a clause in the English County Courts Act providing that those English Judges should be removed by the Lord Chancellor. He hoped the House of Commons would agree with him that there was nothing unreasonable in the proposition, and that they would support the Bill.

said, he felt bound to resist the Bill at every stage, as long as the second and third clauses remained in it. To the first clause, which provided for the retiring annuity, he had no objection; but the other two clauses raised a question of the highest constitutional importance, and he would never consent to have the constitutional independence of the Judges trenched upon. At the same time, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when assistant barristers were incapacitated for the performance of their duties, they ought to be removed; but the question was, by what tribunal and in what mode they should be deprived of their offices. In 1851 a Select Committee inquired into the question, and they recommended that these Judges should receive the same protection as the superior Judges. A Bill was then introduced to carry out their recommendation, and that was the present law; and in cases of permanent incapacity the Lord Chancellor had the power at present of withholding his certificate for the appointment of a deputy. His opposition was not based on factious motives, but the Bill, as proposed to be altered, would equally trench upon the constitutional principle as it did in its present shape. To make the Judges liable to removal except by Address from both Houses of Parliament was to detract from their independence, a principle that ought to be guarded with the most jealous care.

said, he bad looked with sadness and sorrow on the existing state of things. Session after Session the Lord Chancellor was making appointments of persons who virtually settled the constituencies. A just and adequate retiring pension ought to be provided to induce the assistant barristers to retire—if they would retire—though he did not believe they would for any pension below the actual salary. He approved of the tribunal appointed for determining incompetency—namely, the Lord Lieutenant sitting in Council; it would be a gross injustice to subject an assistant barrister to the expense of an impeachment before both Houses of Parliament. He implored the House to put a stop to the crying evil of the system of deputies, which had been so much abused.

said, he should give his opposition to the Bill on the ground that it was hastily and inconsiderately framed, and that it was inimical to the feelings of those it would affect. In his opinion, also, the Bill would tend to destroy the independence of Judges. He could not forget the remark of Blackstone:—

"It deserves particular remark that in this distinct and separate existence of the judicial power—nominated, indeed, but not removeable by the Crown—consists one main preservation of the public liberties."

He had heard of a case where the result of an election depended on the assistant barrister. Notwithstanding this, he should vote against the provision for removing them from place to place.

said, he wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the word "infirmity." He had neither alluded to want of eyesight nor of hearing.

said, he objected to the Bill as an infringement of the principle accepted by the House, that no one who was allowed to practise should be entitled to a superannuation allowance. He admitted, however, that such a principle was allowed in the Bills of 1851. He wished to see the Judges put upon an equality with a liberal retiring pension, which had operated well in England. It could not be right that a person acting as Judge one day, should act as advocate another day.

said, that the Irish Members on that side of the House would object to it in every stage. Every line, every word of it would be contested, and he therefore suggested that it should be given up for the present Session.

urged the postponement of the Bill, on the ground that the Earl of Derby had agreed to an interview with the Lord Mayor of Dublin on Monday night; and also on the ground that certain documents connected with the subject had not been laid on the table.

said, he would move that the Order be discharged.

said, he would propose that the Bill should stand for Monday next, and be brought on at an early hour.

said, he would propose to add the following proviso to Clause 3:—

"Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for such Grand Jury, or for such Town Council as aforesaid, to present any sum of money to be raised off such county or borough respectively in aid of the maintenance of such offenders sentenced to or detained in any reformatory school, of which the direction and management shall be exclusively under the control or in the hands of Jesuits and members of other religious orders, communities, or societies of the Church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows, unless such Jesuit or other persons shall have delivered to the clerk of the peace or to his deputy of the county or place where he or they shall reside, the notice or statement required by the Act passed in the 10th year of the reign of His Majesty George the Fourth, chap. 7."

said, he must oppose the proviso, and if it were adopted he should endeavour to prevent the further progress of the Bill. A very considerable number of the Reformatories to which young criminals would be removed were conducted by members of monastic institutions.