seconded the Motion.

said, as Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, he must say that the cases brought before the Committee were not of any special character, and did not justify them in inserting the clause, for which there was not any precedent.

said, as a Member of the Committee, he entirely concurred with the hon. Baronet who had last spoken.

wished to know who were the clients of the hon. Member for Sheffield; they certainly were not the corporation.

said, he regarded this as a most extraordinary clause, and one that would do the greatest possible mischief in encouraging litigation, for it would give to every old posting-house that was affected by a railway power to make a claim.

said, he was of opinion that it would be unwise to make special provisions in a Private Bill for the purpose of meeting cases which could be met satisfactorily by a general measure only. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Sheffield would rest content with having called the attention of the House to the matter, and would withdraw the proposition he had made.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has obtained any clue to the person who lately forged a communication from himself to The Morning Post; and whether the person who some time back forged a letter from the private Secretary of Lord Clarendon to The Times has been discovered and punished?

, in reply, said, there was reason to believe that the foolish and mischievous forgeries spoken of by the hon. Gentleman had been committed by the same person. The author of them had not yet been discovered, but inquiries were now being made into the matter, and he trusted they would be successful.

said, he had paid great attention to the point of order decided by the Speaker at an early hour that morning, but had not been fortunate enough to discover the particular Standing Order relating to so very unusual an oocurrence as the dropping of the other Amendments when the first Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee was withdrawn. He had looked with great attention to the Standing Order of the 19th of July, 1854, which was that to which the Speaker had referred; but, as far as he understood it, it put no restriction on moving subsequent Amendments after the first Amendment had been withdrawn.

In answer to the hon. Member, I think there is only one misapprehension which prevents him from seeing the application of the rule which I yesterday described, and that misapprehension I can at once remove. He says that when an Amendment is withdrawn subsequent Amendments may be moved; but yesterday, although it was proposed that the Amendment should be withdrawn, the House did not consent to that withdrawal, and the Amendment accordingly was negatived. The hon. Member does not appear to be aware of the fact, but such is the state of the case; and the Standing Order itself, coupled with this piece of information, will, I am sure, make the subject quite clear to him.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a question of which I have not given notice, but which is of great importance, and is one to which I am sure the House will be happy to obtain an answer. That question is, Whether it is true that the proposed Congress has been given up?

I am sorry to state that it has become necessary to give an answer substantially in the affirmative to the question of the right hon. and gallant Member. The first communication made to the British Government to this effect was by a telegraphic message received last night from France, stating that, in the opinion of the French Government, the Conference was at an end, in consequence of an answer from Austria proposing to impose conditions that were regarded as impracticable. We are now in possession of the Austrian despatch on the subject, and the substance of it is this—

"We shall require beforehand an assurance that all the powers which are to take part in the projected Conference shall be ready to renounce the pursuit of any special or particular interest, to the detriment of the general tranquillity."

It goes on further to explain that sentiment by stating that, as a condition to be complied with by the Cabinets desirous of peace, it appeared to Austria indispensable that they should be agreed beforehand to exclude from the deliberations of the Conference anything that would tend to give to any of the States invited and attending at that meeting any territorial augmentation or increase of power. To require such an engagement beforehand was regarded by the Government of France as being equivalent to a refusal of the Conference, or as making it impossible. The Government of England are agreed in that view of the case with the Government of France. All prospect, therefore, of the meeting of the Conference must, I fear, be regarded as at an end.

, on rising to move a Resolution on the subject of grants to Medical Officers of unions in Ireland, said, that, when carrying the Bill for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, Sir Robert Peel made certain promises to this country and Ireland of relief in aid of local rates. Those promises had been fulfilled in England, but they had not been fulfilled in Ireland. In 1858, a Committee of that House reported in favour of a grant from the Consolidated Fund to defray one-half the cost of Medical Officers of Irish unions, and the Committee of last year on Irish taxation endorsed that recommendation, and suggested that there should also be grants for schoolmasters in Irish workhouses.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he had always been one of those who declined to present the claims of Ireland in formâ pauperis, because it derogated from the national dignity which her representatives should assume in that House. He had always been the warmest advocate of whatever might more closely identify the two countries, because Ireland must benefit by the strengthening of that intimate connection. He did not despair of seeing the day when, from the subsidence of all disquieting influences, English capital would flow into Ireland, and develop her resources, in which event an equivalent return for investments might be confidently looked for. He trusted that the House would see the justice of placing all parts of the United Kingdom upon an equality, both as regarded taxation and representation; and when Ireland possessed a just influence in that House, he would be the first to advocate a complete equalization of all national taxation. In the meantime, he hoped it would not be argued that Ireland, with her 105 representatives, ought to bear an equal proportion of the burden of taxation. He thought the question now before the House had already been sufficiently considered by Committees of the House. In 1860, when he brought the matter forward, the answer he received was, that the cost of the Irish constabulary was borne out of the Consolidated Fund. Now, he did not consider such an answer either conclusive or satisfactory. The services of the constabulary were national as well as local, and during the last six months they had been engaged more in the maintenance of Imperial than of local interests, and, in fact, they were equivalent to 12,000 soldiers. The cost of the establishment, therefore, was properly defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer. The constabulary also were employed for the protection of the revenue, and the suppression of illicit distillation. With reference to the question immediately before the House, they relied upon the direct promise of Sir Robert Peel, and the recommendations of two Select Committees. In another form the sum of £10,000 was annually given to Scotland to assist charitable provisions for medical relief in certain large town in that part of the Kingdom; and why should Ireland be excepted from similar advantages? No species of relief could be of more general application, for it would penetrate to every Poor Law union. He hoped, therefore, the claim would be fairly considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the aid now asked for would be afforded.

said, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any length, as the statement made by the hon. Gentle- man who had moved the Resolution (Mr. MacEvoy) seemed to be a very fair one, so far as he could gather its purport. On a former occasion he had resisted a Motion on this subject on two grounds. The first of these was that the matter was at the time under reference to a Committee on Irish taxation, and he did not consider that any great authority attached to the recommendations of the Committee of 1858, because those recommendations were made after the Committee had concluded its proper duties, and when Members had absented themselves believing that their labours had closed. The more important recommendation was that of the Committee of 1865, and which was still under consideration. The second ground of his former opposition was that it was impossible to isolate a question of this kind from others relating to the distribution of charges among the three countries, and because he was of opinion that in this respect Ireland was in a favourable position as compared with England or Scotland. He did not wish to meet the hon. Member in a captious spirit, and he did not seek to escape from the effects of the recommendations of the Committee of 1865, but he hoped that the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion, to which Government were prepared to accede, without, however, renouncing the opinion that other portions of the subject of Imperial charge for local purposes required examination, with a view to the establishment of that kind and degree of State control which were absolutely requisite in cases where public money was to be given. It would with this view be necessary to examine the system in force with regard to schoolmasters and to medical officers of unions in Ireland, and that would be entered upon without any unreasonable delay, and after that was done the necessary provision would be made for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund. In reference to what had been said about the constabulary establishment in Ireland, and that the charges in Ireland and this country were not upon a footing of equality, he might observe that it would be the duty of the Government, in the course of the present Session, as soon as some necessary information was received, to submit to Parliament an additional estimate for further expenditure connected with that force. He did not question or undervalue the services of the constabulary, but the present charge for it and the pro- posed and necessary increase would render it the duty of the Government to investigate the matter carefully. When the Government, on the repeal of the Corn Laws, undertook the whole charge for the constabulary, subject to certain contingent exceptions, the population of Ireland was 8,200,000, and the amount charged for this purpose £486,000. Now the population was estimated at 5,600,000, and the charge was £770,000. In 1846 the constabulary cost 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. per head of the population, and now the charge amounted to 2s. 9d. per head. Irrespective of nationality, he thought that hon. Members would admit that this vast augmentation of charge demanded inquiry. This and the subject-matter of the Motion were connected as charges borne by the State, as to which the hon. Member would understand that the pledge now given by the Government was to examine into all the details of necessity connected with the question, and upon that examination, which would require some time, to make an arrangement, by a charge on the Estimates, for fulfilling the engagement to Ireland—whether positive or contingent he would not ask—that had been contracted for, assuming the charge recommended by the Committee on Irish taxation.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee of 1865, he thought the Resolution of the hon. Member (Mr. MacEvoy) was perfectly reasonable and just. He would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that not only had the cost of the constabulary been increased in Ireland, but taxation in that country had also been increased. He, like his hon. Colleague (Mr. Peel Dawson), never desired to come to that House in formâ pauperis, but at the same time he thought that Ireland should be put upon a footing of equality with this country. The constabulary of Ireland was an Imperial force, and in no way under the control of the local magistracy; and he must express to the House his regret that circumstances had postponed the hoped-for modification of the military character of the force. The real cure for the evils of Ireland was to be found in honest attention to the recommendations of Committees that had made inquiries with a view to doing justice to Ireland, rather than in such Bills as that relating to the tenure of land, which he hoped would soon disappear from the Order Book of the House. With reference to the present Motion, he must express his thanks to the Government for the course which they proposed to take.

felt sure that the Irish Members had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, after all, the Government proposed to do what would be only a tardy act of justice to Ireland. He could not, however, understand what connection the Irish constabulary had with Poor Law medical officers and workhouse schoolmasters. If they went into a discussion upon the constabulary he should enter his protest against the notion which had been suggested by the Commission which had sat in Ireland during the last few months —that it should be considered a local force. The constabulary in Ireland were armed with Minie rifles, and they discharged the duty of an army. In the province with which he was connected there had not been a single soldier for fifteen years, and he believed that west of the Shannon there had not been one stationed for many years. The question how this force should be armed was lately inquired into by a Commission; and the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatch-bull-Hugessen) had stated in the report that it was seldom one of the constabulary had to act as skirmisher or to fire at an enemy from a long distance. Could any one have been humbugging the hon. Member, or was he indulging in a joke when he said this? Sir Duncan M'Gregor, naturally favouring authority, thought that the question of how the police were to be armed should be left to the Inspector General; while Sir Richard Mayne appeared to wish that in the most peaceable parts of Ireland truncheons should be adopted and Minie rifles laid aside. But, however the constabulary might be armed, he protested against any insidious attempt to fix any portion of the expenses of this army —for it was nothing else—upon the local resources of Ireland. It was a military force, and in many parts of the country the only military force; it was used to prevent illicit distillation, to collect census papers, and to obtain agricultural statistics. With reference to the last-named subject, he would remark to the House that if statistics could render any country prosperous, Ireland ought to be the most prosperous country in the world, for he verily believed that if the collected statistics of the last ten or twelve years were studied, you might arrive at a conclusion as to every hen and duck—it might be invidious to allude to the other bird—in the entire island. In hearing the eloquent peroration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night on the English Reform Bill, he could not but be struck with the differrence between the two countries. England, said the right hon. Gentleman, was remarkable for the growth of numbers, of wealth, of loyalty to the Throne, of confidence in Parliament, and of attachment and love among all classes of people. It was to be feared that this could not be said in bringing forward the Reform Bill for Ireland, and it would be rather a strange mode of dealing with these difficulties to say that the expense of a force over which the local authorities there had no control should be thrown upon the locality.

confirmed the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contrast the number of military quartered in Ireland some thirty years ago with the number now there. During this period he believed there had been a diminution of 12,000 military in Ireland, principally owing to the efficiency and good conduct of the Irish constabulary. The constabulary was in every sense a national force, and it was under the control of the Executive, instead of being, as here, under the control of the local magistracy. Sir Robert Peel had given a positive pledge in this House that the Irish constabulary should be paid out of national, and not out of local resources, as some equivalent—and a very small one—for the abolition of the Corn Laws. All that the Irish Members asked for was that Ireland should be put on an equality with England as regarded the payment of the schoolmasters and the medical officers in the union workhouses, and that was a proposition so just in principle that he was sure it would not be opposed by any Gentleman in or out of the House. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the straightforward manner in which he had dealt with the Motion.

said, he thought they were rather wandering from the subject immediately under their consideration; but the allusion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of the police appeared to be the cause of the extension given to the discussion. He regarded that as a small act of justice to Ireland; but he should add that he did not believe the owners and occupiers of land were better treated in that country than in England. He would ask the House to consider the contrast presented between England and Ireland since the Union. Between that time and the year 1862 England had risen 120 per cent in wealth, and that increase had now probably reached 130 per cent, and she had increased at the same time only 30 per cent in taxation. In Ireland there had been no increase in wealth, and the taxation had increased 100 per cent. In England the population had increased from 11,000,000 to 23,500,000; while in Ireland there had been scarcely any increase in population. In Ireland they paid 6s. 3½d. for every pound of wealth they possessed, while in England the proportion was 4s. 3¾d. Such comparisons as these were totally at variance with the deductions of the right hon. Gentleman.

protested against the notion that the owners of property had any special interest in shifting the burden off their shoulders to the Consolidated Fund. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant General that there had been no increase of wealth in Ireland; on the contrary, there could be no doubt that the rental of Ireland had decidedly increased, owing very much to the establishment of railways and the facility which they afforded for the profitable disposal of the produce of the land. He regretted, however, that while taxation in England had been greatly diminished the taxation upon the one special branch of Irish manufacture had been so largely increased; and he considered it would be wiser policy to apply any surplus that could be spared in continuing to relieve commerce from the burdens that still bore upon it.

hoped that hon. Members would not be disposed to continue a discussion for which, after the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there could no longer be any motive. He was himself anxious on that occasion, as an independent Member, to thank his right hon. Friend for the liberal manner in which he had met this claim. His own personal opinion on the matter had long been known, for he sat on a Committee of Inquiry in 1858 and voted in favour of this grant, thinking it very undesirable that there should be a case absolutely identical, the treatment of which in the two countries was so very different. His opinion remained unaltered last summer when he received a deputation representing all the unions throughout Ireland on the subject.

said, he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer most sincerely for this concession, which would tend greatly to conciliate the people of Ireland.

, in asking leave to withdraw his Motion, remarked that there were arrears of twenty-two years' standing due to Ireland, to which he should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

observed, that if the arrears on both sides were taken into account, he was afraid the debt would be very much against Ireland.

, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying for a Royal Commission to make inquiries with a view to secure the better and more economical government of the Metropolis, said, he did not think that any person who considered the question could dispute the justice of the proposition contained in that Motion. The inconvenience and expense of the present system and the present state of the metropolis were felt and complained of by everybody. There was a universal feeling of disgust, at least of disapprobation, of the way in which the public works of the metropolis were conducted. But, while he complained that metropolitan government was at present conducted in a most expensive and unsatisfactory manner, he desired to bear testimony to the zeal and ability displayed fey his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, whose good taste in connection with the management of the parks he highly appreciated. Still, it was, in his opinion, quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to perform the very multifarious duties his office imposed upon him. They were so many that he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman himself was aware of their number and description. He found from a pamphlet which gave a detailed account of them that he had to maintain and repair all the Royal palaces and public buildings, and to take charge of all the parks in the metropolis and the parks at Greenwich, Richmond and Bushy, and even the Phoenix and Holyrood Parks; he had also to see to the public gardens, such as Kensington, Kew, and Hampton Court; and was an Inclosure Commissioner for England and Wales, a Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, a Commissioner for the Erection of New Churches, and the President of the Board of Health. Still, as the hon. Member for Stoke had said, the First Commissioner of Works was but "a semi-Minister." All the clerks and officers connected with his Department were appointed by the Treasury, and not by him; and he was without such powers as should be conferred upon a Minister for the government of the metropolis. When, however, it was remembered what large sums were annually voted for public works in London, and the enormous sums of money which were continually being raised by rates in the metropolis, and how many complaints were continually arising on all sides with respect to their management, it was clearly incumbent upon Parliament to see whether something could not be done to remedy the evil. The question had been brought forward twice during the present Session. On the Motion of one hon. Member a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and the Report of that Committee, as he understood it, recommended that some comprehensive scheme should be devised to secure the proper government of the metropolis. Then Sir William Frazer, not now a Member of the House, had spoken upon the subject. He had since published a pamphlet in which he described the minor miseries which landowners were subjected to, and which were not unlike those described in one of the satires of Juvenal, as existing in ancient Rome. In 1851 the separation of the Public Works Department and the Department of Woods and Forests took place, and in 1855 the state of things was so bad that Lord Llanover introduced a Bill which resulted in the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and as far as that Board had power, it had discharged its duties in an admirable manner, so that they owed much to Sir John Thwaites, as well as to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. But neither of these gentlemen had sufficient authority in his hands to control the vestries and to secure the good government of the metropolis. From the evidence given before the Committee of which he had spoken, he found that the Metropolitan Board of Works was continually in conflict with the Crown. It was partly in consequence of the bad way in which the present system worked that a saving of something like £700,000 had not been made by building the new Courts of Justice upon a portion of the ground secured by the Thames Embankment scheme, and Sir John Thwaites lamented that this was not done. Had a proper understanding existed between the Government and the Board of Works some arrangement would have been come to with reference to the proposal to make a road through Northumberland House before it was introduced to the notice of Parliament. Lack of unity of purpose on the part of the Board of Works and the Government caused the failure of many a good scheme. To what expense was the public put from the want of a general and well-digested plan for the purchase of those houses in Parliament Street which at present blocked the way to the new Government offices! It was absolutely necessary that those houses should be purchased before very long, and, notwithstanding procrastinations engendered expense the matter was put off from time to time, or only proceeded with piecemeal. It was the almost universal opinion that something should be done, and although it might be thought presumptuous in him, he would suggest that a remedy was to be found in the creation of a new Department of State for public works, which should be perfectly independent of the Treasury. The Minister representing that Department of State should move his Estimates in Parliament every year in the same comprehensive way as the Army and Navy Estimates were moved. He would not discuss the detail as to whether the Minister whose appointment he suggested should go out of office when any change in Government occurred or be independent, but he would offer one reflection to the House upon that subject, and that was that the House of Commons would, as a matter of course, more highly esteem a Minister whose position was affected by a Parliamentary vote. He would also suggest that the Minister should have two Under Secretaries attached to his office, one of whom should be permanently appointed, and that every proposed metropolitan railway should have the approval of the suggested Department of State before it was brought under the notice of Parliament. The Minister would see all the schemes and would judge which was likely to be most beneficial to the metropolis. He would, however, in no way deprive the Metropolitan Board of Works of any control over the vestries; indeed, he would increase its power in that respect. He did not see that if the two offices were amalgamated they would clash one with another. The head of one department might consult the head of the other department with advantage to the public, for in that way improvements might be carried out in a larger and more comprehensive manner, and with greater economy. He would for a moment direct the attention of the HOUSE to the way in which things were conducted in Paris. France was a despotic country, and he admitted that a despotism had an advantage over other Governments in making public improvements. The House, however, was under a mistake if it believed that the improvements in Paris were carried out by a despotic Government. On the contrary, the Prefect of the Seine consulted the authorities of all the districts when any improvement was proposed, and then the plan was submitted to the Emperor; afterwards an appeal was made to the different interests affected by the proposed improvements, whilst the plan must lie in a public office for so many days for the inspection of the public, after which the scheme was drawn up again and once more submitted to the Emperor. One thing was undeniable; there was a great contrast between London and Paris, and the latter city possessed an advantage not only in the magnificent appearance of its streets, and in all matters affecting the taste of a great people, but in the more practical items of convenience, comfort, and health. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware of this, and had borne strong testimony to the costliness and the extravagance of the system adopted in this country, stating that "nothing short of a revolutionary reform would ever bring it to an end." He therefore hoped that he should receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman in the Motion he was about to make. Mr. Baring, in his evidence before the Committee, stated that the number of persons run over and killed in the streets of London in one year was 142, and that the number of persons maimed or otherwise injured was 1,707. Now, he contended that improvements might be made which would diminish the risk of pedestrians in the metropolis. It was not therefore from dilettante feelings on matters of taste and refinement that he introduced this subject to the House. It was because of the enormous expenses at present incurred, with very inadequate results, and because he believed the present state of things was injurious to the comfort, health, safety, and even morals of the people, that he asked the House to support him in moving for this Royal Commission.

said, he was unwilling to introduce any obstacle to the fulfilment of the wishes of his hon. Friend opposite. But, however anxious he might be to improve the condition of the metropolis, the course he proposed was by no means one that was likely to accomplish the object he had in view. So far from his making progress by the suggestions he had made, he was rather moving backwards. The hon. Member had proposed to amalgamate three distinct Departments. Now, formerly those Departments were practically united to the extent his hon. Friend proposed, and a Committee was appointed to consider the expediency of there being one Department to administer the estates of the Crown and to conduct the works which were now placed in charge of the office of the Chief Commissioner of Works. The result of the inquiry was a recommendation that the Crown estates should be placed in the hands of one officer, and that the public works in connection with the metropolis and the public buildings which were used for the administration of the affairs of the country should be placed in charge of another officer of the Crown. Since then a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of reconsidering the question, and, after a great deal of evidence had been taken, it was determined to adhere to the course the House previously sanctioned. Consequently the two Departments had continued separate. If the hon. Member had sufficiently re-fleeted upon the subject, he would have seen that there was nothing in common between the office of the Commissioner of Crown Estates and the office of the First Commissioner of Works, and that each was fully employed. The Crown estate was scattered all over the kingdom, and the Commissioner stood in fact in the place of the Sovereign in the general administration of the territorial property of the Crown. What had this to do with the construction and supervision of all the public buildings required for carrying on the affairs of the nation? Again, what had those Departments to do with the Metropolitan Board of Works? That Board attended to the wants of the metropolis, imposed local taxation for local purposes, and must, therefore, be under the control of the representatives of the metropolis. There was no difference in principle between the municipality of the metropolis and that of Manchester or Liverpool as far as the levying and expenditure of money for local objects was concerned. How could a scheme be carried out by which a Minister of the Crown was to tax the inhabitants of the metropolis, and to make an expenditure on their account? If the view of the hon. Member (Mr. B. Cochrane) prevailed, it would be necessary that the expenditure should be levied on the whole nation, and subjected to the control of the House in the ordinary manner. And was the House prepared to revert to that old and confused system of expenditure from the national Exchequer for the convenience of the metropolis, which they were supposed to have been emancipated from by the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works? If, on the other hand, no interference with the Metropolitan Board of Works was contemplated, what was the object of this Commission; for what purpose had his hon. Friend developed his scheme of a First Commissioner with two Under Secretaries? The House had already appointed a Committee to consider the propriety of maintaining the Metropolitan Board of Works and to investigate the mode in which that Board discharged its duties. The first Report of the Committee, he was happy to say, had proved satisfactory to his hon. Friend. That Committee, he trusted, would prosecute its inquiries and be enabled to arrive at results which would put an end to the grumbling—for after all, it was nothing more than grumbling respecting the conduct of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was bound, however, to say that there had been a great deal of exag- geration as to the mismanagement and shortcomings of both the Metropolitan and Local Boards. His hon. Friend appeared to lay at their doors the slaying of thousands of persons annually, and his suggestion was that the appointment of Secretaries of State would prevent these people being killed. He remembered once reading the travels of a Frenchman, who, having visited most of the capitals of Europe, came eventually to London, and thanked God that he had at last entered a city where there was a way for. those that walked on foot and another for those that rolled in their carriages. And the force of that observation must occur to any one who, having been abroad and turned out of a leading street—perhaps one of half-a-dozen in the whole city—found himself in danger of being run over by any conveyance that happened to be driving along the road, foot passengers being put upon an equality with horses and condemned to go along the common street. In London, indeed, the effect of our admirable footways had been to make passengers somewhat incautious, and now there was an outcry for subways or flying bridges along which they might stroll in the same listless, careless fashion, that now exposed them to danger on the carriage ways. The existing difficulties arose to a great extent from the enormous increase of conveyances in the metropolis, and also from the influx of visitors from country districts, accustomed, perhaps, to see a carriage once an hour. How a Secretary of State and two Under Secretaries were to diminish the danger caused by the throng of omnibuses, vehicles, and Hansom cabs, compelled for the gratification of Members of Parliament and others to drive at a rapid rate, his hon. Friend had entirely omitted to explain. The question —the traffic—was being investigated by the Committee, and it was intended as far as possible to diminish the present risk. He did not know that it was possible to prevent accidents of this description. He had suggested some years ago the construction of a subway at Westminster, for the convenience of Members of Parliament, in order that they might reach the House with less difficulty or danger than at present; and he was glad to know that there was at length a possibility of the suggestion being carried out. Similar subways might be constructed at some of the other principal centres of traffic; but further than that it was not easy to suggest any means by which accidents in the streets could be prevented. His hon. Friend complained that particular localities were in a state dangerous to the health and prejudicial to the morals of the community. A Minister of the Crown, intrusted with arbitrary power to carry out his decrees, might possibly be able to bring about a state of things that would satisfy the most refined observer or the most scientific medical practitioner. But in this country, after having passed a law, there was a point beyond which the feelings of the people would not tolerate interference in compelling compliance with its provisions. The Local Boards were most anxious to grapple with existing evils, but their efforts were defeated when they had to deal with a population deficient in a sense of decency and propriety. There were undoubtedly some points on which the present law had proved to be defective, and if in these particulars improvements could be devised, they would be recommended to the favourable consideration of the House. But his hon. Friend was very much mistaken in supposing that he would advance this question by withdrawing it from the House and placing it under the administration which he proposed to create. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman would interpose very considerable difficulties, and much retard the consummation which he desired to bring about. He could see no necessity whatever for a Royal Commission. The House had already intrusted the prosecution of the inquiry to a Select Committee, and it would be inconsistent with the usages of the House, as well a slur on the Committee itself, to interfere by a new arrangement with the investigation they had entered upon. The analogy his hon. Friend had attempted to set up between London and Paris entirely failed him, because the system of finance which prevailed in France was totally different from that of this country. In Paris they adopted the plan called the octroi, by which a large taxation was raised on the necessaries and luxuries of Parisian life, and as foreigners from all parts of the world visited Paris to spend money and dissipate their resources, there was a great deal of contribution extraneous to that taxation. Gentlemen on seeing the magnificence of Paris, with its houses of splendid exterior, jumped to the conclusion that London ought to be the same; but if they entered those imposing looking mansions they would find that they were inhabited in a manner which was not favourable to morality or to anything which was desirable in social relations. A much bettor condition of things was to be seen in the small houses of London. In these every family was to be found under its own roof. He thought his hon. Friend had entirely failed to make out a case for special interference, and he therefore hoped that he (Mr. B. Cochrane) would be satisfied with the exposition of his views that he had offered to the House, and at all events he trusted that the Government would not consent to carry them into effect.

said, he felt greatly obliged to his hon. Friend for having brought under the notice of the House the condition of our public works and public buildings, which appeared to be failures from beginning to end. He did not concur in the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets as to the system of taxation in Paris being so different from that of London. There was an octroi here also in the shape of the coal tax, by means of which much more might be done than was now effected in the way of metropolitan improvements. A more efficient system of central control was required in London. Our public buildings and other public works were anything but satisfactory; and the conduct of the street traffic was very defective. It might not be easy to make London as handsome as Paris, but at all events we had a right to demand that some attention should be paid to convenience. He did not suppose that the Home Secretary had yet had time to read the evidence taken by the Traffic Committee. [SIR GEORGE GREY: Oh, yes.] But if the recommendations of that Committee were carried out, and if the different Police Commissioners agreed on general regulations for the traffic, a great improvement might be brought about. Everybody knew that what were called "refuges" were every day being increased in number; but owing to vehicles not being compelled to pass those "refuges" on the proper side many of the latter were little better than traps.

said, that although the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Motion had dealt with an important subject in an interesting manner, it was open to the double objection that it was inopportune in point of time, and that the changes which he had suggested were impracticable. A Committee of that House was already inquiring into the local government of the metropolis, and it would be neither conformable to the usage of Parliament, nor respectful to that Committee, to appoint a Commission to investigate the same subject before they had made their final Report. He concurred with all that had been said as to the defects and deficiencies of the metropolis, and it was only astonishing that the imperfect organization of the metropolis had been endured for so long a time. Though Englishmen were famous for comfort, London was the most uncomfortable of capitals. The pavements of one side of a street often differed from the other, because the jurisdiction of parishes ended in the middle. The crushing of the macadam was left to the carriages, instead of being done by rollers; the gas was dim and sulphurous; the water supplied to one of the public baths had recently been so yellow that working men would not bathe in it; and even now, when so much attention was given to sanitary matters, the vestries hardly ever enforced the recommendations of their medical officers, and declined to spend money for what was necessary for the preservation of the public health. The administration of the Poor Law was seriously open to criticism. What was the reason of all this? The ancient municipality had not been extended as London grew, and the rest of the metropolis had no better form of government than villages or country towns. The first step taken with a view of changing that state of things was the appointment of the Committee of which Mr. Labouchere and the late Sir George Lewis were members. One part of their recommendation was adopted, but the public was hardly prepared for the adoption of measures that might have been fully satisfactory. The time was approaching when attention might well be directed to the making of such improvements in the local government of the metropolis as might result in its being possible to traverse the streets with rapidity and safety. He did not admit that it was only country people who were exposed to danger, and were run over by carriages, or that nothing could be done to prevent such accidents. He thought that much might be effected by having proper traffic regulations, by providing refuges at proper places, and by widening the great thoroughfares, so that they might accommodate the enormous traffic which passed through them. This was not to be done by any revolutionary or despotic change, such as making the First Commissioner of Works a despotic ruler over the Metropolitan Board of Works. At present he introduced into Parliament the Estimates required to be voted by Parliament, but it was not to be apprehended that he could have any control over local taxation, and without such control, he could hardly control the representatives of the people who constituted the Board. Practically, a good deal of control was exercised over the Board of Works in regard to all public improvements of a larger character which required the assent of Parliament. He could not admit the justice of the complaint that land reclaimed by the embankment of the Thames had not been appropriated for public buildings, because, as was well known, it was not additional buildings, but open spaces that were wanted in the centre of London. How, practically, the House controlled the Board of Works was shown by the history of the Thames Embankment. When it was proposed to make the low-level sewer, the Chairman of the Board communicated with him, and a Committee of the House was appointed and recommended the extension of the coal dues for the purposes of the Embankment. Next year a Commission was appointed to examine plans and select one from them; in the following year a Bill was introduced by himself, and subsequently he framed two other Bills, one for the streets and the other for the Southern Embankment, opposite to the Houses of Parliament. Although the Commission had recommended that a special body should be appointed to execute that Embankment, yet he felt that, as the funds were to be found by London, its representative body ought to be vested with the execution of the work. In this way more efficient control had been exercised over the Board of Works than could have been exercised in the way his hon. Friend suggested. Whenever the Board of Works required legislative powers for the compulsory purchase of land, they were obliged to submit their scheme to Parliament. He concurred in the admiration which had been expressed for the results of the organization of the French, and he thought that we should do well to inquire how they contrived to make their administration so perfect. They certainly did not manage it according to the plan recommended by his hon. Friend who had moved this Re- solution. The Imperial Ministers had no more control over the municipal affairs of Paris than Her Majesty's Ministers had over those of London. The person who directed improvements in Paris, the Prefect of the Seine, was a municipal officer and head of the Municipal Council. He disposed of money which was raised by the people of Paris, and he must not be confounded with the Minister of the Interior. The admirable organization existing in Paris seemed to indicate the direction which our reforms ought to take. We wanted in London a municipal officer who should possess many of the functions discharged by the Prefect of Paris. One of the causes of the want of efficiency in the Board of Works was to be found in the fact that it was a deliberative body, consisting of forty-six persons, who were expected to attend to administrative work in detail. The House of Commons was the best deliberative assembly in the world; but it would find itself incapable of exercising Executive functions. As the Board had no paid Executive no one was responsible for what was done, and the responsibility seemed to be equally divided among all the members. True, they had at their head an efficient chairman, who received a salary; but his time was chiefly occupied in presiding over the deliberations of the general body and of the Committees. They might, perhaps, look for improvement to the action of a paid and responsible executive, but the problem was not likely to be solved in the manner which had been suggested. The Minister who had charge of the property of the Crown and of the State, and was not concerned with local taxation, local expenditure, or local rates, would be in a false position if he should have to interfere with those who represented the ratepayers. He did not think that the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman were likely to facilitate the solution of the problem which he had put before the House, and therefore he hoped that he would not press his Motion to a division.

wished to notice one statement of the right hon. Gentleman, as it might create some alarm if not contradicted. The right hon. Gentleman said that the vestries of London were not in the habit of attending to the recommendations of their medical officers. He himself had been a member of the Vestry of St. Margaret's, Westminster, and he never knew it disregard the recommenda- tion of a medical officer. He was now a member of the St. George's Vestry, and the very day after the possible approach of cholera had been mentioned in the House of Commons, he called attention to the subject in the vestry, and orders were immediately given to the Sanitary Commissioners to continue and extend in every possible way their inquiries into the state of the parish, with the view to the adoption of any measures that might be necessary to prevent or to mitigate the disease.

said, he did not believe that the Board of Works was defective in its administration; that its work was not well done, or that the ratepayers of London would tolerate a paid Executive. If its administration were defective the compliments that had been paid to it in that House were untrue. In vindication of the Board he pointed to the works it had executed, such as the great drainage works and the street improvements in Southwark, and in regard to the Thames Embankment, he asked if the scheme was not well worked out, if the contracts were not sufficiently cared for, and if, on the whole, sufficient control had not been exercised? He was quite at a loss to conceive how the Board could be improved as an Executive body; but he thought it possible that the number of its Members might be advantageously increased. The Board was constituted only seven or eight years ago; it immediately made a complete series of plans of London and of improvements that it desired to see carried out. The estimated cost of these improvements was £23,000,000;£10,000,000 or£l 1,000,000 had been already expended; improvements were still being gradually effected, and those who exercised a little patience would still see London considerably changed. It must be remembered that while the octroi of Paris produced £3,500,000 a year, the coal dues of London did not produce £300,000. Formerly there was a Minister of the Crown in this country —Lord Lonsdale—who carried out various public improvements in the metropolis, and amongst them the construction of Regent Street; but those improvements were charged to the Consolidated Fund. But the House of Commons had now very properly determined that the metropolis should pay for its own improvements, as it was only fair that those who raised the money should control the spending of it. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion for a Committee, more especially as the Committee now sitting was very hard at work inquiring into the working of the present system. As to the vestries, he believed that in the main they worked extremely well; but they were very new to their duties. As far as he could judge, it was entirely untrue that the vestries expected the medical men to make things pleasant. The Chelsea Vestry, for one, would be ashamed if these gentlemen, who were well paid, did not give their honest opinion, whatever it might be, upon matters which came before them. The improvements in Paris had been referred to, but he had been astonished to find on inquiry that in that city a very wide discretion was in each particular case left to the architect, that in fact there was very little difference in that respect between the mode of carrying out improvements in Paris and in London. The beauty of the new buildings in Paris was, he believed, attributable in a great extent to the beauty of the material of which they were composed. If the House and the people of London would have but a little patience, most of the objections which were now advanced with regard to metropolitan improvements would be removed. Meanwhile, he hoped that the Motion would not be pressed.

said, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. Baronet (Sir William Jolliffe), that he had read the Report of the Committee upon the London City Traffic Bill, as well as the evidence, which was exceedingly interesting and instructive. Legislation upon this subject was certainly necessary, and a Bill would be prepared founded upon the principle suggested—namely, to lay down certain regulations which would not be universally applicable throughout the whole of the metropolitan police district, because circumstances varied, but which would be made as far as possible applicable to different times and different places. The Police Commissioners would be empowered to make subsidiary regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The Bill would also provide additional police for the metropolis and the City; and would be brought forward, he hoped within a few days, by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, who had paid great attention to this subject.

said, he rose to move for Return of the names, rank, and length of service of such soldiers in the Army and Militia as have been charged with complicity with the Fenian conspiracy; distinguishing the Regiments to which they respectively belonged; also distinguishing those who have been tried by Court Martial or otherwise, and, if convicted, what sentences have been awarded respectively to each; also specifying, so far as the same apply, the like particulars as to any soldiers who have been discharged from the service on the ground of suspicion of complicity with the said conspiracy.