said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Treasury Minute or Minutes regulating the position and functions of the several members of the present Treasury Board?

stated that the Treasury Minute referred to would be laid upon the table at the next sitting of the House.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the practice of calling out for training annually the English, Welsh, and Scotch Regiments of Militia, and, at the same time, neglecting to afford similar advantages to the Irish Regiments, is to be longer continued; and, if so, for what reason? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said this was the fifth year that the Irish regiments of militia had not been called out.

also asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to call out the Irish Militia this year for training?

, who rose to answer the Questions, said, that some weeks since his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had asked the Irish Government whether they were desirous that the Irish Militia should be embodied during the present year. The question received very careful consideration indeed at the hands of: the Irish Government, and it was decided that, on the whole, it would be better to defer that operation for the present—he might say only for another year. He need scarcely remind his right hon. and gallant Friend that they had not yet begun to undertake the task of governing Ireland under the provisions of the ordinary law, and if any error were committed it would be better that that error should be on the side of caution.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received information that Mr. James Cassells, a British subject residing and carrying on business at Oporto, was sentenced in November last by a Portuguese Court to banishment for six years, for the crime of "wanting in respect to the Roman Catholic religion," such want of respect consisting only in conducting an ordinary Protestant service in his own house; whether this sentence is not an infringement of the religious liberty guaranteed to British subjects in Por- tugal by the Treaty of Lisbon in 1842; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any Memorial, or made any and what representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject?

said, it was true that Mr. James Cassells, a British subject residing and carrying on business in Oporto, was sentenced in November last by a Portuguese Court to banishment for six years; but his hon. and learned Friend was incorrect in saying that it was for the crime of "wanting in respect to the Roman Catholic religion," such want of respect consisting only in conducting an ordinary Protestant service in his own house. The facts of the case were these:—Mr. Cassells was put upon his trial before the Judge of the Court of first Instance at Oporto, and a Portuguese jury, having waived his privilege to a mixed jury, and two distinct charges were submitted to the jury by the presiding Judge in the following terms:—1. Was it proved that the prisoner, acting in contravention of the religion of the country, by law established, had held meetings in his own house composed of individuals residing in his own parish and in the neighbourhood; 2. Was it proved that he had by reading, by speech, or by act induced three individuals to hold doctrines at variance with the religion of the country, and had he endeavoured to make proselytes and converts to a religion not approved by the Church? The Judge further submitted the following point in extenuation:—Were the good conduct and charities of the prisoner, at the time of his alleged criminal act, proved as an extenuating circumstance in his favour? Of these three points the jury decided the first two in the affirmative, by majorities, and they unanimously assented to the last proposition. The Judge, in conformity with. Article 130 of the Penal Code, sentenced Mr. Cassells to banishment from the kingdom for a period of six years, and to pay the costs of trial. Mr. Cassells immediately appealed to a Superior Court, and the result of that appeal was not yet known at the Foreign Office. Of course his hon. and learned Friend would see that pending that appeal it would not be in conformity with the custom of the Government to take any further proceedings in the matter. It appears that the authorities undertook these proceedings against Mr. Cassells with, very great reluctance, and that they spared no efforts to induce him to desist from practices which they considered to be illegal. However, his hon. and learned Friend must not suppose that the matter was one of indifference to the British Government. The interests of Mr. Cassells had been watched over by Mr. Crawford, the British Consul at Oporto, who had instructed counsel to attend; and Her Majesty's Minister had been instructed to request of the Portuguese Government that no delay should take place in having the appeal heard. When the result of that appeal reached Her Majesty's Government it would be for them to consider whether it was necessary to take any further proceedings or not. With regard to the other part of the Question he might say, that the Earl of Clarendon had received communications from the Wesleyan body and also from the Scottish Reformation Society on the subject.

said, the second part of his Question had not been answered.

said, it would be premature to give any opinion upon that until they knew the result of the appeal, and had an opportunity of considering the evidence.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to repeal the Ratepaying Clauses of the Reform Act, and to restore the system of Compound Rating?

My hon. Friend is perfectly warranted in asking a Question on the matter, which has excited considerable interest in the country. I am afraid, however, I must ask his indulgence, in so far that it would not be possible for me fully and clearly to make known the intentions of the Government in answer to the Question, without anticipating the statement which is to be made in a few days by my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen). To answer his Question according to the letter, however, I may say that we do not propose to repeal the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act, or to restore, in the letter, the system of compound rating. We recognize the existence of a practical griev- ance and desire to apply a remedy without at the same time re-opening the political controversies of the Reform Act. I think my hon. Friend will find, when the plan of the Government is before him, as it will be in the course of a few days, that, although we do not in the letter and form restore the system of compound rating, we do obtain from the remedy which we propose to apply those advantages which that system is calculated to secure.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the systematic enslavement of Kaffir children by the Boers of the Trans-vaal Republic; whether any step have been taken to induce the authorities to fulfil that provision of the Treaty of 1852 which prohibited slavery; and, whether there is any objection to produce on an early day all the Correspondence on this subject which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of the Cape Colony or any other persons either in this Country or in South Africa? He must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while he entered into some explanation. It might be in the recollection of the House that the Boers were a people of Dutch origin who originally settled at the Cape, but, in consequence of the passing of the Emancipation Act of 1834, they, having been large holders of Hottentot slaves, considered their rights invaded and left the Cape, moving northwards across the Vaal, where they settled in one of the finest tracts of land in South Africa. There they were a source of very great difficulty, owing to their constant contests with the Native tribes, and occasional hostility towards the British Government. Lord Grey, in a despatch dated November, 1850, said—

"It is clear that the Boers have not the slightest claim to the territory which they occupy beyond the Vaal river, and I trust that no time will be lost in carrying into effect the measures which I have recommended for encouraging and assisting the Native tribes whom they are oppressing to assert their rights, and to defend themselves."

A treaty was made by the British Government with the Trans-vaal Boers in 1852, by which the independence of the South African Republic was acknowledged. This convention with the Boers who crossed the Vaal river under Pretorius was drawn up on the 16th of January, 1852, between Major W. S. Hogge and Mr. C. M. Owen, Commissioners for settling and adjusting the eastern and north-eastern boundaries of the Cape Colony on the one part, and on the other, a deputation of emigrant farmers residing north of the Vaal river, and was generally favourable to the Boers. It contained these two articles—

"It is agreed that no slavery is, or shall be, permitted or practised in the country to the north of the Vaal River by the emigrant farmers.

"It is agreed that no objection shall be made by any British authority against the emigrant Boers purchasing their supplies of ammunition in any of the British colonies and possessions in South Africa, it being mutually understood that all trade in ammunition with the Native tribes is prohibited, both by the British Government and the emigrant farmers on both sides of the Vaal River."

The effect of this convention was to place the Native tribes at the mercy of the Boers, who were able to secure an unlimited supply of ammunition, while the Native tribes were cut off from it. The result was that a system of slavery had grown up, and 6,000 children were now held in slavery by the Boers. In support of the statement, he could cite Dr. Livingstone, who, in a memorial to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), when he was Colonial Secretary, on the 12th of December, 1852, stated that, owing to a quarrel between the Boers and the Natives among whom he was residing, the Native town in which he lived was attacked and destroyed, his own house was plundered and his property taken. He was obliged in consequence to enter upon that course of travels which immortalized his name. In conversation, Dr. Livingstone told him (Mr. R. Fowler) that on a subsequent visit to the country of the Boers he found among them children who had been brought up in his own missionary schools, and who were detained in slavery by the Boers. Evidence as to the horrors attending this system of slavery had been adduced by residents of Natal; and its Legislative Council, on the 10th of August last, passed a series of resolutions on the subject, in which they declared—but he should not rest his case on any private information however respectable—

"That ever since the annexation of the Orange River Sovereignty (since abandoned) in 1848, the emigrant farmers who settled over the Vaal River, and formed a Government of their own, under the style of the South African Republic, have carried on a system of slavery, under the guise of child apprenticeship—such children being the result of raids carried on against Native tribes, whose men are slaughtered, but whose children and property are seized, the one being enslaved and sold as 'apprentices,' the other being appropriated:

"That the existence of this system of slavery, attended as it is by indescribable atrocities and evils, is a notorious fact to all persons acquainted with the Trans-vaal Republic; that these so-called 'destitute children' are bought and sold under the denomination of 'black ivory;' that these evils were fully admitted by persons officially cognizant of them at a public meeting held in Potchefstroom, the chief town of the Republic, in April, 1868, and that the whole subject has been brought fully under the notice of the High Commissioner."

The Trans-vaal Argus, a paper published in the South African Republic, reported a public meeting, held at the house of a field cornet, for the purpose of considering certain proceedings of the Volksraad, in relation to the Natives, at which terrible pictures were drawn of the suffering entailed by the raids and of the slavery to which the children were reduced. It was stated that in one case a number of children, too young to be removed, were collected in a heap and burned alive. In another case, it appeared that a field cornet had possessed himself of a Native child, whose mother had been fired at and wounded, and left on the road until picked up by some Kaffirs, who had her conveyed to their kraal, where she died next day. Mr. Robinson, an Englishman, Chairman of the Volksraad, the Legislative Council of the South African Republic, was reported to have said—

"He was of opinion that it was right and proper conduct to shoot down the miserable Kaffirs. If it had been he he would have acted similarly, and he wished the last Kaffir was out of the world."

From the papers published in the South African Republic, it appeared that negotiations had been going on for some time for the recognition of the Republic by the Prussian Government, and the last number of the Trans-vaal Argus received in this country announced that a Prussian Consul to the Republic had actually been appointed. Considering the limited commercial relations of the Republic with Prussia, such an appointment was unnecessary and, therefore, myste- rious. Seeing that the evidence of the atrocities could not be doubted, that they were vouched for by the Natal Legislative Council, and that this country acknowledged the independence of the South African Republic on the express condition that no slavery should exist in the Republic, he thought the matter was one worthy a few moments' attention from the House. At all events, he hoped it would receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of the distinguished Statesman who presided over the Colonial Office.

, in reply, said, he was sure the House would agree that no apology was required from the hon. Member for having brought this most important question, in a speech of studied moderation, before the House. Every statement made by the hon. Gentleman he was obliged to endorse. Her Majesty's Government had not any precisely official information, because we had no diplomatic agent in the Trans-vaal Republic; but at the same time the Government had received, both from the Governor of the Cape and the Governor of Natal, and from Her Majesty's Commissioner to the Mixed Court held at the Cape, statements fully corroborating all that had been said by the hon. Member. There could be no doubt that, in contravention of a solemn treaty, there existed an organized system of slavery in the Trans-vaal Republic. The system was the sending forth of commandos to kidnap Kaffir children, whose parents were murdered in order to render the children destitute orphans, on which plea they were subjected to so-called apprenticeship for a long term of years, that apprenticeship being slavery. For several years past the attention of successive Governments had been called to this matter. In 1865 it was brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman now the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Cardwell) by the then Governor, Sir Philip Wodehouse, and instructions were given him to address a strong remonstrance to the Governor of the Trans-vaal Republic. This and subsequent remonstrances when Lord Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the Colonies, had not produced any effect, and about a month before the late Government went out of Office, the Duke of Buckingham gave authority to the Governor of the Cape to withdraw from the inhabitants of the Trans-vaal Republic the permission to receive ammunition and arms from the British colonists. That was a curious and unjust clause in the Treaty of 1852 which permitted arms and ammunition to be sold to the inhabitants of the Republic and prohibited their being sold to the Kaffirs; but now both were placed on the same footing. In asking what steps the Government were going to take in this matter, the hon. Gentleman must remember the great distance between any of our settlements and the Trans-vaal Republic, and the impossibility of our acting upon the Republic by any but moral means. In the able pamphlet published on this subject it was said that moral means would probably be sufficient, and at all events Her Majesty's Government were not desirous of resorting to any other, but they were willing to do all that they could in that direction. What they most trusted to was the contrast which our settlement at Natal presented to the barbarous system which prevailed in the Trans-vaal Republic. In Natal there were about 250,000 Natives, a large number of whom had come in from other districts in order to have the advantage of British protection. Among them barbarous customs were rapidly disappearing, and civilization rapidly progressing; they were cultivating the land and starting sugar manufactories, which were worked by steam power; and the material interests of the community were being immensely promoted, and the public revenues increased by the freedom of the Native population. Some 20,000 young men, Kaffirs, were employed every year in the Natal settlement by the European settlers. We must trust that when their neighbours of the Trans-vaal Republic saw the effect of justice and equity in dealing with the Native population, when they saw that the Natives were capable of civilization, and that their labour could be procured without any of those atrocities by which they sought to obtain it, they would adopt those principles of justice which in the Natal district had proved so conducive to the material interests of the colony. If the hon. Member would move for the Papers he had referred to, there would not be the least objection to produce them.

said, he was equally gratified with the manner in which the Ques- tion had been brought forward, and the Answer which had been given, for the Government could not be asked to do more than exercise a moral influence to put a stop to this slavery, and, happily, English influence was great in that district. He had some relations with Natal, and had communications from the colony every month, and he believed that the case against the Trans-vaal Republic had not been overstated. It was a pity that when we had abolished slavery in the West it should be continued in the East in this gross form.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works a Question relative to the Viaduct from Charing Cross Bridge to Wellington Street, Strand, proposed to be made on the Thames Embankment by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The importance and urgency of the subject induced him to bring it forward early in the Session. Its importance might be gathered from the fact that it amounted simply to this—whether £245,000 of ratepayers' money was to be unprofitably expended on a scheme which would occupy a large portion of the Thames Embankment, reclaimed from the river at great cost, destroy a magnificent site for a public building, and give in return a roadway of little or no value to the public? The Board of Works was blameless in the matter, as it was bound by an Act of Parliament to carry out the scheme. The connection of the Board with the Viaduct scheme was briefly this:—The Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, created under the 11 & 12 Vict., became by the 18 & 19 Vict. the Metropolitan Board of Works, a body invested with enormous taxing powers, and charged with the duty of carrying out metropolitan improvements. The Thames Embankment, though originally recommended by Sir Christopher Wren, and more seriously proposed by Sir Frederick Trench in 1824, owed its construction in a great measure to a suggestion of that very able man, Sir John Thwaites, during the consideration of the proposal to carry the sewage of the metropolis to the mouth of the Thames. Sir Joseph Paxton took up the idea, a Committee of the House reported favourably upon it, a Royal Commission did the same, and in 1862 Parliament entrusted the Board of Works with the duty of constructing the Embankment. The scheme involved the making of approaches to the Embankment from the Strand. Part of the scheme was a roadway from the neighbourhood of Charing Cross to Wellington Street, in the Strand, or, properly speaking, Lancaster Place. When the matter was handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, they did not think that the best line of road, so they proposed another. A Committee of the House of Commons sat upon it. There were various schemes, with a detailed account of which he would not trouble the House; but last year a Bill was passed, laying down a line of road, and under that Bill the Metropolitan Board of Works, whatever their own feelings might be, were obliged to carry out the Viaduct he had described, and which was so much objected to. It was true the Board had not yet accepted contracts for the work, but they had issued the necessary notices, and tenders had been advertised for, and, unless Parliament stepped in, the work would have to be gone on with, because the hands of the Board were absolutely tied. A very strong feeling on the subject had arisen in the metropolis during the last fortnight. The Rev. Henry White, chaplain of the Savoy Chapel, had given a very clear description of the roadway in a letter to the Editor of The Times, and in company with himself and others had stated the reasons against making it to the First Commissioner of Works, who, he was glad to say, appeared to sympathize with the object of the deputation. The points laid before the right hon. Gentleman were the expense and waste which the construction of the Viaduct would involve, its unsightliness when completed, and the destruction of a most admirable site for a public building. The objectors to the scheme included the District Board of Works, represented on the deputation by Mr. Jones, who said the Board had never been consulted upon the subject, and had petitioned against the work as soon as its true character became known. He had that evening presented a petition from St. James's Vestry, declaring the proposed structure unsightly, and of questionable utility for purposes of traffic. The House was merely asked to postpone the work for a time until it had been positively ascertained whether this Viaduct was necessary, in addition to those two main thoroughfares, the Embankment and the Strand, one of which was as yet unopened. It had been suggested that the Viaduct was designed more as a ready means of communication between Downing Street and Whitehall and Somerset House than for the public convenience; but in any case it was not too much that Parliament should be asked to stay the hand of the Metropolitan Board—which really did not want to carry out the work—if it were only to preserve the eight acres of reclaimed land as a site for some public building. He invited any hon. Member who had not already done so to take a walk on the Embankment, and what would he see? In the first place, he would see executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works the finest granite wall in the world; and if he went as far as Waterloo Bridge he would find Somerset House and that beautiful bridge on the one side, and almost as a matter of necessity something was required by way of balance on the other. If they should have nothing of the kind, the result would be that this beautiful spot, so well adapted for the ornament of the metropolis, would be occupied by a road or viaduct, which, however constructed, must necessarily be a very great eyesore. They all knew that the buildings on the spot where this Viaduct would be were not ornamental, and, unless negotiations were entered into between the Government and the proprietors, all that the latter would look to was to see that they had made of their property the most profitable investment. They might have warehouses or dwelling-houses, factories or gas works, on the spot, or, in short, anything which would be most profitable to the owners. Now, there was an important moral and an important principle involved in this matter. The moral he held to be this:—whether in this metropolis, where so many important railway and other works were to be constructed, there was to be any controlling power? At present there was none—absolutely none. That was a state of things which ought not to exist in this metropolis, and which existed in no other metropolis in the world. It was the fault of the House of Commons, which did not give sufficient power to any authority to step in and interfere. He would give an illustration of what he meant. Take the Southwestern Railway, for instance. Suppose it wanted to extend from the south to the north of London, and to join the Great Northern. What had it to do? Simply to deposit its plans, its estimates, and all that was required by the Board of Trade within a certain day; it came then before Parliament, and its scheme was submitted to a Committee of that House. Now that Committee took no cognizance whatever of the nature of the works, so far as affected the beauty of the metropolis, whether they would destroy it or not. If the plans were deposited, the money lodged, and the public requirements of traffic seemed to render such a railway necessary, the Committee would pass it without further question. What was the result? Why, that they had got Hungerford Bridge, which intercepted the view of the Houses of Parliament from Waterloo Bridge; and with regard to Cannon Street they had got a monstrous tubular station which jutted into the Thames at one side and cut off the view of St. Paul's. Now, if there were any one in the metropolis responsible for its public works those two structures would not have been erected. One of the disadvantages of the divided authority which existed was that the roadway parallel to the Thames, which they all desired to see completed, could not be made for five years, because Parliament in its wisdom had given the Metropolitan District Railway Company power to scoop and burrow under the roadway, and until their railway was constructed the road could not be made. Further, one Committee of the House decided that this Metropolitan Railway Company should run a portion of their line on arches in order that the water-rights of certain persons might be preserved; but subsequently another Committee decided that the railway should be in the inside of an embankment. Therefore they had one Committee deciding one thing, and another another. Why, it was simply because of these divided powers and of there being nobody to control them, and the Board of Works and the Railway Company could not come for such a long time to a settlement about this railway. He had spoken of the ability of Sir John Thwaites and the Metropolitan Board. He had already said that the wall they had erected was the most beautiful river wall in the world. But whom had the public to thank for it? Was it the House, or a Royal Commission, or the Government? Nothing of the kind, it was Sir John Thwaites and the Metropolitan Board of Works. He had said to Sir John Thwaites, "You have made a most beautiful wall; but I just want to ask you, as far as a Committee of the House of Commons, as far as a Royal Commission, as far as the First Commissioner of Works, or any other officer of Government were concerned, might you not have erected anything in the shape of a wall you chose, whether of concrete or of brick?" And the answer was that it was so. He hoped that state of things would be put an end to, that the Government would pay attention to this question, and lay down a new system. He might cite other instances, but he would not. All he wanted was that the Office of the First Commissioner should be so constituted as to have a Board, chosen, he would say, by the Institute of Architects, and with the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works as a member, who would advise the First Commissioner on all these matters. Indeed, the First Commissioner had already made a salutary change by putting Mr. Fergusson, a first-class architect, in the office. The additional Board might be made to consist of two members appointed by the Institute of Architects, two appointed by the Royal Academy, and one appointed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed, with a Board so constituted, no public work could be constructed, and no Act of Parliament sanctioning one could be obtained unless the First Commissioner of Works was satisfied that it would be an embellishment to the metropolis and not the reverse. He had prepared a Resolution on the subject to this effect, that it was not expedient to proceed with the proposed road or Viaduct from Hunger-ford to Waterloo Bridge until the subject should be submitted for further consideration to a Committee of that House. According to the forms of the House he could not move it now, but he would on Monday next give Notice of a Motion on the subject. He hoped, however, that the First Commissioner would render it unnecessary for him to move any Resolution, by taking the matter up and refering it to either a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House.

said, he concurred in the view taken by the noble Lord. He believed the proposed work was a mere blunder on the part of those with whom it had originated. He could not discover that anybody liked this scheme. The Board of Works did not like it, though they were carrying it out; the First Commissioner of Works did not like it; and the ratepayers of London did not like it, beccause it would involve them in an expenditure of £245,000. He really thought the very finest site in all London for a magnificent public building would be sacrificed if this Viaduct was erected. They were now making the river Thames one of the most beautiful in the world, and it would be the most puerile folly to throw away those eight acres by cutting them asunder by this Viaduct. There really ought to be some one with greater powers than the First Commissioner to judge in such matters; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House the benefit of his views on the subject.

said, he was anxious, as a Director of the South Western Railway Company, that it should not go forth to the shareholders that the case hypo-thetically put by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) was an actual case. It was not in the contemplation of the Company to throw a bridge across the Thames, or make any extension of their line in the manner imagined by his noble Friend. But he agreed with his noble Friend that if that Railway did wish to make any such extension, there was no controlling authority which could prevent them from disfiguring a magnificent site by erecting there one the greatest monstrosities in the world. He did not say that each separate authority, if left to itself, might not be competent to do what was right in that matter; but the conflict of authority which existed caused the most complete anarchy. Before coming down to the House, he had inspected the site to which his noble Friend alluded, and found the Embankment blocked up with all kinds of work; yet the several works were not to be carried out contemporaneously, but one was to be commenced after another was done. After Sir John Thwaites and his colleagues had finished the Embankment, then came the Metropolitan Railway, which dug up all that had been laid, or burrowed under the Embankment; and that Railway Company had power to deprive the public for five long years of the enjoyment of that Embankment. Nor was that all. Somehow or other—he could not tell in what way, or who was responsible for it—an Act passed through Parliament last Session, further to aggravate the condition of anarchy in which the Thames Embankment stood by the building upon arches of a road, with a gradual slope, that would for ever utterly disfigure and destroy one of the noblest sites in Europe. Every hon. Member to whom he had mentioned the matter had told him that it had come upon him with surprise; indeed, many hon. Gentlemen were quite startled on hearing that such a work was contemplated. He trusted that the House of Commons would put down its foot on that extraordinary state of things, and pause before the Act of last Session was carried out. The ratepayers did not desire this Viaduct, nor did the traffic which now passed along the Strand require it. Indeed, the whole question of the Thames Embankment had been muddled. When it was first projected, all those squalid buildings which abutted on the river, and were valuable only because they so abutted, were not bought up—that would have been a sensible thing—but their water privileges were bought up; and now that the Embankment ran in front of those squalid buildings they had been made five times more valuable than they were before. Thus, having first compensated their owners for their water privileges, they would have to buy the buildings themselves at the enhanced value put upon them by the very construction of that work. All that showed the necessity of establishing some such authority in the metropolis as his noble Friend had indicated.

said, in reply, his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) was good enough the other day to attend at the Office of Works with a deputation on that subject, when he made to him a reply which, he was very much afraid he could only repeat that evening. The fact was that he had really nothing to do officially with the Thames Embankment, or with anything which might be erected on that great highway. All that he could do—and that he had promised his noble Friend the other day he would do—was to use what personal influence he might have with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and ask them, if possible, to check the construction of the road and Viaduct, which, there could be no doubt, would have the effect described by his noble Friend and other hon. Members who had spoken that evening. The relations between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the First Commissioner of Works, whether official or otherwise, had always been of the most friendly and cordial character, and Sir John Thwaites and Mr. Tite had kindly offered to take such steps as were in their power to delay the progress of the works. But certain notices had been given for the acquisition of a part of the site, which were in the nature of a contract, and must be carried out, although the contract for the works themselves had not been entered into. As First Commissioner of Works, he had no power in that or any other matter to interfere with the Metropolitan Board of Works, or with the operations of any company in the metropolis. His position was frequently much misunderstood, and he was held responsible for many things with which he had nothing to do. It was, for instance, popularly supposed that he was at the head of the Woods and Forests; but such the House knew was not the case. He would look at the question of control over public buildings in the metropolis for a moment from an Imperial and not a mere ratepayers' point of view. The House of Commons had more than once rejected schemes for erecting a National Gallery on different sites which had been proposed, and it had determined that a National Gallery should be erected in Trafalgar Square, at a great expense to the nation, on this ground, among others, that that was one of the finest sites in the world, and that a magnificent view of any building there erected would be obtained from Parliament Street. Well, assuming that building to have been erected at the cost of the nation, what might happen? It was perhaps an extreme supposition, but some railway company might obtain permission to unite the Charing Cross Station with Brompton, and might throw a bridge across the entrance to Parliament Street, which would completely destroy the view of the new National Gallery, for the sake of which a large outlay of public money would have been in- curred. That was a great evil. How it was to be remedied was another question. As First Commissioner of Works he had no power whatever to interfere. On another occasion he might appeal to the House for its opinion on the subject. When the Metropolitan Board of Works was first constituted they could not undertake any work the expense of which exceeded £50,000 without the approval of the First Commissioner of Works; and before entering upon any work exceeding £100,000 they were compelled to obtain the sanction of Parliament. But in 1858 an Act was passed which repealed the sections of the previous Act conferring that power on the First Commissioner and on Parliament. What had been stated in regard to the road in question was strictly true; but the Metropolitan Board of Works were not responsible; their hands were as much tied as his own. When the Thames Embankment Act was passed it was thought by some persons that there ought to be a communication between Wellington Street, Strand, and Parliament Street, in order to divert the traffic, which, it was said, was too great for the Strand. He had strong doubts whether there was any proof that the traffic was too great for the Strand; and it was the opinion of the Metropolitan Board of Works that it would not require dividing at Wellington Street. But the Committee of the House decided that that road should be constructed; so that there would be two nearly parallel roads, one of which would be partly constructed on a Viaduct. The Metropolitan Board of Works at once saw that so hideous a structure as was at first proposed would destroy the whole effect of the Embankment, and would require a great group of buildings to mask it. The Committee, however, rejected the scheme of the Board of Works for a crescent in front of the road and Viaduct. It was first decided that this road should load from Wellington Street, but as the narrowest part of this street had been selected, the line was altered, and the road was to commence from the corner of Wellington Street and the Strand. But the inhabitants of the Savoy immediately rose against the scheme, and complained that it would disturb their ancient and venerable graveyard. This led to the final change of the plan, by which the communication would start from the broadest part of Wellington Street. A Bill was passed last Session authorizing that deviation; and it was an extraordinary fact that that Bill should have apparently got through the House without discussion, as a fresh opportunity was thus afforded of re-considering the whole question. The Embankment road ran along the north side of the Thames, and it was now proposed that a second road should run from Hungerford Bridge almost parallel with the Embankment road, and should have an ascent of forty feet to Lancaster Place, near Waterloo Bridge; but where the Viaduct nearly reached the level of the Strand—that was, about Salisbury Street and Cecil Street, and would prove some use to the public—power was given to the owners of the property to close those streets with gates, which would intercept the communication with the Strand. After all, the convenience in regard to shortening the distance between the Strand and Parliament Street would not be so great as had been supposed. He had had the distance measured, and found that there was a difference of a few feet only between that route and the route along the Strand into Parliament Street. There was no doubt that in an æsthetic point of view it would be perfectly monstrous to have a roadway gradually rising in the manner he had described and cutting the Embankment diagonally into two parts. The expenditure upon this new work was a serious matter for the consideration of the ratepayers of London. Estimates had already been given in to the extent of £230,000, but that would be very far from representing all that would be required to be paid. A large sum would be required to hide the monstrosity from view as much as possible by the planting of trees. Moreover, there would be a great gap left behind it similar to the one which long existed in Victoria Street, which would form a hideous receptacle for rubbish, dead eats, and other offensive matter; and it would be necessary to put the ratepayers to considerable additional expense to obviate that nuisance by filling up this hollow. But, as he had said before, he had no power to interfere in the matter. Sir John Thwaites and the Board of Works were as much opposed to the making of the road as he was, and he felt assured they would do everything they could to put a stop to its con- struction; but it would be very difficult for them to effect that object unless they were supported by an expression of the opinion and the authority of the House of Commons. He himself had contemplated the erection of a public building on the site in question, which was one of the best and most central in the metropolis, and the only area sufficiently large and convenient for a good public edifice that could now be obtained, but he suddenly found that he was precluded from carrying out his intention in that respect in consequence of the projected construction of a roadway, which would be of no use to anybody, to which the ratepayers were opposed, and against which he believed every man of taste would protest. It was in that manner that the subject was originally brought under his notice, and he was glad to find that it had been brought under the notice of the House, for it was only by the expression of a decided opinion on its part that the Board of Works would be enabled to interfere with the prosecution of a scheme which would entirely destroy a magnificent site. He thought the course proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was a perfectly right one. A Committee of the House would be the proper tribunal to inquire respecting what was to be done. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not bound to proceed at once, as three years were allowed to construct the road; therefore there was plenty of time to reverse the decision to which the Committee on the Embankment Bill had come. And even though a few houses were purchased for carrying out the work, that would not cause any great loss—supposing they were bound to bear it.

said he must maintain that ample time had been given to the consideration of this matter. Eight years had elapsed since it was mooted, and therefore it could not be said that the ratepayers living in the precincts of the Savoy had been taken by surprise with respect to the construction of the road. The road was intended to furnish the means of direct communication between the eastern part of the Strand and Westminster Bridge, and its construction formed part of the scheme of the Commission which was appointed by the Crown to recommend a plan of improvement in that quarter of the metropolis in 1861. That Commission, he might add, differed very little from the council advocated by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who seemed to think that if there were only a council to advise the First Commissioner of Works every one would be pleased. It was composed of men who were deemed to be most competent to advise on questions of that description. Among its members were two eminent military engineers—General Jebb and Captain Douglas Gralton—a civil engineer, Mr. Maclean—Sir William Cubitt, who was at the time Lord Mayor, Sir John Thwaites, and Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of Works; so that the Board of Works were, through its Chairman, a party to the original proposal, for although it was true that Sir John Thwaites had not signed the Report, because he objected to one of the recommendations of the Commission, yet he had expressed his entire concurrence in the general scheme suggested. The Report, accompanied by a plan for a roadway, was, among other Papers laid before Parliament, and was in the following year 1862 submitted to a Committee of the House of Commons; so that the whole of the proceedings connected with the matter were as deliberate as possible, and it was Either too late to object to the roadway on the ground that nothing had ever been heard of it before. The road would be very useful, as the only convenient communication between the Strand and the Embankment, and as a relief to the traffic at Charing Cross and the Strand. The higher part of the Viaduct would not be constructed on the Embankment itself, but on the ground which was now occupied by the houses between Cecil Street and Lancaster Place. He might further observe in reply to those who objected to the roadway because it would, in their opinion, occupy a space which was valuable as a site for public buildings, that the original plan for the Thames Embankment was that the greater portion of it should be laid out as a recreation ground for the public, and not used for building purposes. An open space of that kind would be very ornamental. It would be better to let new buildings rise on the space only where old buildings now stand. The building which his right hon. friend (Mr. Layard) proposed to erect would be placed at the bottom of the Adelphi Terrace. He (Mr. W. Cowper) did not think that would be a favourable place for the erection of such a building. If the Metropolitan Board of Works had objected to this roadway they might have proposed to repeal the clause of the Act relating to it, but he had never heard of a proposal to repeal it. They could not at that moment repeal an Act of Parliament; but a Committee of the House might consider whether this road really involved the objections urged by his noble Friend, or whether the benefit of the communication could be obtained without disfigurement and without needless sacrifice of space.

said, he was of opinion that the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. W. F. Cowper) was the clearest illustration they had yet had of the defects of the existing system, and the most complete and clinching confirmation of all the arguments which had been urged by the preceding speakers. The very length of time over which, according to his statement, the arrangements had spread, concluding with the total ignorance which existed as to the ultimate form which they had assumed, was the severest possible condemnation of the entire affair. The right hon. Member had shown that notwithstanding the agencies of the Metropolitan Board of Works and of the First Commissioner of Works, the complicated commissions, notices, forms of the House, and so forth, a Bill had passed through Parliament of which nobody knew anything, and which everybody was startled at when they first happened to hear of it. Now, if such a thing occurred under the present cumbrous management, it proved not only that they were very naughty children indeed, but that they had schoolmasters trained upon very bad models, and that some organization should set to work to alter the whole system. It was really appealing a good deal to their imagination to tell them, as his right hon. Friend had just done, that a temporary Commission had the same power as, or was in any way equivalent to, a formal Council. He admitted that the merits of the proposed Council, on which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) laid so much stress, were not strictly germane to the present question, and that a great deal might on this point be urged upon the other side. But to contend that a temporary Commission, appointed without any responsibility, and merely to deal with a particular matter, would have the same authority, either in the eyes of Parliament or of the public, as a permanent Board would be to say what few could agree to. The fact was that division of responsibility ended with no responsibility at all in the management of our public buildings. At each change of Government some accomplished gentleman found himself appointed to a Commissionership, which foreign journals translated Ministère des Travaux Publiques, and yet in the greater part of all that concerned the public works of the largest and most important city of the Empire, he had no more authority than the beadle at the Burlington Arcade. The Commissioner had, indeed, a few parks to look after; he might order about a few statues and plant a few flower-beds; and he was the authority whenever a public Department wanted to order a little new furniture. Such was the level of the English idea of Minister of Public Works. He trusted, however, that after the discussion of that evening something better might arise. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) had often raised his voice in the un-Reformed Parliament for a strong Minister of Arts and Architecture. He trusted now that the Reformed Parliament would grasp the conception. He hailed the manly speech of the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) and his courageous confession of official impotence; and, in so doing, he claimed that the present First Commissioner should follow up his words with deeds, and propose some effective remedy. After what had taken place, the obnoxious Viaduct was, of course, doomed; but the evening's work would only have been half done if the benefit of the debate were to stop there. He called upon his right hon. Friend to propose some measure which should reorganize and strengthen our administration of public works. And now a few words with regard to the particular question at present before the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire had indeed, argued that this Viaduct would go a very short way over the reclaimed land, and would be chiefly carried through the ruinous houses upon the present river's bank. Not long ago, however, he happened accidentally to see what he believed was the authen- tic plan of the site; and unless his senses deceived him, the major portion of the Viaduct was to run upon the reclaimed land, and it was only to touch existing houses at either end. In short, if the right hon. Gentleman would refresh his memory by looking at the plans he would see that the whole of this portion of the reclaimed land would be hopelessly eaten up by the waste of space incident to the transverse course of the Viaduct. As to the argument that a public building ought not to be placed upon that plot because the land was originally laid out for a park or public recreation ground, that was not to the point of the present debate, and he wondered that the right hon. Member for South Hampshire urged it as if it had been. It might, indeed, be a question hereafter whether a fine public building or a public garden were the more desirable use of the ground. That was a fair matter for a debate. Either would be a noble, and, so to speak, an Imperial destination of that magnificent area, but both would be made impossible if this wretched Viaduct were to be carried out. Let the House clear the way to the discussion by deciding that, in some form or other, the land reclaimed from the river shall be devoted to public purposes, and not be surrendered to private enterprize, and prostituted to wharves and warehouses.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen a statement in the police report, as reported in The Times of the 17th instant, to the following effect:—

"That at the Southwark Police-court a man named George Roberts, aged sixty-five, was charged on remand with being in the area of a certain house for the purpose of committing a felony that further evidence was given by Richard Kemp, one of the warders at Wandsworth, who said that the prisoner was one of the oldest burglars in England, many years ago he was cast for death, and that sentence was commuted to transportation for life; that he received a ticket of leave, and had since been twice transported for life, and liberated with license; that at the September Sessions of the Central Criminal Court in 1866 witness was present when prisoner was tried for burglary, and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour, and that he believed that he had since been convicted in the country. Mr. Burcham sentenced him to three months' hard labour for being in inclosed premises for an unlawful purpose."

He wished to know whether that state- ment as reported represented the facts accurately; whether, if accurate, those facts were in accordance with, or contrary to, the existing state of the Law; and, whether, in either alternative, the right hon. Gentleman has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to remedy such an anomalous and extraordinary state of things? He craved the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he made a few remarks on a subject affecting all classes of society. If the details referred to in this Question were accurately stated, he could hardly imagine that the Home Office Circular issued by Sir George Grey on the 15th of August, 1864, had in this particular case been complied with in every point. He was quite aware that, in making these remarks, he was trenching on the entire subject of the treatment of our criminal population and their alleged rights. He maintained, however, that the rights of society and of peaceable and orderly men must take precedence of the alleged rights of criminals, whose only trade was violence and robbery, and who were at war with all mankind. If any individual came before a magistrate, and, to use the common phrase, "swore the peace" against any other individual, alleging that he went in fear of him, the person against whom the application was made was bound under surety to keep the peace, not only towards the complainant, but towards all Her Majesty's subjects. Now, if an individual possessed this right as against any other individual, why should society at large be debarred from exercising it collectively against the whole of the criminal class? It might, perhaps, be urged that our prisons were already full to overflowing; but how could it be otherwise while we pursued the present system of transporting none of our criminals, and of hanging very few, who, he was afraid, were in some instances, by no means the worst of them. If we were to turn loose a large number of criminals without an adequate system of supervision, what would become of society? He would not go into the subject more fully at present, because he believed that a Bill was about to be brought forward in reference to it, so that the House would have an opportunity of dealing with the question in a comprehensive and liberal manner. This was a question affecting the whole community, and it ought to be treated without regard to party or political views. He trusted that criminals liberated on ticket of leave would be subjected to supervision, for he could not see that there was any hardship in placing a criminal who had several times offended against the law under the surveillance of the police for the remainder of his life. If the man alluded to in his Question as having been thrice sentenced to transportation for life, had been subjected on Ms liberation with license to the surveillance of the police, he would not have had an opportunity of committing the fresh offences with which he was charged. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce into any measure he might bring forward stringent clauses to repress the criminal population of this country, as the peaceful and well-disposed members of society were entitled to that protection at the hands of the Government.

said, in reply, the very short Notice I received of the hon. Baronet's intention to put his Question prevents me from giving a complete Answer to it. The whole of the case referred to rests solely upon what was said by a warder at Wandsworth, and his statement is so extraordinary that I imagine it will not be found, on inquiry, to have any foundation whatever in truth. The only record at the Home Office, with regard to George Roberts is, that he was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. If hon. Gentlemen consider for a moment, they will see it is in the highest degree improbable that a man sentenced to transportation for life should have been liberated three times during the last fifteen years, for it is only since 1853 that the system of granting licenses, commonly called "tickets of leave," has been in operation. It is, indeed, hardly credible that one sentence of death, and three of imprisonment, had been passed upon a man, and that, in the course of fifteen years, he had received three licenses allowing him to return to this country. I know, as a matter of fact, it is very seldom that a free pardon is granted to persons sentenced for life. Such persons, indeed, occasionally obtain conditional licenses, allowing them freedom within the colony, and no doubt the condition of these licenses is sometimes violated, and the criminals holding them escape to this country. But cases of this kind are very rare, and it is extremely improbable that such a thing should have occurred three times in the case of one person. Inquiry has, however, been instituted into the case mentioned in the hon. Baronet's Question, and on a future occasion I shall be able to supply the correct particulars. Meanwhile, I may remark that, since 1864, very stringent rules have been laid down with regard to the issuing of licenses. Speaking generally, the utmost that a convict can get by way of a remission on a ticket of leave is something less than one-fourth of his sentence, and that remission can only be gained when he has shown great industry and general good conduct. Any departure from industry, or good conduct, leads to a diminution of the extent of the license. In cases of sentences for life, the rule is, that they should be separately considered, and it is only in very extraordinary instances indeed that a pardon is given, enabling a man who has been sentenced to transportation or imprisonment for life to be restored again to society. The hon. Baronet does not seem to be aware that a system of police supervision already exists. It is not so complete as is desirable, owing to the movement of criminals from place to place; but it will be part of the proposals, which I hope to have the honour of submitting to the House on Monday, to make that system of supervision more effectual. With regard to the other measures I am about to bring forward with reference to the amendment of the law in respect of criminals, I am sure the House will not expect me now to anticipate what will so soon be formally submitted to its notice.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Expenses of Returning Officers at Elections, said, the measure had been amply discussed last Session, when there had been four or five divisions upon it. The House and the country would, therefore, be well acquainted with his proposal, which was simply to throw the necessary expenses of elections—and only the necessary expenses—upon the borough or the county rates. Provision had been made in the Bill for cases in which a county was divided, and adequate security would also be provided against unnecessary and vexatious contests. Such a measure would, in his opinion, have this great advantage—it would exert some influence in checking what was no doubt the opprobrium of our representative system—the great, and he feared, the increasing expenses of election contests.

said, that only yesterday the House had ordered the production of the evidence taken during the inquiry into the Drogheda Election. He hoped that pending the production of this evidence the issue of the Writ would be suspended.

said, that the Report of the Judges was before the Government. Under the Act of last Session they were of two kinds. They might be mere ordinary Reports that so and so had been duly elected, or that the election was void, in which cases the Writs would issue almost as a matter of course; and there could be no object in having the evidence printed or in instituting inquiry, inasmuch as the decision of the Judge had already settled the matter. Or they might be special Reports, and with regard to them the Act of last Session enacted that where a Judge made a special Report the House of Commons might make such Order as they might think proper with respect to such special Report. Where the Judges reported specially that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, he apprehended that it would generally be proper that an Address to the Crown should be moved for, with a view to the issue of a Commission. The special Report of the Judge in the Drogheda case was not a Report of this kind. At the same time it was, no doubt, a special Report, and the House would be entitled to take such a course as it thought fit. Under these circumstances, he thought there was sufficient ground for asking his hon. Friend to postpone the issue of the Writ for a few days, in order that the House might have before it the evidence taken by the Judge.