by next year they would have been in a was contended by counsel for the noble position to come before Parliament with Marquess that under the ordinary scale a better scheme for a street in the direc- of award the noble Marquess would not tion to which he had referred. When be fairly compensated for the injury done the Bill first came on for consideration to his property; that the frontage would in the other House, the Chairman of the be of more value to Lord Salisbury than Board was perfectly satisfied with the to anybody else; and that if the Metropoarrangements that had been come to in litan Board of Works got power under their Lordships' House; but after an the Bill to acquire both the freehold and adjournment of that consideration, that the leasehold, the noble Marquess would Chairman of the Board, through the not obtain one farthing in direct cominfluence of the hon. Member for Hack-pensation for his property abutting on ney (Mr. Fawcett), suddenly shifted his St. Martin's Lane. That was not disground, and supported that hon. Mem-puted by the other side, while it was ber in his Motion for striking out the admitted that land was not taken on the clause inserted by their Lordships' Com- other side of the street because anything mittee, and restoring the Bill to its done on that side would interfere with original shape. With regard to the the back part of the Alhambra. There principle involved in this question, no were precedents for what had been done doubt it was right, as a general rule, by the Committee; for, though the cases that when the Metropolitan Board of of the Duke of Northumberland, the Works took property for the improve- Duke of Norfolk, and others, in respect ment of a street, it should obtain pos- of former Bills, were not exactly similar session of the frontage, in order to recoup to that of Lord Salisbury in this instance, itself for its large expenditure. But it they were sufficiently analogous to be must be remembered that ordinarily new precedents. He could not but protest streets ran through a poor class of pro- against the conduct pursued by the perty, and that better houses were erected Metropolitan Board of Works; but, inthan those which had been pulled asmuch as, if their Lordships refused down. When, however, the new street their concurrence to what had been done ran through a valuable property, it be- by the House of Commons, the whole came a serious question whether, under scheme would fall to the ground for a the ordinary process, sufficient compen-year, he could not recommend their sation could be given to the owner of property taken for the improvement, if he were not allowed the frontage. The real question at issue in the present case was, whether there might not be occasionally exceptional legislation. If a hard-and-fast line were to be drawn, and no exceptions whatever were to be allowed, the sooner they were made aware of it the better-the owners of property would know what they had to expect, and the Committees would know what course they were to take. He (Viscount Hardinge) submitted that exceptional legislation might be occasionally entertained when good grounds were shown for it. In this case, after attentively considering all the evidence, it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that there were exceptional circumstances arising from the character of the property. Leases were falling in every six years; and on the property of the noble Marquess there were large warehouses of great depth, which would be much impaired if the frontage were to be taken by the Board of Works. It Lordships to take that course. He thought, therefore, their Lordships ought to assent to the Commons' Amendment, and he had the authority of Lord Salisbury to say that he assented to that course. THE EARL OF REDESDALE thought that there was one point in regard to these improvement schemes that required very serious consideration. The value of property was enormously increased by the widening of a street. It seemed therefore generally undesirable that it should be effected by taking the property on one side of the street only. By taking the property on both sides the local authority obtained two improved frontages to pay for the work, and it seemed to him unjust that property on one side should be taken compulsorily, while the owner on the other side reaped the benefit without paying a single sixpence for it, and improper favour might thereby be done to particular owners. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, one word on behalf of persons who have been very unjustly abused -my own agents. They did nothing but their duty in advancing before the Committee, on my behalf, claims which seemed to them to arise out of distinct precedents and the state of facts as they existed, and to urge those claims through counsel by such arguments as they thought applicable to the circumstances. It was the duty of an impartial Committee and your Lordships know that these Committees are selected with the most absolute care to secure their impartiality to determine whether a proper case had been made out for those claims. The Committee did determine that a proper case had been made out. I shall not go into arguments as to the merits of the claims, because the matter is one affecting myself; and for a Member of your Lordships' House to contribute here to a judgment in his own case would be wholly irregular. I concur with my noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, that the fact of the Bill affecting one of the Members of your Lordships' House makes it very unadvisable that you should insist on the determination of the Committee and give a decision in my favour. I think that, whatever may be the inconvenience caused by the proceeding adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the determination to restore the Bill to its original shape is, under the circumstances, the wisest course you can adopt. But I wish to say one word as to the public aspect of this question-because it is obvious that it has a public as well as a private aspect. As my noble Friend (Viscount Hardinge) said, no doubt it is right that the Board of Works should repay itself for street improvements by deriving a profit from the frontages created by a new street; but it by no means follows-and I protest against such a precedent being drawn from this particular instance that whenever the Board of Works makes a street it has a right to speculate in frontages. At best, it is an exceptionally dangerous power to give the Board of Works. It by no means follows that the taking of the frontages by the Board will in all cases be a repayment to the ratepayers, though it is certain that in all cases it will be a serious disturbance to the freeholder. Whatever rights Parliament gives to the Metropolitan Board of Works must be given on the ground that it is for a public benefit; but if the taking of The Marquess of Salisbury frontages be not shown to be such a benefit, then it is not only a wrong done to the freeholder whose property is unduly disturbed, but a loss and a very serious wrong done to ratepayers, whose money is used in an adventurous building speculation. At one time it was thought that every railway would pay. Now it is thought that every new street will enormously raise the value of the frontages. I believe the ratepayers will some day find, to their cost, that this idea is a delusion. Those purchases and re-sales of land which the Metropolitan Board of Works is so fond of, involve great expense in fees to lawyers, architects, surveyors, and valuers, whose time is valuable, and whose charges are proportionately high. I have had an opportunity of knowing something about it in connection with two or three railway companies whose difficulties were very seriously aggravated, if they were not entirely caused, by surplus land which they had acquired, and which they had to dispose of, and by the enormous charges which followed on that operation. It is very much to be feared that the Metropolitan Board of Works, unless it sells those frontages with great discretion, will find the costs of the machinery employed in disposing of them such as to entirely destroy the profitable nature of the operation, and that it will discover that, while it has it in its power to do great damage to and inflict great loss on the freeholders, it also has it in its power to squander the money of the ratepayers. Lords Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on, and Commons Consequential Amendments agreed to. ships' attention to the 3rd clause, which | vernment, that I should not be inclined practically laid down the principle that to attach much importance to them, or any person acting contrary to this Act take take much notice of them; and, outside the three-mile zone should be certainly, if my noble Friend had not considered as having acted within that brought this matter forward, I should limit. That might give rise to serious not have thought that these rumours, consequences, and he suggested the however precise may be their nature, omission of the clause in Committee. were worthy of contradiction in this House. I have, however, not the slightest difficulty in satisfying the anxiety of my noble Friend by assuring him that the reports to which he refers have no foundation whatever. THE EARL OF REDESDALE said, this Bill had come from the Commons, and it did not appear to have occurred to anyone that it was in an improper shape when passed by that House. It was extremely important at this period of the Session, when their Lordships had very little time to deal with Bills sent up to them, that they should be looked to by some one before they were sent to that House. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the Bill proceeded, he hoped that the noble Lord who had charge of it would strike out the 3rd clause. It had not yet been decided how legislation with regard to the three-mile limit on the high seas ought to proceed. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with. THE EASTERN QUESTION-PARTITION OF TURKEY.-QUESTION. LORD COLCHESTER asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to reports circulated by the Austrian Press to the effect that the policy of the British Government is to await and take part in the partition of Turkey; and, whether he would have any objection to state if there was any foundation for such report? House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 10th August, 1877. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN-Sir Baldwyn Leighton, baronet, for the Southern Division of the County of Salop. SELECT COMMITTEE-Report-Kitchen and Re- PUBLIC BILLS- Second Reading - Destructive Committee-Report-Expiring Laws Continu- Considered as amended-Matrimonial Causes Acts Considered as amended-Third Reading-Turn- QUESTIONS. INLAND REVENUE ORGANIZATION THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I cannot say that my attention has been specially called to the reports to which my noble Friend has referred; and though I cannot answer for my Colleagues, I think it probable that their attention has been directed to those reports in even a less degree. I have seen so many wild and eccentric statements in Continental journals as to the policy and intentions of the British Go-be completed? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- | and I hope now that there is good reason QUER, in reply, said, he believed the for believing that there will not be, only large department of the Inland Revenue which was still under consideration was the Legacy and Successions Duty Office. He was told that the revision of that office would be completed before the next Estimates were laid on the Table. JUDICATURE ACT-SITTINGS OF THE JUDGES.-QUESTION. MR. SCOTT (for Mr. GREGORY) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused by the uncertainty of the sittings of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court and the difficulty of ascertaining where such Judges will sit from day to day; and, whether he will consider, during the vacation, whether any and what regulations can be made to obviate such inconvenience? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had no power in the matter; but he was informed that it was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges, who were prepared to consider what steps it might be necessary to take to avoid inconvenience in the future. FAMINE PROSPECTS IN INDIA. QUESTION. MR. GOURLEY asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will be good enough to inform the House the nature of the information received by Her Majesty's Government relative to the prospects of the coming season's crops in the Madras and other Provinces, and also what arrangements are being made to employ the Native populations of the famine districts in the construction of permanent and temporary works calculated to increase the water supply of the country? LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the latest information which has been received by Her Majesty's Government concerning the prospects of this year's crops in India was contained in the telegram which was published in the morning newspapers some few days ago. It conveyed a more favourable account of the state of affairs throughout India, except in Madras and Mysore, any scarcity of the food supply. As regards Madras and Mysore, I am afraid there is very strong reason for believing that' distress will continue for some months longer. Several Blue Books have been laid upon the Table relating to the arrangements which have been made for the employment of the Native population. The relief works on which they are employed may be divided into two classes-first, those beneficially affecting the districts or villages in which they are constructed; and, secondly, the larger works of general public utility. The Viceroy proposes to visit Madras on the 16th of this month, and although I am afraid there will be much privation and much suffering, yet the House may rest assured that Her Majesty's Government will spare no pains to mitigate, as far as they can, the sufferings of the inhabitants of the districts in question. MR. WHALLEY asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any steps have been taken by his Department to protect education, so far as it may be under its control or influence, against the Confessional practices and doctrines set forth in the book called "The Priest in Absolution," for children ranging from five years of age and upwards; and, if so, that he will be good enough to state what steps have been taken for that purpose? VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I answered very fully a Question of the same character which was put by the hon. Member on the 26th of June last; but the subject itself is so important, and naturally excites so much general interest, that I do not think I ought on that ground to decline to answer the present Question. I understand the Question to refer to schools in connection with the Church of England, and I cannot but imagine that the unanimous opinion expressed by the Bench of Bishops in the Upper House of Convocation in condemnation of the practices to which he alludes will prevent their being carried out in the schools in connection with the Established Church. Should that, un happily, not be the case, I would remind | Government would consider the tempo rary occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops so far inconsistent with British interests as to disturb the relations of amity between England and Russia? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say, on behalf of the Government, that I feel it my duty not to answer this Question. the hon. Gentleman that the Time Table Conscience Clause of the Act of 1870 gives the parent of a child full protection against his child receiving any religious instruction or attending any religious observances to which he objects, and also that, by the Education Act of last year, we made it the duty of the school authority, which now exists in every part of the country, to report to us any infraction of that Conscience Clause. I need hardly add that if such infraction was continued, we should at once refuse to give the Government grant. Beyond this, we have no legal power to interfere with the religious opinions or practices of the managers of board schools, or voluntary public elementary schools, be CORONERS' INQUESTS IN THE METROthey Church of England, Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic. MR. MONK: In consequence of the reply which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee on the Appropriation Bill, I shall raise the question in another form. POLIS.-QUESTION. SIR WILLIAM FRASER asked the Secretary of State for the Home De NAVY-PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT partment, Whether he will object to lay IN THE ROYAL MARINES. QUESTION. MR. ANDERSON asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Departmental Committee, which he informed the House nearly two months ago was sitting four days a week on the question of promotion and retirement in the Royal Marines, has yet completed its labours and reported; and, if, before the close of the Session, he can give any information as to what is to be done, or how soon the officers of that service may expect a decision? MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, he had good reason to believe that the Report to which the hon. Member referred would be laid upon the Table before the House separated for the Recess. He would remind the hon. Member that the Government had taken a sum of £6,000 in the Estimates this year for carrying out a scheme; and he had no doubt that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had accepted the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, would at once consider the details, in order that the scheme should be applied as soon as possible. RUSSIA AND TURKEY-THE WARBRITISH INTERESTS - THE OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE. QUESTION. MR. MONK asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's upon the Table of the House, a Return of the number of Coroners' Inquests held within the Metropolitan Police District, in each year from January 1st 1867, to the present date, of which the verdicts have been wilful murder against certain persons; wilful murder against persons unknown; found dead; found drowned, and of not sufficient evidence of the cause of death; also, in columns parallel to the above, a Return of the number of persons tried in consequence of the above verdicts, or sent for trial by magistrates in the cases enumerated; giving the number of convictions and acquittals? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he should have no objection to lay substantially the Return asked for on the Table; but he should like to arrange the precise data with the hon. and gallant Member, and if he would communicate his wishes to his hon. Friend and Colleague the Under Secretary of State, no doubt the matter could be arranged. |