unity of action they had the greater chance they would have of something being well done. For this reason he should vote for one Board for both sides of the water instead of a Board for each side. MR. WILKINSON said, that, although the natural division of the metropolis was the Thames, and although some advantages might be obtained by having two Boards, yet he could net help thinking that those advantages would be more than counterbalanced by want of unity. He agreed that it would add to the efficiency of the executive Board to put some limitation to the proposed number. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that, speaking from his own experience as a Commissioner, he thought that it was impossible that one set of Commissioners could execute properly the whole drainage of the metropolis. No doubt the local authorities considered that that provision which gave them the management of the district sewers was one of the most valuable in the Bill, but the overlooking of the main and the connection of the district sewers was quite as much, he considered, as one Board could do. The noble Lord behind him (Lord Ebrington) was apprehensive that under this arrangement there would be a deficiency of science in carrying out the sewerage, but if they looked to the city they found that a Board composed of tradesmen, assisted by efficient engineers, were able to carry out their work in a satisfactory manner, and he was at a loss to understand why a similar Board in St. George's, Hanover Square, assisted by competent engineers, should not do the same. As regarded the other side of the water, he would remark that the Commissioners had already determined to carry out an arterial drain on the Surrey side, but, until some Bill of this sort passed, they had no power to purchase land for the outfall, and consequently could not move in the matter. They would, however, have everything in readiness for the operations of the body which was to succeed them. MR. WALPOLE said, the only argument for giving the districts the control of the sewers was, that it would vest in them local management, but, as had been pointed out by hon. Members, the 109th section entirely superseded that power and vested the control in the Metropolitan Board. The question was whether they might not obtain all they desired through the representative system they were establishing, and if they had a single Board to supervise all the drainage they would gain two advantages-unity of action and diminution of expense. He thought this was a question well deserving the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall); for, if they gave the parishes the local management they desired, and, at the same time, controlled their action by another power, the greatest inconvenience might ensue. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he could assure the Committee that this subject had been deeply considered, and the deliberate conclusion arrived at was, that it was impossible for one Metropolitan Board to manage the district as well as the main sewerage. It was their opinion that the management should be based on representative Government. His only object was to do that which would prove really beneficial to the metropolis. If the small tradesmen of the City of London were able to manage their own drainage, he could not understand why the aristocratic vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, should be unable to undertake the management of the sewers of that district, which possessed every facility for drainage. So successful had been the management of the drainage of the city that the number of deaths in that district was only twenty in 1,000, while in other parts of the metropolis it was twenty-five, and sometimes thirty, in 1,000. He had no objection to empower the Metropolitan Board of Works to take upon itself the drainage of districts when the local authorities were unwilling to undertake it. MR. APSLEY PELLATT then withdrew his Amendment, and the clause was agreed to. Clauses 21 to 24 were postponed. Clause 26 (Enacts that the Metropolitan Board shall nominate three gentlemen, from whom the Secretary of State shall select one as their Chairman.) LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, he saw no reason why the usual practice should be departed from in the present instance. He thought the Board should be at liberty to appoint their own Chairman. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, that one advantage that would be gained by permitting the Board to select their own Chairman would be that they would in some measure consider themselves responsible for the manner in which their President performed his duties. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he was most anxious to avoid the appearance of importance to their proceedings. He was Government interference, and as the clause was in no way connected with the principle of the Bill, he would be glad to dispose of it as the Committee might deem right. Clause postponed. House resumed; Committee report progress. SEWERS (HOUSE DRAINAGE) bill. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that, as one of the Commissioners, he must protest against the Bill, because he thought it would prove inoperative and disappoint his right hon. Friend and the country. He disapproved of portions of the money which the Commissioners were authorised to borrow for the arterial drainage being devoted to the purpose of this Bill. MR. HENLEY said, he wished to ask for the opinion of Government with reference to the application, under this Bill, of money which was voted for one purpose being devoted to another. sure that no one was more anxious than his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Bessborough) that the proceedings in that House should be carried on in a manner befitting the House of Lords. His noble Friend would recollect that after the division of last night had taken place, proxies were called, but by that time a large number of Peers, who usually sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, had left without being aware that such was the intention of the Government. Now, the custom had always been-and he (the Earl of Malmesbury) considered himself some authority upon the subject, because he had had the management of divisions in the House for some years-for the party who had the majority of proxies, and were, therefore, the most likely to call them, to inform the other side that such would be the case. This had always been done in courtesy to the other side of the House, and for the sake of regularity in their proceedings. The noble Lord who managed the division on the side of the minority was always informed by the noble Lord who managed the division on the side of the majority whether proxies would be called or not; and there could be no objection to such a course being generally adopted. It appeared, however, that yesterday, probably by accident, this custom was omitted by his noble Friend who managed the division on behalf of the majority, and his noble Friend, who managed for the minority was not, therefore, made aware that proxies would be called. The consequence was, that the division being a large one, and it taking five or ten minutes to clear the bar of noble Lords who were voting outside the House, those who first passed through the wicket quitted the House before the division was concluded; and it was then felt that it would be of no use to call proxies, inasmuch as they would not give a fair idea of the division on that side of the House, so far as proxies were concerned. Under these circumstances, he would strongly recommend to the Government that in future another custom should be followed, and that the doors should be kept closed until the division was concluded. There was, he believed, an order of WAR WITH RUSSIA-DIVISION ON THE the House to that effect; and if it had VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that the object of the present Bill was one of great importance, and as they might by possibility be visited by a recurrence of the calamitous disease of last year, he thought that no measure which would tend to prevent it ought to be neglected. The sum of money to be devoted to the house sewerage was a very small portion of that which the Commissioners were empowered to borrow for the arterial drainage; and, as there would be means of recovering it from the owners of houses, the Government were inclined favourably to view the application of the money under this Bill. The House then went into Committee, when the various clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed. The House adjourned at One o'clock. -mmm... HOUSE OF LORDS, Customs Duties. 2 Intestacy (Scotland); Union of Contiguous RESOLUTIONS-PROXIES. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY wished to call their Lordships' attention to an occurrence which took place in the House last night, and which was of material been enforced last night, the confusion that then took place and the omission of that (the Opposition) side of the House to call proxies would not have occurred. THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH denied 587 War with Russia—Division {LORDS} on the Resolutions, &c. 588 call for proxies than in order to show, not only to the country, but to the whole world, that they had the support of a decisive majority of independent Peers on a question of great importance, and the effect of a defeat upon which must have been (as the noble Earl opposite had intimated on the previous evening), to substitute another Government in their place. He thought, when he saw noble Lords opposite leaving, that they were of opinion that a majority of forty-four for the Go that since he had managed the divisions on | hardly conceive circumstances in which it the Ministerial side of the House it had was more natural for the Government to been the custom for the noble Lord who managed for the majority to give notice to the noble Lord who managed for the minority that it was his intention to call for proxies. On the contrary, the notice usually proceeded from the other side. What took place on the previous day was this. He entered as many proxies as he had, and his noble Friend who managed on the other side did the same; and it was clearly understood during the whole evening that proxies would be called. After the division, he and his noble Friend walk-vernment was sufficient for one evening, ed up the House together, and when he had got just below the gangway he called out as loud as possible "Proxies," believing that all Peers present heard what he said. He then went up near to the throne, in order to prevent Peers on that side of the House who had proxies from leaving the House. To his surprise, he saw a number of Peers on the opposite side leav-servations of the noble Earl, perhaps he ing the House; but of course it was no will give notice whether he intends to call business of his to prevent them. He then for proxies on Monday evening. went to the table, but his noble Friend on the other side did not appear for a considerable time. He could assure the House that he had not the slightest wish to act unfairly; but no one could blame him for endeavouring to secure as large a majority as possible for his own side. THE EARL OF DERBY said, there was not the slightest intention to throw any blame on the noble Earl opposite. The fact was, that in accordance with the practice of modern days-and he thought it a very useful practice-proxies were now seldom called for; and as they had become the practice rather than the rule, he thought it was very desirable that previous notice should be given when proxies were intended to be called for, rather than when not. At any rate, there should be a clear understanding between the two sides of the House on the subject, in order to prevent any future mistakes. He thought it very desirable to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend, that the doors of the House should be closed while a division was go and they did not wish to swell that number by handing in proxies. However, the reason of what had taken place had now been satisfactorily explained, and it appeared that there had been a misapprehension with regard to proxies which he trusted would not happen again. THE EARL OF DERBY: After the ob EARL GRANVILLE: If the noble Earl divides the House, we shall unquestionably. THE EARL OF DERBY: That I certainly shall; but I expect to have the pleasure on that occasion of dividing with my noble Friends opposite. LORD REDESDALE wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the presence last night, contrary to their Lordships' orders, of a large number of ladies in portions of the House not set apart for their reception, which was attended, he must say, with a very prejudicial effect to the general appearance of the House. The habit of surrounding a house of debate with that which was, no doubt, most beautiful, but which here was out of place, made their Lordships' House look more like a casino than anything else, and was not advantageous to the discussions carried on there. He trusted that this would not be repeated, for he knew with respect to one noble Lord, who would have spoken last night, that he expressed an unwillingness to do so, on account of having to address their Lordships surrounded by an audience of that kind. In future he hoped the admission of ladies would be confined to that part of the Ilouse to which they were properly admitted by the orders of the House. EARL GRANVILLE said, he remembered once seeing a French farce, in which an English Milord was the principal cha racter, and he was represented as objecting and corrected them before they were set up in very much to the presence of ladies at din- type. Some misapprehension, however, may have ner, because he said they were displeasing has betrayed the trust of his employer in the arisen from the party, whoever he may be, who to his eyes. Now, he never knew before printing office, in Dublin, having misunderstood this evening the original of that English the reasons why certain portions were struck out Milord. He must also add, that he be-after being set up in type. It may be as well, lieved all their Lordships had not the advantage which his noble Friend seemed to possess, by frequenting the casinos, of enjoying those views of the female sex which his noble Friend wished to deprive that House of. He, however, accepted with great pleasure his noble Friend's satisfactory explanation why some of the speeches delivered on the other side of the House last night, were, in the opinion of the supporters of Ministers, much less effective than they usually were. THE MAYNOOTH COMMISSION EVIDENCE-EXPLANATION. THE EARL OF HARROWBY wished to be allowed to read a letter received by him from Dr. Twiss, and dated yesterday, in explanation of the alleged tampering with the evidence taken before the Maynooth Commission "19, Park Lane, May 14, 1855. 'My dear Lord-I was absent from London on Friday, but I have had an interview with Mr. Henry West since my return. I am anxious that our secretaries should be relieved from the imputation of having been parties to any tampering with the evidence. The rule which we laid down, as you will remember, was, that the witnesses should have liberty to make formal alterations in the first transcript of their evidence, for the purpose of expressing their views more clearly or with greater precision, but not to introduce any substantial changes, and that if they desired to add explanations of importance, they should annex them as notes to their original evidence. I have every reason to believe that this rule was carefully observed. The cases of Dr. Flanagan and Professor O'Hanlon were peculiar. The former gentleman was the first witness called before us, and his examination was avowedly conversational; and in the course of it he was given to understand, when he expressed distrust of his memory, that he might refer to the books and documents in his possession as secretary to the trustees, and supply with the requisite accuracy, and in whatever form he pleased the necessary information. Professor O'Hanlon, the second witness, was not furnished with any written notice of his evidence to correct, but only with a printed proof; and not finding enough space in the proof to make his corrections, he wrote his evidence over again, copying the questions accurately, and embodying in his answers the corrections which he wished to introduce. The special attention of the Commissioners was called to this case by the secretaries, and it was not until a careful comparison of the two versions of evidence had been made by the Commissioners themselves, that the corrected version was allowed to be set up in type. The other professors received written notes of their evidence, therefore, to explain, that after the evidence had of it as contained repetitions of unimportant debeen received in its complete state, such portions tails were purposely struck out if there was no conflict of evidence, lest the appendix should have become so great in bulk as to deter the reader of its publication. With regard to the occurfrom its perusal, and thereby frustrate the object rence of two territorial titles in the catalogue of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, I have no doubt that it is to be attributed to an unexpected variation in Battersby's Directory, our only tection from us, and the responsibility of which available source of information which escaped de oversight the Commissioners must accept; but it is only just to our Roman Catholic colleagues that it should be known that the Commissioners unanimously decided to prevent, if possible, the use of any would have been irreproachable in this respect. territorial title, and I had hoped that our work As it is, I am happy to think that so few blots have been discovered in it. As to the circumstance of one of our colleagues having submitted, evidence to Dr. Cullen, as one of the visitors of on his own responsibility, some portions of the the college, with a view to satisfy himself upon some conflicting statements as to doctrine, I was not made aware of it, any more than your Lorde ship, until after the Report had been settled and the Commissioners had concluded their sittings; so that, whether the statement against Dr. Cullen be correct or not, that he misused the confidence reposed in him in referring the matter to his superiors at Rome, the charge against our colleague as make things pleasant' cannot be substantiated. to the evidence having been cooked at Rome to part to disclose any portion of the printed eviIt may have been an act of indiscretion on his dence prematurely, but I think it just towards him to declare that it had not the slightest influence whatever upon the proceedings of the Commission, either in the evidence or in the Report.-I am, my dear Lord, yours very faithfully, "TRAVERS TWISS. The Right Hon. the Earl of Harrowby, &c." INTESTACY (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion that this Bill be now read the Second Time, LORD CAMPBELL said, he hoped that a few observations would be sufficient to induce their Lordships to assent to the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to assimilate the law of Scotland, as regarded succession to personal property in case of intestacy to the law of England. By the law of England, if a man died leaving several children, and another child had before married and died leaving children, those grandchildren were entitled to the share of the grandfather's personal property which the father would have had if he had survived; but the law of Scotland worked a-great injustic in such a case; for if a father died in the lifetime of the grandfather leaving children, they were not entitled to any portion of their grandfather's property, but it was all divided amongst the survivors of his sons and daughters. It was now proposed that that which was the law of England should in future be the law of Scotland also. Some years ago a Bill to remedy this injustice had passed their Lordships' House, but was lost in the Commons, but the present Bill had received the sanction of the House of Commons. There was one point of difference between the two laws wherein he thought that of Scotland had the advantage. In England, if a man died intestate, leaving a large landed estate and personalty, the eldest son was entitled to the whole landed estate, and might also draw his share of the personalty; but in such a case in Scotland the heir had no claim on the personalty, unless he agreed to contribute the real estate, and let all the children share it alike. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill. Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next. TRADE WITH RUSSIA. from the organ of the Government in that House, the President of the Board of Trade. It was not without having given his very best attention to the subject that he had entered upon the course which he was now pursuing. He had endeavoured to understand upon what grounds Her Majesty's Ministers justified the course which they had taken, and, with that view, he had looked to the opinions of the former President of the Board of Trade. It had been contended in another place that the blockade was ineffective. To prove that it was not so, however, returns of two different years were prepared from the tables of the Board of Trade; but, immediately that they were produced, the Gentleman who had originated the subject in another place pointed out the error of comparing all the imports of one year with half the imports of another year; and, as that was at once exposed, he (the Earl of Albemarle) confessed that he was somewhat astonished to find that his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade served up a réchauffée of the fallacies of his right hon. predecessor. We had been assured that this was to be an effective blockade. If Her Majesty's Ministers could prove this to be the case, his occupation was gone; but, what he contended was, that let the Government make what arrangements they pleased, short of closing the land trade with the enemy, let there be the most effective sea blockade that could be instituted, it was all a mock transit trade of Russian produce was allowed to go through the Prussian dominions. It appeared to him that it would be almost better to take the money which had been extracted from the pockets of the people and throw it into the sea, than to continue the farce of a sea blockade and a free transit of goods by land. He had received, just before entering the House, a letter from a gentleman connected with the Russian trade, and upon whose information he could place the firmest reliance, who thus stated his views of the blockade and its effect— THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE, in pursuance of notice, rose to move to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, in order to bring the war with Russia to a speedy termination, it is necessary to re-ery and a sham so long as the overland strict the trade with that country by more efficient measures than any which have hitherto been adopted or announced by Her Majesty's Government. In bringing forward this Resolution, he felt considerable pain, because he found himself, for the first time in his life, at issue with those with whom he had politically acted for a quarter of a century. But, believing most conscientiously that this was a question either of speedy peace or of a bloody and protracted war, he should consider himself a traitor to his country if he did not use all his privileges as a Peer of Parliament to coerce his noble Friends into a course which he felt to be essential to the interests of this great nation. About a fortnight ago he had entered at considerable length into this same subject, and he was induced to adopt the present course of taking the sense of the House upon this question in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer which he had received "The Russian Government has now so organised the means of interior communication to the rivers Niemen and the Vistula, and to the Prus sian frontiers generally, that the whole of the produce of Russia is now directed to Prussia in lieu of to the ports of the Gulfs of Finland and of Riga. So perfect, indeed, are these means of transport that even those stocks of produce which had been hitherto retained in blockaded distant ports are now being transported. In a word, |