Commons Sitting of 17 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment; Fisheries (Ireland).
2° Common Lodging Houses (Ireland).
3° Adulteration of Food or Drink.

DESTITUTION IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps the Government propose to take respecting the great destitution prevailing amongst the peasantry and labouring classes in the West of Ireland.
MR. CARDWELLreplied, he was sorry to say that a considerable amount of destitution existed in the district to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, but he hoped that some of the statements made on the subject were overcharged. He had been informed that the union-house at Balmullet was capable of holding 600 persons, but that at present only 104 persons were in it, being an increase of about double of the number of inmates at the corresponding period of last year. In the other two unions of the district Castlebar and West-port, he believed there had been no very considerable increase in the number of inmates. He was in constant communication with those who superintended the administration of the poor law in Ireland, and he had every reason to hope that the ordinary administration of the poor law in those unions would suffice to meet the distress
1886
that existed. At present, at all events, he was not prepared to hold out any hope of special assistance from the Government.

THE INDIAN REVENUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India which of the following Financial Estimates of the deficiency of Income as against the Expenditure of the current year ending on the 30th of April is correct, namely, £10,250,000, as per the statement made by the Secretary of State for India on the 1st day of August last; £6,449,981, as per Financial Balance Sheet drawn up in Calcutta in September last; £9,290,129, as per Estimate submitted by Mr. Wilson on the 18th February last to the Legislative Council of Calcutta; and whether he can state the cause of these discrepancies?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had not the least doubt that the Estimate of Mr. Wilson, being the most recent, was the most correct of the three; but he could not state very satisfactorily the cause of the differences between the three statements. He (Sir C. Wood) estimated last summer that the revenue would be £35,850,000, the Government of India, in September, stated it at £37,567,000; and Mr. Wilson, in February, stated it at £37,707,000. There was very little difference, indeed, between the Estimate of the Government of India in September, and that of Mr. Wilson in February. There was a very satisfactory increase in the revenue upon the estimate which he (Sir C. Wood) stated to the House last summer. He spoke from information which left India in the spring. Mr. Wilson spoke, of course, from much later information, and he was happy to say that almost every source of revenue in India showed a very considerable increase in the course of the year. In the land revenue and the customs' revenue there had been an increase, and some portion of the new taxes which were not imposed when he spoke in August had been very productive. The result was, that the revenue exceeded his estimate by about £2,000,000. In August he stated the expenditure at £46,131,000. The Indian Government stated it in September at £44,067,000; and Mr. Wilson in February at £46,996,000. There was a difference of nearly £3,000 between the statement of the Indian Government in September and that of Mr. Wilson in February. That dif-

  1887
  ferenee, to the extent of about £1,000,000, was accounted for by an additional military expenditure of £600,000 in Madras and of £300,000 in Bombay. The Indian Government also omitted all reference to the interest on Indian railways to the extent of between £800,000 and £900,000. They also understated the amount of home charges to the extent of £700,000, and the rest of the difference between the two estimates might, he believed, be attributed to an additional expenditure on public works; but even Mr. Wilson's lucid and satisfactory statement did not render the matter entirely clear.

THE PEDESTAL IN PALL MALL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any person is about to place anything, and, if anything, what, upon the summit of a pedestal which has been standing for twelve months at the southern end of Waterloo Place, Pall Mall; and, if anything is to be placed there, when it may be expected to be done?
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was happy to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the pedestal would not be permanently vacant, and that it would receive a group of statues to commemorate the heroic conduct of the Guards in the Crimea. The management of the statues and pedestal was in the hands of a committee of subscribers, so that he could not say when the work would be completed. Mr. Bell was the sculptor, and he had no doubt that a work of art would be placed on the pedestal before any very long period had elapsed.

EAST INDIA TRANSPORT SHIPS.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, or for India, if the statement in the public journals relative to the mortality which had occurred on board of various vessels, which had arrived at Madras and Bombay with the wives and children of soldiers, be correct; and, if so, what department or officer may be regarded as responsible for any neglect of duo precautions, if such have been, in connection with this lamentable event?
SIR CHARLES WOODstated that the transmission of the soldiers' wives and children to India took place under the di-
1888
rection and superintendence of the Emigration Commissioners, and he could not do better than read a report which they had drawn up on the subject. The facts were these:—
"Thirteen ships were originally taken up for the conveyance of 5,410 souls. We have received intelligence of the arrival in India of nine of these ships, which carried 3,747 souls. In these the mortality was 377, equal to 10 per cent. But this mortality was almost exclusively of children under five years old. Of adults (that is all above 12) there died 11 out of 1,820=·60 per cent. Of children between 12 and 5 inclusive, 24 out of 866=2·77 per cent; making, out of all above four years of age, 35 out of 2,686=1·30 per cent. This is rather less than the whole mortality in Australian emigration (1·32 per cent.), and, considering the class of women, that the voyage occupied nearly four months, and passed twice through the tropics, it must be allowed to be very small. But among children under five the mortality amounted to 341 out of 1,061=32 per cent. With very few exceptions it was caused by measles and scarlet fever, which broke out in almost every ship shortly after sailing. These diseases were, no doubt, aggravated by the weakness of both children and mothers, caused by the unusually stormy weather which prevailed in October and November last, when the ships sailed. It is to be observed, moreover, that the children under five years of age in these nine ships amounted to nearly 29 per cent, the average in the population generally being 13·10. This disproportion necessarily assisted the spread of the disease and increased the mortality. That the sickness was not caused by any defect in the ships or the provisions is to be inferred from the absence of any disease of the character of scurvy or typhus as well as from the small mortality in children above four years of age. A more direct proof is afforded by the reports which we have received from Bombay and Madras. In each case an inquiry was, we believe, instituted, but only three reports have yet reached us—those on the Euxine, Statesman, and Lancashire Witch. They are annexed hereto, together with an extract of a private letter from Captain Wellesley, R.N., Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Navy. The mortality, as has been said, was attributable to the great number of very young children on board. In our emigration, this can be avoided, because our power of selection enables us to reject families containing many young children. But in sending out the soldiers' wives it was inevitable that their children should be sent with them, so that the number of young children became a necessary part of the arrangement. The question remains whether due care was taken to ascertain that there was no sickness among the children before they were put on board. In this respect the same plan was followed as has been followed for many years with complete success in regard to Australian ships. The surgeons of the ships were required to be at the depôts as soon as the first of the people came in, and to continue there till they embarked. This period varied from three to five days. It is the interest of these surgeons, no less than their duty, to see that no infectious disease is introduced into their ships, not only because the introduction of such diseases increases their labour and responsi-

1889
bility on the voyage, but because their remuneration at the close of it is reduced by every death that occurs. The surgeons had full authority and were bound to land any child whom they suspected to be suffering from infectious disease, and to delay the sailing of the ship so long as they had any doubt as to their sanitary condition. But every one's experience must satisfy them that no medical skill is sufficient to detect measles or scarlet fever in a latent form; and to have delayed the ships until time had been given for any latent disease to develope itself would have postponed their departure from this country till the cold and wet of winter had set in, and their arrival in India till the season had passed during which they could have been sent up the country. Moreover, if they had been detained in depôts on shore, it would have been impossible to prevent their going into the towns and being exposed to whatever infection was there prevailing. If they had been detained on board ship the cold and damp of November, added to the weariness of inaction, would have produced such depression of mind as must of itself have caused disease."
This statement from the Emigration Commissioners had been put into his hands that afternoon. The India Office had nothing to do with the matter. Since they had entrusted that Board as being the most competent persons to undertake it, with the duty of providing transport for the wives and children of soldiers to India.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates will be proceeded with, and also when the Return of the Effectives on the British and Indian Establishments will be ready.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the Army Estimates could not be proceeded with until after the second reading of the Reform Bill; but he would lay on the table during the week, the Returns of the Effectives of the British and Indian Establishments which had been moved for.

FIGHT BETWEEN HEENAN AND SAYERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, Whether he had heard of the contest said to have taken place that morning, and which he would not attempt to characterize. He also desired to know whether it is true that the Police were present on the occasion, and offered no interference whatever? Whether any Report has been made to the Home Department, and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures for the
  1890
  punishment of the persons who have occasioned this breach of the peace?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, he was afraid he could not satisfy the curiosity of his hon. Friend. He had certainly heard that day that the fight, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, did take place in the county of Hampshire; but he had received no intimation of it but what was founded on mere hearsay statement; and he was not able to inform the hon. Gentleman whether the county police were present on the occasion or not; the Metropolitan Police, of course, had no jurisdiction there. As to whether any measures were to be adopted, he could not answer that question till he had received information of the facts.

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN DAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Landlord and Tenant Bill for Ireland will be proceeded with?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could not state the precise day, but he would take care that ample time should be given for the consideration of the measure.

COURSE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Viscount at the Head of the Government what is intended to be the course of the proceedings on Thursday? The Wine Licences Bill and the Church Rates Bill were down for that day. He wished to know whether the Wine Licences Bill will come on first. He desired, also, to know whether the Reform Bill, which stands for Monday next, will be proceeded with then?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought it would be necessary to proceed with the Naval Estimates on Thursday, as so little progress had been made in them on the previous evening. It was intended that the Reform Bill should come on next Monday.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYcomplained of the arrangement lately made, by which independent Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing forward important questions on the Thursdays. The Government had left him to legislate on the subject of church rates; and yet, by an arrangement come to in his absence, they

1891
deprived him of the advantageous position he had held on the business paper for next Thursday. If the Government did not restore to him the advantage he had before possessed, he was not sure that he would not move that the Church-rates Abolition Bill be taken first on Thursday. To put himself in order, he would move the adjournment of the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that before the recess an order was made by the House that Government Orders of the Day should take precedence on Thursdays instead of Fridays; and in pursuance of that arrangement it was intended to take the Navy Estimates on Thursday next. Private Members would have the same opportunities on Friday that they used to have on Thursday.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had resisted the Motion of the Government which produced this change of business; but, as the House had agreed to it, the hon. Baronet would not be acting fairly in moving the third reading of the Church-rates Abolition Bill next Thursday. There had been a clear understanding that that Bill would not be proceeded with on Thursday, the leader of the House having announced that financial measures would be taken into consideration on that evening.
SIR GEORGE GREYremarked, that he did not understand that the hon. Baronet's Bill had ever stood first for consideration on Thursday. The hon. Baronet had had a chance of bringing it forward late at night, and he still had the same chance under the now arrangement.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to remind the House and the Government of the great public interest felt in the subject of church rates. Two hundred thousand persons had petitioned in favour of the Bill of the hon. Baronet, and he did hope that the Government would endeavour to comply with the wishes of his hon. Friend.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the hon. Baronet had obtained any precedence for his Church-rate Bill on Thursday next. Being an Order of the Day it stood behind all the Notices, and it would not have had a chance of coming on before twelve o'clock at night. He could still bring it on at that hour. Or if the hon. Baronet placed the Motion for Friday, it would be in the same position as if no change of days had taken place. The hon. Baronet had in no respect been placed in a less favorable position by the Government.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not understand that his hon. Friend blamed the Government for what had taken place; but as the Bill was a very important one, and was in the hands of a non-official Member; and as the House on both sides, it might be supposed, wished to send it on its journey to "another place"—the hon. Baronet appealed to the Government and to the House not to allow it to be placed in a worse position on Friday, than it would have been on Thursday, had the change in the order of business not been made. With respect to the change itself, be thought that if the House had determined to proceed on Fridays with the business of the day at six o'clock, and have left an hour and a half for other matters, it might not have been necessary. But being made, he presumed that the experiment must be tried. He hoped, however, that the Government would do all they could for the hon. Gentleman, who had a great responsibility on his hands with regard to this question.
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the hon. Baronet had just the same reason to complain as other hon. Members, of the change that had been made. He (Mr. Newdegate) had expressed his opinion upon the subject; and he held that, if the business of the House was to be conducted, such changes in the Standing Orders must not be made. He ventured to bring this subject under the consideration of the Government, because the arrangement, under which the Government business would be taken on Thursdays, was only temporary in its character. He trusted, in the event of any extension of such arrangement beyond the time to which it was at present limited, or of any intention to make any other alteration in the order of business, that the House would insist upon receiving due notice of such a proposition, in order that hon. Members who had notices on the paper might be prepared for the contemplated change.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to remind the House that he had given notice of his intention, upon the bringing up of the Report of Committee of Supply, to ask some questions of the Government in connection with our foreign relations. But as the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made a communication to him upon the subject, and as it was intended to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday next, he would not press his questions upon the present occasion, but he would

1893
submit them upon the Motion for going into Supply on Thursday.
Question "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to one of the Orders of the Day. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that before the Adjournment for the Easter holidays he was asked whether he intended to bring on the London Corporation Bill upon the re-assembling of Parliament, and he then stated that it was not his intention to do so until the first week after Parliament had assembled. A number of hon. Gentlemen were not only astonished to find it amongst the Orders of the Day, but that the Government entertained some intention of bringing on the Bill, contrary to the distinct assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis). No doubt it was some mistake, which he hoped might be immediately rectified, and he (Mr. Ayrton) would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House that it was not his intention to proceed with the second reading of this Bill upon the present occasion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was under the impression that the question asked of him was, whether it was his intention to move the second reading of the London Corporation Bill on the first day of the meeting of the House after the Easter holidays, and that he answered that inquiry in the negative. He certainly was not aware that he had given any assurance that he should not bring on the question in the first week of the re-assembling of Parliament. If, however, the hon. Member was positive as to such an intimation having been conveyed by him, he (Sir George Lewis) would be unwilling to dispute the fact. He submitted, however, that the present time was most opportune for proceeding with the measure and for taking a discussion upon its provisions. He should, however, be sorry to take any course that might be represented as a breach of faith on his part, and should rather postpone the consideration of the measure to a future day.

CHURCH RATES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavi-
1894
stock what course he intended to take in regard to his important measure regarding church rates
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he should stand to his guns, and take his chance of bringing on the third reading of his Bill upon the day for which he had originally fixed it.

MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PROPERTY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act relative to malicious injuries to property. Recently, in Cornwall, some malicious persons applied a weight to a particular part of a mining engine, the consequence of which was that the engine did not act, and the water rose sixty feet in the mine in six hours. The circumstance of the mine itself being shallow, however, prevented the mischievous consequences which would have otherwise ensued, and by the exertions of the men employed at the time the water in a few hours was pumped out. An indictment against the offending parties was preferred at the next sessions. It was framed under the statute of Geo. IV., relating to malicious injuries. The 5th section of that Act related simply to injuries to mines. The 6th section however enacted that if any person should cause water to be conveyed into a mine he shall be guilty of a felony, and the 7th section enacted that if any person shall damage an engine so as to stop its working he shall he guilty of a felony. In the case he had referred to, however, on the removal of the weight which had been attached to the engine it was found that the engine had not been injured. The Judge ruled that the prisoners had not committed any offence under the Act, and he directed an acquittal, but added some strong observations on the defective state of the law, expressing his opinion that it was desirable that an Act of Parliament should be passed as soon as possible to meet such offences as that which had been committed. With that view, he (Mr. Paull) had framed the measure which he asked leave to introduce.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend an Act relative to Malicious Injuries to Property, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PAULL, and Mr. ROGERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.
  House adjourned at Half-past Five o'clock.