Commons Sitting of 27 July 1866

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. John Major Henniker-Major, for Suffolk (Eastern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Public Accounts, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Sclater-Booth added.
Report—Expiring Laws Committee (No. 448.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 26]reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [July 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment [Stamps]; Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2).
Ordered—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Prisons*; Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2).*
First Reading—Consolidated Fund Appropriation*; Prisons* [250]; Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2)* [251]; Ecclesiastical Commission* [252] [Lords].
Second Reading—Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries)* [240]; Dockyard Extensions* [246].
Committee—Reformatory Schools (re-comm.) [184] [R.P.]; Industrial Schools (re-comm.)* [185] [R.P.]; Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances [220]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland) (re-comm.) [174]; Public Health (re-comm.) [202] [R.P.]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [228]; Turnpike Acts Continuance* [229]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [234]; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* [243]; New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government* [242] [Lords].
Report—Railways Ireland) Temporary Advances [220]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland) (re-comm.) [174]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [228]; Turnpike Acts Continuance* [229]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [234]; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* [243]; New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government* [242] [Lords].
Considered as amended—Railway Companies' Securities* [151]; Poor Law Amendment* [221].
Third Reading—Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation*[237]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [238]; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment* [232]; Railway Companies' Securities* [151].

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolutions [July 26] reported.
Vote 1 (£4,970 purchase of old gun metal, to be employed in the construction of the National Memorial to his late Royal Highness the Prince Consort).
MR. MONKsaid, he believed some misunderstanding existed with regard to this Vote. After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night on the subject, it was impossible for the Committee not to have agreed to the Vote; but it appeared that there had not been that unanimous agreement on the part of the late Government with regard to this gift that had been supposed, because at a later period of the evening they heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) that the Government of Lord Palmerston had not promised to give seventy tons of old gun metal for the memorial, nor did it appear that Lord Palmerston had himself expressly consented to their being given. If it had not been for the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should have felt very much inclined to divide the Committee as to the propriety of the grant. Perhaps

1605
the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be kind enough to give some further explanation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that on reflection the House will be of opinion that the Committee came to a right decision yesterday on this Vote. I shall very briefly put the facts before the House, and I will endeavour to do so without any gloss, the Vote being one which does not concern us except as a matter of official duty. When Lord Palmerston asked the House to vote a sum of £50,000 towards a National memorial of the Prince Consort he said that this would be the sole amount they would be asked for; and that undertaking has been rigidly fulfilled. At the same time, Lord Palmerston gave a promise to the Committee for managing the matter that gun metal should be granted to them for the bronze work of the memorial. I have been told Lord Palmerston made a statement to that effect in the House, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) rose yesterday, and, speaking from memory, confirmed that impression. On this arrangement and assurance of Lord Palmerston all the estimates were made, and the contracts entered into. The gun metal was not then wanted, and therefore no immediate call was made upon the Treasury to fulfil their engagement; but a year ago, when the structure had reached that point when it was necessary to ask for this metal, it was applied for. Lord Palmerston mentioned the matter in the Cabinet, when some of the Members of the Government did not approve of the course taken in regard to it. In a letter I have seen Lord Palmerston states this objection; but he repeats his original engagement and says that, noth with standing the objection on the part of his Colleagues, if required he was prepared to submit a Vote to the House for the metal. Under these circumstances, I am sure the House will feel that it would be proceeding in a captious spirit to turn round now, when Lord Palmerston is no longer here to uphold his engagement, to rescind that agreement, on which practical men have practically acted in perfect good faith, simply because some technical objection has been raised by some of his Colleagues. I do not think the House will feel disposed so to act, but of course I am in the hands of the House. I am only performing my duty, when—an appeal having been made to the Government to fulfil an engagement which originated with another Ministry—I ask the House to consent to the grant in the shape
1606
of a money Vote, although actually the money will never leave the Exchequer. The letter of Lord Palmerston distinctly states the amount of gun metal which was to be appropriated to the memorial. Therefore, I am not without expectation that the hon. Gentleman will feel, on reflection, that we should not be acting fairly or in a liberal spirit if we took advantage of a petty objection to throw obstacles in the way of carrying out the engagement.
Vote agreed to.
Then the other Votes agreed to.
MR. HUNTsaid, he could not allow the last Vote to pass without acknowledging the very kind and valuable assistance he had received from his hon. Friend who had preceded him in his office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with regard not only to these Estimates, but all the other Treasury business, and also for his unvarying kindness and courtesy.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not expect such a compliment, and conceived he was only doing his duty in assisting his hon. Friend to the utmost of his power.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 184.]
(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Sir George Grey.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Preliminary.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Certified Reformatory Schools.
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 (Power to make Rules, &c.)
MR. POWELLproposed an Amendment to leave out the latter part of the clause, declaring that the rules shall not be enforced until they have obtained the approval of the Secretary of State. It was most expedient to leave the managers the utmost possible freedom of action in the regulation and government of these institutions.
Amendment proposed, in page 3. line 28, to leave out from the, word "Act" to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Powell.)
MR. M'LARENsaid, that Scotland had been the cradle of the reformatory and industrial schools, and the secret of their

1607
extraordinary success was that they had not been too much swathed in "red tape." If the Committee valued the good opinion of the managers they would leave out the words which fettered their discretion.
MR. HORSFALLsupported the Amendment. There was a strong feeling in Liverpool against too much interference on the part of the Government with the managers of these schools which had already done much mischief.
MR. HANBURYalso supported the Amendment, and said that the managers of the reformatories were to a man in its favour.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he could not agree in the observations of hon. Members. These schools were originally founded upon the voluntary principle, but they had become in some degree State institutions, and were partly maintained by public money. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) could not be aware that the same clause existed in the Scotch Act, and that the rules of the managers were not valid until they had received the sanction of the Lord Advocate. It was necessary, when the public money was voted for a public institution, that some control should be exercised by the State in order to see that the money was properly applied. In nine cases out of ten, however, the power of interference exercised by the Secretary of State would be practically a dead letter.
MR. HENLEYsupported the Amendment. He thought that unless it could be shown that some inconvenience had arisen from improper conduct on the part of the managers it would be better to leave them responsible for the discipline of the school.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENbelieved that the interference of the Home Office would be of so mild a character that the Committee might well agree to the clause.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that many of the schools in Scotland had refused to take Government grants because they would thereby expose themselves to the interference of the Government.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that this was a Consolidated Bill, and the words proposed to be left out formed part of every Act on the subject.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 22: Majority 26.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Commitment of Offenders to, and their Status at, a Certified Reformatory School.
Clause 12 (Offenders under 16 may be sent to Certified Reformatory Schools.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHmoved an Amendment limiting the preliminary term of imprisonment to ten days instead of fourteen days. The effect would be to give a different class of diet in many gaols.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsupported the clause as it stood.
After discussion, Amendment made by inserting the words "for ten days or any longer term," leaving the matter in the discretion of the magistrate.
MR. WHALLEYproposed an Amendment to the effect that the religion of the child should be deemed to be that of the parents, and not be left to be decided by the magistrates.
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENadmitted that the matter was one of considerable difficulty; but there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the religion of the parents of these children. It would be better to leave it to the magistrates to ascertain the religion of these children by the register of baptism or the best evidence they could obtain.
MR. WIIALLEYsaid, his object was to prevent the children of Protestant parents being treated as Roman Catholics. It was the practice of the Roman Catholic priests in large towns to get hold of the children of the lower classes, and, without the consent of the parents, to submit them to the rite of baptism. The performance of this rite was, however, declared by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard), in an Amendment he had put on the paper, to be sufficient evidence of the religion of the child. If that Amendment were agreed to, it would be sufficient to take these children by scores before the magistrates and send them to the reformatories as Roman Catholics.
MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIErose to order. The hon. Member ought not to speak to an Amendment not yet before the Committee. The hon. Member was also out of order in speaking from the front

1609
Opposition Bench, which, by the rules of the House, was reserved for Privy Councillors and those who had been Members of the executive Government. He appealed to Rule No. 90 of the Rules and Orders and Forms of Proceedings, for the guidance of Members of the House as regards public business. Rule 90 was in these terms—
"The front Bench, on the right hand of the Chair, is reserved for Members holding office under the Crown; and the front Bench, on the left hand of the Chair, is ordinarily occupied by Privy Councillors and other Members who have held office under the Crown."
The hon. Member was too much in the habit of taking up the time of the House by remarks which gave great pain to Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion.
MR. WHALLEYdeclined to enter into a personal discussion with the hon. Gentleman, and then proceeded to justify the Amendment which he had moved by referring to the circumstances of a trial which had recently taken place before Mr. Justice M. Smith.
MR. CANDLISHrose to order, and said, a trial at the Old Bailey could havo no possible relation to the Amendment which the hon. Member had moved.
MR. WHALLEYthought he should be able to show that it had,. There existed among the Roman Catholic priests an organization for the persecution to ruin—and almost to death—of any person who dared to expose this system of proselytism. The case to which he referred—which had been frequently before the police courts, though the London journals had systematically suppressed it—was that of a woman who had been persecuted for years for protesting against the surreptitious baptism of her children according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church.
MR. GOLDNEYentered his protest against these religious discussions being introduced by the hon. Member, especially at this late period of the Session.
MR. M'LARENdesired to add his voice to the appeal which was being made to the hon. Member for Peterborough not to persevere in matters of this kind—and especially at such length. It was quite plain from past experience that many Members who were in doubt as to the vote they should give would vote against the hon. Member for Peterborough merely because he had made the Motion and advocated a particular side. Such a fact as
1610
this was to be regretted, because it was calculated to prejudice the fair consideration of the questions which were to be brought forward, and it tended to prevent Members from acting upon their convictions. He also objected to the assertion of the hon. Member that he professed a better kind of Protestantism than other people. He (Mr. M'Laren) held that he was himself as good a Protestant as was the hon. Member for Peterborough, and he likewise objected to the kind of argument which that hon. Gentleman followed, and which wounded the feelings of other hon. Members of a different religious faith.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would recommend the Committee to agree to the section of the clause as it stood. It was wide, and gave full power to the magistrates to ascertain the religious persuasion of the youthful offender in the best manner they could, and to select a school as much in accordance therewith as possible.
Amendment negatived.
LORD EDWARD HOWARD,who had an Amendment on the paper, that
"In the failure of other evidence, a certificate of the baptism of the child, authenticated by the minister who has lawful custody of the register in which the baptism of such child has been recorded, shall be deemed sufficient evidence of that child's religion,"
said, that as be had reason to believe, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), that his Amendment might fetter the investigation before the magistrate, he would withdraw it. His object was by no means to proselytize, but simply to retain Roman Catholic children in their own persuasion.
MR. O'REILLYmoved an Amendment as follows:—
In page 4, line 32, after the word "justice" to insert the words "and the managers of every School shall, on receiving a youthful offender into their custody, enter his name and also the religious persuasion as aforesaid in a book to be kept for that purpose."
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENopposed the addition, on the ground that it unnecessarily interfered with the managers of schools.
MR. M'LARENsaid, it was proposed that the magistrate should endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion of these little vagabonds; but everyone knew that the court could not ascertain the religious persuasion,

1611
because two-thirds of them belonged to no religious persuasion; and no magistrate could ascertain that which did not exist. It could only be put down if it was ascertained. The Amendment would therefore want amending by inserting such words as "when ascertained." He submitted that the best thing they could possibly do was to leave the clause as it stood, without inserting the proposed words.
MR. ADDERLEYobjected to the Amendment as being useless, because all Roman Catholic offenders were sent to Roman Catholic reformatories, and Protestants to Protestant reformatories.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, there were no reformatories for offenders of the Jewish persuasion, and therefore an entry of the religion in such a case as this was very desirable, in order that it might be properly known, and thus prevent all dispute.
MR. SYNANthought the religion of the child ought to be recorded, as proposed by the Amendment.
MR. GOLDSMIDconsidered that the Amendment applied to children of his own persuasion, and therefore would support it.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that each denomination had the means of establishing its own reformatory schools.
MR. HENLEYregarded the proposal as a reasonable and proper one. It was only reasonable that the fact ascertained by the magistrates under the clause should be recorded and kept in a book in the school. It would be necessary to add the words "so specified," and the proviso would then read as follows:—
"And the managers of every school shall, on receiving a youthful offender into their custody, enter his name, and also the religious persuasion, so specified as aforesaid, in a book to be kept for that purpose."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the boys were to be sent to a reformatory of their own persuasion, and what need was there, therefore, of a register? This was a prison rule which the hon. Gentleman proposed, without the least necessity, to introduce into the reformatories.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYasked if the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) would agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire?
MR. O'REILLYassented.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsuggested that the Amendment should be agreed to if it were thought that it would give any security. He could not see that the Amendment would have any bad effect.
Amendment made to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "persuasion," the words "so specified."—(Mr. O'Reilly.)
MR. M'LARENconsidered that all the magistrate should have to do was to inquire to which of the reformatories he should send the child. He therefore objected to this registry.
MR. NEWDEGATEagreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, that the Amendment should not be adopted.
COLONEL SYKESsubmitted that when there was only one reformatory means should be taken to show the religion of the different children in it.
Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 38: Majority 11.
MR. POWELLmoved to omit from "a minister" to "the school," line 41, and insert—
"It shall be lawful, upon the representation of the parent, or in the case of an orphan then of the guardian or nearest adult relative, of any offender detained in any such school, for a minister of the religious persuasion of such offender, at certain fixed hours of the day, which shall be fixed by the managers or directors for the purpose, to visit such School for the purpose of affording religious assistance to such offender, and also for the purpose of instructing such offender in the principles of his religion."
MR. M'LARENsupported the proposition to omit the words from the clause. It was said that by putting in these words they would preserve the law as it is, but he reminded the Committee that though that might be true with respect to England, this was a Consolidated Bill applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Scotch model was a good one he could tell them that the Scotch law had no such provision as that proposed to be omitted. He was not actuated by sectarian feeling. On the contrary, he had subscribed for many years to the Catholic and Protestant schools in Edinburgh, and he knew they were doing a great deal of good. After the boy was sent to the Roman Catholic school no Protestant or other minister could go there to interfere with its management; and after a boy was sent to a Protestant school no Roman Catholic or other minister of religion could go there to interfere with its management. It was not by the clergy of any denomination that good was done to this class of offenders, but by the exertions and example

1613
of the teachers, who appealed to their hearts and consciences, and instilled into their minds the principles of morality and religion.
LORD EDWARD HOWARDregretted to perceive that what was printed in the Bill was about to be given up, but, if so, they must agree to it.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the clause which it was proposed to omit would give to the Roman Catholic priest the right to enter, and it was objectionable to give to any minister of religion a right that should be limited to some officer appointed by the Government and responsible to the Government.
MR. SYNANasked if the children were to be left without religious education.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSK,as a magistrate, could say that in general the religion of the parents of such children was no religion at all.
Amendment agreed to.
Words struck out, and other words inserted.
MR. GOLDSMIDproposed to add a proviso, that
"No child receiving religious instruction from a Jewish minister shall be compelled to attend church or chapel, or be taught doctrines inconsistent with the Jewish faith."
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 (Power of Parent to change School.)
Ma. HENLEYsaid, there would be a good deal of discussion on the clause, and therefore he suggested that it would be better to direct the Chairman to report Progress.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

IRELAND—ILLEGAL PROCESSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is not the fact that the Law has been openly violated in several places in the North of Ireland on the 12th of July by persons joining in illegal processions; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to institute proceedings against any of the parties so offending, so as to prevent the recurrence of such illegal practices for the future.
  LORD NAASsaid, in reply, that, on the whole, the 12th of July passed off quietly in the North of Ireland. There were, however, some places in which violations of the law with regard to those party processions had occurred. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had taken every step in its power to render all parties who had taken part in such proceedings amenable to law, and instructions had been already issued for the prosecution of such persons as had been recognized taking part in those processions.

  TENANTS' COMPENSATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, Whether he wishes it to be understood to be his apprehension of what is the law of England as between landlord and tenant, that a tenant, under any circumstances whatever, can claim and obtain compensation from the landlord for the value of any building permanently attached to the soil, which he may have erected on the land held by him, without the consent of the landlord?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he felt greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having so distinctly recognized him (Mr. Gladstone) as an authority on the English law as he had done by the question just asked. The answer to that question would be simply this. That in the words he had used the other night, which were principally quoted from the speech of Lord Derby in 1845, he did not make any reference, either expressly or by implication, so far as he could recollect, to the case of buildings, but he had spoken of improvements generally without entering into the matter with reference to buildings.

TURKISH CONSOLIDATED DEBT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Foreign Ambassadors had complained of the non-payment of the July half-yearly dividend of the Turkish Consolidated Debt by the Porte, and had demanded that solid guarantees should be given for the payment of the same in October?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, there has not been anything in the nature of complaint or demand with regard to the non-payment of the dividends of the Turkish Consolidated

  1615
  Debt; but Lord Lyons, in a Despatch dated the 30th June, stated that in conjunction with the French Ambassador, he waited upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and subsequently upon the Grand Vizier himself, and urged upon them the importance of the payment of the July dividend of the loan. Since then a telegram had been received from Lord Lyons, reporting that the attempt to obtain a loan intended to provide for the interest had failed, but that measures were about to be taken by the Porte to revive negotiations for another loan as soon as possible, and in the meantime extra interest would be allowed in consequence of the delay.

  INDIA—TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL TO SIMLAH.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Home Government have sanctioned the transfer of the capital of India from Calcutta to Simlah?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE,in reply, said, the Home Government had not only not sanctioned any such transfer, but no application had been made for such a transfer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was referring to the excursion which the Governor General had taken to Simlah.

  METROPOLIS—RECENT DAMAGE TO HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is proposed to repair the ravages recently committed in the Parks of the Metropolis by sums voted, or to be voted, from monies arising from the taxes levied on the Inhabitants of the United Kingdom; or whether the necessary funds will be derived from the Metropolis, which was the scene of the late devastations?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I apprehend, Sir, that the first thing to be done is to repair the ravages that have been committed in the Park. And as to the source from which the money is to be obtained, that is a question that will be taken into the consideration of the Government.

  THE COAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will recommend to Her Majesty that the Commission for inquiry into the quantity of Coal remaining
  1616
  in the Coal Fields of England be directed to extend its inquiry to Ireland?
  MR. WALPOLE,in reply, said, he knew of no such intention at present.

INDIA-MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, The number of Candidates who presented themselves at the last competitive examinations for the fifty appointments as Assistant Surgeons in Her Majesty's Indian Army which were announced to be vacant on the 19th March, 1866, and the reason why Medical Officers of the Indian Army are granted, when incapacitated for the further performance of their duties through ill-health contracted in the tropics, half-pay pensions of one-third less than those sanctioned for Medical Officers of the British Army of five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years' respectively?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONreplied that for the fifty vacancies in the medical service for India only thirty-six candidates presented themselves. With regard to the other part of the question of the hon. Gentleman, he begged to say that the rates of pensions in the India service were, on the whole, more favourable than those in the British service, inasmuch as they were granted for a much shorter period of service, and the pensions were permanent instead of temporary. The advantages of the medical service in India seemed not to be well understood. The promotion was very rapid, as in some cases the medical officer, after only two years' service, received emoluments reaching to £500 or £600 a year.

AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA—PROLONGA TION OF THE ARMISTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which lie had not given him notice, but which, nevertheless, he hoped the noble Lord would be able to answer—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any news of the prolongation of the armistice, and whether it is in the noble Lord's power to tell the House what is the general purport of the preliminaries which are alleged to have been signed?
  LORD STANLEY: I understand, Sir, that a prolongation of the armistice has

  1617
  taken place; but as to the preliminaries, I cannot say what they are.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, "That the House, upon its rising, do adjourn to Monday next."
PROXY VOTING IN PUBLIC COMPANIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to objections to the present system of voting in public companies, by which shareholders, whose occupation, convenience, or sex, prevent them from attending public meetings or polls, have no means of voting, except by proxy, before they were aware of what is likely to happen at any meeting of the company. He did not want a decisive answer to his question on the present occasion. His object was, that the House should take the matter into their consideration, in order that they might have some acquaintance with it when he introduced a Bill upon the subject next year. On two previous occasions he had brought forward Bills upon this subject, and on both occasions they bad been rejected at the last stages by the combined influence of those who represented public companies in that House. He was desirous of raising the subject now in order that the great railway companies, if they thought it desirable to oppose an amendment of the law, should be able to do so in the next Session, but upon a legitimate stage of the Bill, and in a fair and open manner. He was a proprietor of railway stock, and a creditor of railways, and, consequently, he considered himself qualified to speak on the subject, and he contended that the present system did not represent anything like the true principle of voting, and that it required alteration. He did not pretend to say what that change should be, and all he then contended for was, that the subject required investigation. A Commission was now sitting on railways generally, and he thought this subject might very well be referred to them. The alteration in the stamp on proxies, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) carried out at at his (Mr. Darby Griffith's) suggestion, had been productive of great advantage.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not think that this was a subject to refer to a Royal Commission; but he agreed
  1618
  with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes that it was one which deserved attention, and he thought the hon. Gentleman had done good service in bringing it under the notice of the House. He should be happy to confer with the hon. Gentleman, and endeavour to deal with what was an unsatisfactory part of the railway system. As the hon. Gentleman had put it to the House, there was an objection to the present system of voting by proxies. In certain cases questions arose which were not foreseen when the proxies were given; and the consequence was, that the persons who gave them found that their votes were given in a sense different to that in which they would have voted if they had known the real state of the question. It was, however, easier to point out the evils of the existing system than to devise a remedy for them free from objection. The Bill the hon. Gentleman had introduced on this subject was, on the whole, a good Bill, and he was sorry it had not been passed into a law. He hoped, however, that something might be done next year to remedy the evil, and he would enter into the question with a cordial desire to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman in devising a remedy.

EMIGRANT SHIPS AND THE CHOLERA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he rose to call attention to the treatment of emigrants on board the steamers plying between Liverpool and New York, and to the great prevalence of cholera during the last three months, on board many of those vessels. The large number of over 300,000 emigrants which had left Ireland within the last year for the United States was his excuse for calling the attention of the House to this subject, the importance of which could not be overestimated. Several Acts had been passed with regard to the accommodation to be provided on board emigrant ships; but from circumstances which had come to his knowledge it was evident that they were inefficient for the purpose for which they were passed, and that either for that reason or from other causes they had not been put in force. During the months of May, June, and July hundreds of persons had left this country for the United States, who had never reached the American soil alive. Until within the last few weeks there had been no cholera in England and there had been none in

  1619
  America, yet English ships leaving healthy ports here and going to healthy ports on the other side of the Atlantic had been ravaged by cholera, and hundreds of the emigrants had in consequence perished. Of the emigrants who left Liverpool last May in the steamship Union thirty-five died of cholera on the voyage, fifty-eight had to be transferred to hospitals in New York, and of these twenty-eight had died. Of those on board the steamship Peruvian thirty-five died on the voyage, 147 were transferred to hospitals in New York, and of these sixty-five had died. Of those on board the Virginia, belonging to the National Steam Navigation Company, thirty-two died on the voyage, 171 were transferred to hospitals in New York, and of these fifty-seven died. Of those on board the England, belonging to the same Company, fifty died on the voyage. She had to put into Halifax, and, as he was informed, 150 died whilst she was there. It might be said that the cause of the cholera breaking out in these ships was that the German emigrants on board of them were infected with the disease before they embarked; but he thought that could hardly be, as they had a long way to travel before they arrived in Liverpool, and if they were infected before they left their own country the disease would naturally have made its appearance before they set out on their voyage from Liverpool. Another remarkable feature was that in many of the cases the disease did not break out until they had got a considerable distance on the voyage. In the case of the Virginia it did not break out until the eighth day after she had left Liverpool. It was, therefore, going a little too far to suppose that the German emigrants were infected before they left their own country. Another fact was that German ships with German emigrants and German cargoes had no disease in them, and that it occurred exclusively in ships leaving England. He believed that the cause of the disease breaking out was owing, to a certain extent, to the overcrowding of passengers on board these steamers, and the want of proper food. He was aware that the saloon passengers on board the England, which had to put into Halifax, presented the commander with an address expressing their satisfaction with the accommodation afforded to them; but he would remark that the excellence of the saloon accommodation given to the saloon passengers did not prove that the steerage passengers had received proper treatment or accommodation. With respect to the treatment
  1620
  of the other passengers up to that time he was wholly unacquainted; but their treatment after they arrived at Halifax, and on the voyage from that port to New York, was very bad. In consequence of the appearance of cholera on board, all the bedding was burnt in Halifax, and the personal effects of most of the passengers were destroyed, and in consequence they were exposed on the deck and subjected to great privations the remainder of the voyage. In the bay of New York a child died, and the official report was that it died from exposure. An address was signed by eight out of the fourteen saloon passengers on board the Virginia, and presented to the commander, but they knew as little of what was going on in the steerage as the inhabitants of the West End did about what was going on in the slums of the metropolis. Practically there was no intercourse between them on board these large ships, and when a report was current that disease was rife in the steerage it was not likely that they would go to that part of the vessel. One of the steerage passengers on board this ship, a young man, the son of an Irish tenant, who had been subjected to every description of hardship and privation from his childhood, in writing home to his father, stated that he never before underwent such hardships, and could not have believed them possible if he had not experienced them. They were all crowded together, and for several days they were kept in a state of almost starvation, and he stated that he never heard hounds after a fox cry louder than the passengers did for food. There were also letters published in the New York papers with reference to the state and condition of another vessel, and the treatment the passengers received. This ship belonged to the same company. She had not the cholera on board, but it appeared that she was so much overcrowded that there was not sitting accommodation, and many of the passengers had no berths. Many women were exposed to the inclemency of the weather. The vessel was so crowded that the passengers could scarcely get on deck without being in the way of the sailors, and when they got there they were treated badly by the crew. The scene on board the vessel was a disgrace to civilization, as described by the passengers. The married and unmarried men and women had to dress and undress in presence of each other, and sleep as best they could in the same compartment. Such a state of things would easily account for

  1621
  the outbreak of cholera, without resorting to the idea that it arose from communication with German emigrants—it was due to the overcrowding and want of cleanliness on board these vessels. The medical reports in New York described the state of these ships in similar terms. The only object he had in bringing the subject before the House was to bring public opinion to bear on the different steam-ship companies, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies might make inquiry, if he had not already done so, into the probable cause of the outbreak of cholera on board these vessels. It was necessary that great care should be taken before emigrants were allowed to sail in these large vessels, to secure them ample food during the voyage, and that the ships were in a healthy and clean condition.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that no blame attached to the emigration agents in this matter. The line of ships to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which were all steamers, sailed between Liverpool and New York. The names of those vessels were given. In five of them cholera broke out; in four, within five days after the ships left Liverpool; in one, the Helvetia, cholera broke out the first day, and the vessel put back. The other four ships arrived at Halifax, when information was sent to the Government that cholera had raged on board, and that the mortality had been very great. The information was that cholera had broken out among the Dutch emigrants on board these ships, who had come from Rotterdam, where the cholera was raging at the time. The Emigration Commissioners sent to the agents at Rotterdam, saying, if any more emigrants were sent by this line of ships from Rotterdam they would be obliged to put in force the power under the Passenger Act, by Order in Council, and to make totally different arrangements for the present, for that line of emigrant ships. The consequence was that the Dutch emigration was stopped altogether, and no more emigrants came from Rotterdam. The mortality was very great on board these ships, and afterwards in quarantine at New York; but, as he had already stated, he could not discover that any blame attached to the emigration agents. The provisions of the Passenger Act had been strictly carried out in every instance. He did not gather from the hon. Gentleman whether he proposed that any alteration should be made in the Passenger Acts;
  1622
  if so, he must say he did not think he would find it easy to show how their provisions could be wisely altered. They were very much the same as were observed by other nations, and the result had generally been a remarkably small mortality in the emigrant ships of this country both to America and Australia. In the longest voyage to Australia, averaging 90 days, the average mortality, even including young children, did not amount to 1·3 per cent. The Liverpool emigration agency was remarkably good. The senior officer had been thirty years in the office without any complaint having been made of him; his second in command had been sixteen years in the office, and was also considered a very good officer, of whom no complaint had ever been made. The hon. Gentleman himself said that votes of thanks were given to the captains of these ships upon their arrival for having made the best arrangements they could; but when cholera broke out on board an emigrant ship at sea, it was not possible for a captain to make very complete arrangements in an emergency of that kind. He did not know that the hon. Gentleman, holding the statement he had made to be perfectly correct, supposed any case had been made out of misconduct even against the captains of those ships. It was no doubt useful to call the attention of the House to such a subject; great regret must be felt at such a mortality having happened, and, if possible, steps should be taken to guard against such calamities in future, either on the part of the emigration agency or of captains commanding ships. He would request the Emigration Commissioners to put themselves in further communication with the ship agents, and see if anything could be done.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that having had considerable experience in this matter, he could bear testimony to the excellent management of the Emigration Commissioners, and the admirable manner in which they had carried out the emigrants from this country during the last twenty years. No doubt, as the hon. Gentleman had said, cholera had broken out on board some of these vessels, but cholera broke out at home—at Stepney, at Mile End, and other places—and it was very difficult to say what the cause was. The hon. Gentleman said it was owing to overcrowding, but in every one of these ships a certain number of feet were allowed to every passenger, and that space was regulated by Act of Parliament, and

  1623
  that it was sufficient for the purpose was manifest from the fact that the emigrants to Australia, New Zealand, and New York were, as a rule, landed in good condition. More room might undoubtedly be given, but then the emigrants must pay a much higher price for the accommodation. Medical men of the highest eminence considered that the space allotted was quite sufficient, and shipowners were not to be blamed without cause. It was quite a mistake to suppose that men, women, and children were huddled together. Separate accommodation was made for the single men and single women, and there was also arrangements made for men and their wives. There could be no shortness of food. Each passenger received what the best judges considered ample to sustain life and keep men in good health during the voyage. Shipowners were obliged to keep their contract, and if a vessel did not put on board the proper estimated amount of necessaries it would not be allowed to put to sea—quality and quantity were examined. He thought his hon. Friend had not made out any case, and he believed the more this matter was inquired into the more the Emigration Commissioners would appear to deserve their commendation.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it should be remembered that these vessels did not carry emigrants sent out by the Emigration Commissioners, and that their duty was confined to seeing that the regulations of the Passenger Act were complied with. The regulations were, he believed, duly complied with. The emigrants came from Rotterdam by way of Hull to Liverpool; and the cholera having broken out on board, the emigration agents bestowed their utmost attention on the case. Immediately they communicated with the agent at Rotterdam, and a stop was put to the emigrants coming from an infected quarter. They did everything they could to meet the emergency, even placing at the disposal of these emigrants the premises at Birkenhead which they had prepared for their own emigrants. He did not understand his hon. Friend to cast any blame on the emigration agents or Commissioners; but he ventured to say if any hon. Gentleman was aware of any circumstances that called for inquiry, by communicating with those Commissioners he would insure the fullest and most effective investigation. The provisions of the Passenger Act had been frequently and carefully considered; and it should be remembered that while, on
  1624
  the one hand, they were careful to give sufficient space for the emigrants, if they gave space beyond what was necessary for health and reasonable comfort they must materially add to the expenses of the poor emigrants, and impose a prohibition on that emigration from which they expected to derive so much benefit.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend (The O'Conor Don) would derive much encouragement from the manner in which his inquiries had been met on this occasion. Here was the statement of thirty-three persons who had suffered the greatest hardship, and was there to be no investigation into their case? It was a case of great and gross injustice. Sufficient food had not been given to them, and they had been huddled together in a manner which outraged all decency and all civilization. He said nothing against the Emigration Commissioners. He thought sufficient ground for an investigation had been shown, and that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought the matter under their notice. In his opinion they were too much in the habit of praising public officers and giving them credit for efficiency, for, without reflecting on any individual, he knew cases where inspection had been quite a sham; and, indeed, the disaster to the London was mainly owing to a weak reliance by the inspectors on the statement of the owners. He hoped that when such cases were again brought forward more attention would be paid to them.
  MR. HADFIELDwished to know whether the corporation of Liverpool exercised any vigilance in this direction.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he did not deny that some discomforts might attend the passage across the Atlantic of ten or eleven days, but he thought the present system contrasted most favourably with the hardships experienced before the introduction of steam, when the voyage occupied from forty to sixty days, and when provisions had to be taken for seventy days. He believed the regulations were strictly carried out at Liverpool, and that the officers were, if anything, rather over-zealous. As to the company against which the present complaint had been preferred, he thought charges ought not to be brought against parties who had no opportunity of replying unless on the strongest grounds; and, although not personally acquainted with the circumstances, he had no doubt that the company would

  1625
  court the most searching inquiry by the Emigration Commissioners. The steamers belonging to the company were of great size and capacity, fitted with special care for the promotion of comfort. The cholera was a visitation of Providence which was not confined to a marine or sea-going life, for it had unhappily appeared in the metropolis and elsewhere, and the fact that the English passengers were not attacked, while the German emigrants fell victims to the disease, seemed to show that predisposing causes rendered the foreign emigrants liable to it, and that they brought the seeds of it on board with them. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had already pointed out that the mortality at sea was infinitely less than that on shore, it only being 1 per cent. This was a strong testimony to the efficiency of the regulations under which emigration was conducted, and be believed that the mortality on board these ships was attributable to other causes than neglect on the part of the agents or inspectors. In one of the cases named it would appear that out of 1,000 passengers only thirty-three complained, while in this very ship some twenty of the cabin passengers actually presented the master with an address, and complimented him on his care and attention. He thought the 900 who were silent might fairly be taken as evidence that there was no real ground of complaint.
  MR. BRADYcontended that the outbreak of the disease was caused by overcrowding. He considered that the discussion had opened up a most important subject, and he trusted it would receive immediate attention.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) TEMPORARY ADVANCES BILL.
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Naas, Mr. Hunt.)
  [BILL 220.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he trusted that, before the House went into Committee upon this Bill, some Member, either of the late or the present Government, would give a clear explanation in reference to this subject, which was of a very exceptional,
  1626
  if not of a questionable, character. The only information that had been given to the House in connection with this subject was contained in the small paper he held in his hand, which appeared to be a copy of a Treasury Minute. The purport of that Minute was to the effect that some Irish railway companies had found it impossible to obtain money for the construction of their works upon reasonable terms, that they were called upon to repay large sums which had been advanced for the purpose of enabling them to proceed with the construction of their works, and that the difficulty arose in consequence of the present state of the money-market; it was further stated, that if some measures were not adopted to relieve this state of things, great embarrassment and widespread distress would ensue throughout the greater part of Ireland. The proposal contained in the Bill now before the House was, if he correctly understood it, that the sum of £500,000 should be advanced to some one or other, but to whom was not stated. Now, it was possible that the difference in the rate of interest on the £500,000 to be so advanced, and the rate of interest which the railway companies would have to pay if they borrowed that sum in the open market, might amount to £25,000. But could it be supposed for a single moment that a grant of so small a sum as £25,000—for that was the practical result of the measure proposed£would prevent the threatened widespread distress and embarrassment throughout the whole of Ireland? It was somewhat curious that the Bill contained a stipulation that the money should be advanced only in cases where the Public Works Loan Commissioners were satisfied of the sufficiency of the security offered. But if the security were good, money could be got in the open market, although, perhaps, at a higher rate of interest than the Government would charge. The great question, however, was what special circumstances were there which justified this loan. He trusted that statements would be made by Members of both the late and the present Governments which would prevent the House from being dragged into transactions of this kind in future. He was far from saying that, under no circumstances, should such an advance be made; but he urged upon the House that loans of this nature should be made only under certain special circumstances, which should

  1627
  be clearly defined, in order that no precedent should be established by which Administrations less scrupulous than were the late and the present Governments might consider themselves justified in dealing improperly with so questionable a subject. In the present instance the House was not informed upon whom this great boon was to be conferred, or who were to be the first to rush in and secure this large sum. The Bill certainly provided that the Treasury was not to advance money to meet acceptances, and of that restriction he highly approved. He should be glad to bear the exact circumstances under which the money was to be advanced, who was to have it, who was to come in for, and who was to be shut out from, the benefits of this boon.
  MR. CHILDERSthought it would have been more convenient to have replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question in Committee, but he had no objection to explain at that moment the circumstances under which the Bill in question was introduced. The railways of Ireland differed from those of England in this respect—namely, that in the former country they had been to a considerable extent constructed by means of loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners—it had been part of the policy of the Government to make such loans, and sums had been lent by the Commissioners to the extent of several millions. In England, on the other hand, there was hardly a single instance in which a railway had been assisted by advances of public money. The money so borrowed by the Irish companies was to be repaid by means of a sinking fund extending over a certain number of years, and the companies were frequently obliged to re-borrow in the open market, either on debentures or more directly on acceptances, the sums they repaid year by year to the Commissioners. In this manner considerable sums had been borrowed of individuals by the companies, and the position of the latter at the present moment was this—the persons who had lent them money had insisted upon being repaid the amount of their advances, and the companies had found it utterly impossible to reborrow, even at high rates of interest and upon ample security, the sums necessary to meet the demands upon them. The late Government, believing that the pressure upon the companies was due to an exceptional and temporary state of things, and that it was quite irrespective of the general condition of the Irish railways
  1628
  had introduced for their relief the measure now before the House, which had been adopted by the present Government. In reply to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he might state that the Public Works Loan Commissioners would be the persons to judge as to the value of the security offered; secondly, that the money would be lent to replace money which the companies had had to repay upon debentures which had been purchased for bonâ fide investment, and not, as had been asserted the other night, upon debentures which had been handed to the contractors; thirdly, that the securities which the Public Works Loan Commissioners were to accept were to be the original debentures issued in accordance with the Acts of the various companies, and not upon Lloyds' bonds or similar engagements, and that the rate of interest was not to be less than the company had paid upon the debentures which they had had to discharge, except in certain instances where a Treasury Minute allowing of a less rate of interest being taken was laid upon the table of the House.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, there was no doubt that the measure was a highly exceptional one, but he thought the statement of the hon. Gentleman gave a sufficient justification for its introduction. At the same time, he thought the late Government had missed a good opportunity for acquiring the Irish railways upon favourable terms. Lowering the rates for the conveyance of passengers and goods on Irish railways would tend towards increasing the prosperity of the railway companies as well as that of the country. The Irish railways were now in a transition state, but after a time he thought their financial condition would be greatly improved.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Ormsby Gore) was premature in stating that the late Government had missed the opportunity which offered itself for securing the Irish railways. It was impossible to deal with the subject of so much importance as that of placing the control of the Irish railways in the hands of the Government in Committee. That question could only be considered by a body appointed for that purpose. Such a body was now sitting; but they had not yet made their Report on the subject. It was quite clear that if it should prove to be practical and expedient to deal with the Irish railways in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman, any operation of that kind

  1629
  would be facilitated by the present measure. He had little to add to what had been said by the hon. Member for Pontefract; but he must thank the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) for the fairness with which he had stated the case and the vigilance with which he watched over matters of this kind. It was certainly desirable that a subject like this should not be passed over as a matter of course, but that it should be well understood by both the House and the public. He had only one qualification to make to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But, perhaps, he ought here to state that this was not an arrangement made at the last moment of the existence of the late Government, but that it was substantially made about three months ago, at a time when a sharp pressure, almost amounting to a panic, had come upon the money-market. The right hon. Gentleman had said that as the security was to be accepted only after investigation by the Public Works Loan Commissioners it must be assumed that it would be good, and that therefore the whole amount of benefit which would accrue to these parties would be £25,000 a year. Now, the first of these propositions was perfectly well-founded, for there could be no doubt that the security would be good if it had been examined by the Loan Commissioners. But he did not think it was correct to say that the benefit to the parties would be £25,000. In dealing with this subject there were two things to be taken into consideration. One was that at periods of monetary crisis not only was the rate of interest raised, but the area of transactions was contracted and people were indisposed to enter into engagements which were supposed to be of a secondary or inferior order. That view would be taken with regard to many of the Irish railways, which would labour under a prejudice that would prevent them from obtaining advances at all at such a moment. Then in most of these cases, besides obligations on debentures, there were likewise obligations on the private acceptances of Directors. Though he did not wish to speak of those debentures as if any discredit attached to them, he might remark that it was the want of a margin in the available returns that rendered it difficult to renew such acceptances at low rates of interest. With regard to these acceptances, the present measure might have a beneficial effect, by enabling the Directors to renew acceptances which they might otherwise have to take up. After what had
  1630
  been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), the right hon. Gentleman would probably be able to appreciate the amount of innovation introduced by this Bill. There need not, at all events, be any apprehension that, in consequence of this measure, a standing-ground would be given to English railway companies to make application to the Government for advances. In the present instance the distinction was that these advances were not made for the purpose of any construction of new railways. That was by the amount of innovation proposed by the late and approved by the present Government. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be disposed to agree that that was a justifiable proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was not the slightest apprehension on the ground of the sufficiency of the security; while, on the ground of precedent, he for one could not see how any argument could be drawn from the present proceeding in any other circumstances which were likely to arise.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he was not altogether convinced of the wisdom of the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had raised a large question on what seemed at first to be a very small one. Indeed, the whole subject of legislation respecting railways generally, and also the subject of the raising of their capital by railway companies, were involved in it. The acceptances referred to by the right hon. Gentleman existed only in the case of those railways which were technically known as "contractors' lines," and he had never known any line, the capital of which had beets subscribed by the public, for which the acceptances of the Directors had been given at all. He understood that this measure was intended as a boon to Ireland. If the House was of opinion that public money should be sent to Ireland to re-pay to private capitalists debts which the railway companies were unable to meet he had no more to say; but he feared that, unless some exceptional principle of legislation was to be adopted for Ireland, the example would soon be extended to England, where already there was more than one company and one set of creditors who were in a condition to set up the demand. Indeed, the Bill, though brought forward with the apparent object of benefiting Ireland, in reality only conferred a benefit on private capitalists. If it were pretended that these loans. of money were

  1631
  to be advanced for the construction or completion of new lines of railways in Ireland, and thereby giving occasion for the employment of labour, there might be some apparent argument in favour of a measure like the present. As it was, however, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire that the Bill which authorized the loan of public money for the good of private individuals would establish a very dangerous precedent.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to state the chief reason which induced Her Majesty's present Government to take up this measure which had been introduced by their predecessors, because that reason had not been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was shown to Her Majesty's Government that the rolling stock of many of the railways in Ireland would be seized by creditors, and the general communication of the country seriously embarrassed unless some measure were passed in order to prevent such a state of things. The fact that this was a great question of public convenience mainly influenced the Government in their decision; but there was also another, though a secondary consideration. The Bill having been sanctioned by the late Government, the persons who were to be relieved had, of course, counted upon the arrangement as one which would certainly be carried out, and they had refrained, in consequence, from making engagements which otherwise might have been entered into. It was quite clear, therefore, that under the circumstances great injustice would be done if the Bill were not proceeded with. Therefore, first, on the broad ground of public policy—for that was the main ground; and secondly, as a matter of justice to individuals—which he thought ought to have some weight in the case—the Government had adopted the plan which had been proposed by their predecessors.
  MR. WHALLEYthought that in this matter the Government ought to wait for the opinion of the Railway Commission that was now sitting on the subject of Irish Railways. There was a tendency on the part of all railway companies to keep their fares higher than was for the benefit of the companies themselves. There was also a tendency among them to establish a monopoly which was not only adverse to the interests of the public, but adverse also to the interests of the monopolists themselves. If this system of advances
  1632
  were established there were many railways, especially in Wales, that would be as ready to claim assistance from the Government as the Irish railways were. But he admitted that as the Government had already advanced money to Irish railways, this advance might be considered as protecting their own property.
  MR. MONSELLwished to point out that this temporary advance had nothing to do with the general inquiry into the state of Irish railways which he had had the honour to bring forward in the course of last Session. The object of this Bill was purely temporary; it was to lend money for three months, which might be extended to twelve; and the necessity for it arose not only from the financial crisis, but also from the political state of the country. He had made inquiries of a gentleman who was thoroughly conversant with the state of Ireland, who told him that since the occurrence of the Fenian disturbances it had become impossible to get the bills renewed; and if the Government now refused this temporary advance the effect would be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said, to stop the railways altogether. It was not, therefore, a matter of convenience for private individuals; it was distinctly for a public object of great importance to the country, and it had nothing to do with the general question of railway management.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, there was one circumstance that entitled Irish railways to peculiar consideration which seemed to be overlooked by every speaker except the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). It was not only the monetary panic, it was the unfortunate insurrectionary movement that had caused the difficulty. The unfortunate Fenian movement had raised such a distrust in the minds of the bondholders that they had insisted on the payment of the bonds as they became due. The Directors, in many instances, had given their own private security to cover the demands. Had they not done so the rolling stock of their lines would have been seized.
  MR. SYNANdenied the allegations that had been put forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Grant.) The Bill was not intended to make advances to private individuals, it was not intended to cover private securities, but it was to advance money to public companies, to cover public securities, and to prevent the railway lines from being altogether stopped. Advances of money had been made to India for railways,

  1633
  on the plea that those were reproductive works; and was Ireland, an integral part of the Empire, to be treated worse than India? He could not conceive anything more injurious to the connection between the two countries than to talk of this measure as one of jobbing and intended for the benefit of private individuals.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Bill, but he considered that it was not in consonance either with mercantile principles or with the principles of political economy. The excuse was put forward which was used by every man who paid only 10 s. in the pound—the bad times. The House was told that the bonds were refused to be renewed. And why? Because the securities were not good. As a rule he believed that the more companies of this description were assisted the worse they got, and the greater ruin they produced at last. As he said, he did not mean to oppose the present Bill, but he hoped the Government would not go any further in this line.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Advances of Money to Railway Companies in Ireland).
  MR. HENLEYasked the late Secretary to the Treasury how, if the money granted was not enough for all, the priority of the parties applying was to be settled? Was "first come first served" to be the rule, or what was?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, advances could be made only to replace certain debentures falling due, not to replace the whole of the debentures of the companies. The limited number of debentures falling due within a period of three months, or even twelve months after the passing of the Act, would not in all exceed the £500,000 voted for the purpose.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (In default of Payment for Twelve Months Undertaking vested in Secretary of Public Works Loan Commissioners.)
  MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the Treasury would stand in the same position in regard to priority as the debenture holders that had been paid off. The clause left the point in doubt.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the point was worthy of consideration. As the clause stood he apprehended that
  1634
  the mortgages given to the Loan Commissioners were in the nature of salvage mortgages, and would take priority over other securities. The point should be considered before the Report was brought up.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the intention was that the Treasury should stand in the position of the creditors whose bonds had been paid off.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that as the clause stood if the money advanced by the Commissioners was not repaid in a twelvemonth they would stand in the position of first mortgagees, and the whole of the undertakings would vest in them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed, with the view of removing any doubt, to insert the words providing that the priority proposed to be given to the Commissioners should not exist as against the holders of other debentures or securities.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  On Motion that the Bill be reported,
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was not to be supposed that in assenting to this Bill he would be committed to anything which had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) with regard to the future amalgamation of Irish railways or the future lowering of fares. He had not formed any opinion on the point, and consequently could not have expressed any.
  Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, the two things were entirely separate.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the distinction between the two subjects would be clearly shown by the second and longer Treasury Minute dealing with the whole subject of Irish railways, which the Government, he supposed, would not object to produce.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LANDED ESTATES COURT, &c., (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
  [BILL 174.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Rules made by the Lord Chancellor and One Judge only to be valid.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that until the death of Judge Hargreave, which everybody, who had either the pleasure of his acquaintance or knowledge of the services performed by him in the Landed Estates Court, must deeply lament, that Court was constituted of three Judges, whose aggregate salaries amounted to £7,500. In the year 1858 a Bill was introduced proposing to reduce the number of Judges to two; but in consideration of the increased work which this change would entail, it was proposed to increase their salaries—in one case to £3,500, and in the other to £3,000 a year. Objection was, however, taken to the reduction of the number of Judges at that time, and in consequence the number was continued at three; the salaries remaining at the lower figure of £2,500 a year, or rather, he should say, at £3,000 a year for the chief Judge of the Court, Mr. Martley, and £2,500 for each of his colleagues and for every succeeding Judge of the Court. The death of Judge Hargreave, reducing the number of the Judges to two, necessarily threw a very considerable increase of duty upon each. Statements had been made as to a supposed reduction in the amount of business in the Court; but, having endeavoured to inform himself upon this point, he found that the business, as far as regarded the number of petitions filed for the last five or six years, had been rather increasing annually than otherwise. Taking simply those years during which the Landed Estates Court had been in existence, in 1859 there were 298 petitions; in 1860, 410; in 1861, 474; in 1862, 579; in 1863, 574; in 1864, 518; and in 1865, 519. For the last five years, therefore, the petitions had always exceeded 500 annually. The amount of purchase money, also, though in each succeeding year there had been a slight decrease, was extremely large. In 1861 it amounted to £1,300,000 and upwards; in 1862 to £1,600,000 and upwards; in 1863 to £1,300,000 and upwards; in 1864 to £1,300,000 and upwards; and in 1865 to £1,000,000 and upwards. Moreover, the Court now transacted a certain amount of business quite unconnected with purchase money—namely, that relating to the declaration of titles; this business was not represented in the returns by any purchase money. In addition to that, the
  1636
  Court had not until recent years the power of dealing with life estates, the investigation of the titles of which occasioned as much trouble as an estate in fee simple, while the amount of purchase money which passed through the Court was very much less. The business of the Court, in fact, did not show any symptom of decline, and the two Judges would have for the future to do almost as much work as had been hitherto done by the three Judges. With regard to the power of the Landed Estates Court, and the importance of the questions which came under their jurisdiction, he believed they were greater than the power and the jurisdiction of the other Courts in Ireland—at all events, its Judges occupied a position equal with that of other Judges. The Bill introduced into the House this year, but now withdrawn, proposing to create a Vice Chancellor in Ireland, named the sum of £4,000 a year as his salary; and he believed the salary of the puisne Judges was about the same amount. Now, the salary of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court was only £2,500 a year. In a comparison of the number of days the Court of Chancery and the Landed Estates Court were occupied it was shown that the latter sat a much greater length of time, though the Judges received a smaller salary. Parliament last year laid upon the Landed Estates Court another very important duty. A system of recording titles having been introduced into Ireland, the office was placed under the management of this Court, rendering necessary a greater or less amount of attention of the Judges during the whole of the year, including the period of vacation. The Court was responsible for the proper conduct of the office, and an appeal might at any time be made on any question that might arise. The Committee appointed to consider this matter were of opinion that the facts he had stated made out a very strong case in favour of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court. It might be said that it was unnecessary to make the alteration now that efficient Judges were doing the work at the present salary. But it was necessary to bear in mind that when it was first proposed to deal with incumbered estates, no Court was established, but Commissioners were appointed. It was a matter for wonder, then, that the services of two gentlemen like Mr. Longfield and Mr. Hargreave were secured; and that they should do what was seldom done before—namely, sacrifice their private practice and enter

  1637
  upon a contract with the State for a period not extending beyond five years, without any security as to pension, at a salary of £2,000 a year. The working of that Commission was a complete success, constituting a precedent, riot merely for Ireland, but also for other countries. At the expiration of the five years, Parliament thought fit to constitute the Commission into a Court, and to increase the salaries of the Judges from £2,000 to £2,500 a year, and the result had proved extremely advantageous to the country. He contended that it would be a very short-sighted policy, seeing that these Judges had devoted almost their lifetime to the working of the Court, contributing in no slight degree to the success which had attended it, to say that although their successors might make a claim for increase of salary they should be debarred from doing so. It had been said by some persons that Judges could always be obtained to do the work for a salary of £2,500 per annum. This might be so;—he believed it would be found that the lower the salary was fixed the greater would be the number of the candidates; but the question was how to get the best men, and especially in the Landed Estates Court. In ordinary Courts, where the case was argued on both sides, before the Judge gave his decision, it was comparatively difficult for him to go wrong; but, when it became necessary to deal with a title to landed property, the result of the investigation of which would be to give somebody an indefeasible title, and that investigation not conducted with argument on both sides, but depending wholly on the skill, care, and attention of the Judge performing the work, a man of greater ability and experience was required than in the judicial Courts, where the business was carried on in open court. There would be more difficulty in properly filling up a vacancy in the Landed Estates Court than was anticipated, and he ventured to say that it was by no means clear that a salary of £2,500a year would command the services of the best men. Whether regard was had to the present Judges and the increased work they were called upon to perform, or to the interests and prospects of the Court in the future, it seemed to him that there was an absolute necessity for raising the salary of the two Judges. The amount the Government proposed was £3,000, in place of the £2,500 they were at present receiving. The total sum which had been paid to the three Judges was
  1638
  £7,500 per annum; but if £3,000 were to be given to each of the two Judges, there would be a saving effected of £1,500. He trusted this would meet with the approval of the Committee; and he now proposed to fill up the blank in the second clause with the sum of £3,000.
  MR. PIMsaid, he was surprised, after the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the important nature of the business transacted by the Landed Estates Court, the large amount of work which necessarily came before it, and the additional duties recently imposed upon it, that he should have come to the conclusion that the salaries of the Judges of the Court should be fixed at only £3,000 a year each. The duties of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court were, according to the Attorney General's own statement, quite as onerous as those of the common law Judges, and consequently they ought to receive as high salaries; yet, under the Chancery Bill brought in by the late Government, it had been proposed to fix the salary of the Vice Chancellor at £4,000 a year. He did not see that higher attainments were required for the office of Vice Chancellor. The Judge of the Court of Probate again, whose judicial functions were exercised in dealing with property, whose duties were not more difficult, and did not require higher legal attainments, received a salary of £3,500 a year. In the Vice Chancellors' and other Courts, if a mistake was made, it was open to suitors to have it corrected speedily; but in the Landed Estates Court, if a mistake was committed, it might not be discovered for twenty years. The duties of Judges of the Landed Estates Court were therefore of such a character as to require men of the highest legal attainments and great experience, yet they were to receive salaries less than the Vice Chancellor, and less by £700 a year than the Judges of the Common Law Courts. If £3,000 a year was sufficient for a Judge of the Landed Estates Court, the salaries of the other Judges would be adequate at the same amount. But the only way to obtain good Judges was to pay them properly; and Judge Longfield had very fairly put not his own case, but the case of the Court over which he presided, when he stated that it ought to be placed on a perfect equality with the Superior Courts of com- mon law in Ireland. In that opinion he (Mr. Pim) fully joined, and he believed it was also shared by a large number of persons

  1639
  in Ireland. It was not for himself, but for his judicial successors in his Court, that Judge Longfield sought the increased salary; and in a correspondence with the Lord Lieutenant, who was of opinion that his own salary ought to be increased for the great services he had rendered to the public in his Court, and who suggested that the increase should not be extended to his successors, he declined to accept the increase for himself under such restrictions. That was highly honourable to Mr. Longfield—and his (Mr. Pim's) opinion was, if the country was to have good Judges they must pay them well.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if he had been inclined to oppose the proposition of the Attorney General he should have run considerable risk of defeat, because one-half of the Members then in the House were Irishmen, and more than one-half of the rest were lawyers. Having listened to the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and having, while he was at the Treasury, perused the correspondence on the subject, he did not think that £3,000 a year was an excessive salary to propose in this case. The Government ought not to underpay their judicial officers or other Civil servants, but they should be most careful to reduce their number when they were more numerous than the business required; and it was certainly the case that on a comparison between England and Ireland it would be found that the number of Judges in the latter country was greatly disproportionate to the population and the amount of business done. A diminution of the number of Judges in this particular Court was, he believed, a salutary and feasible arrangement; and other redactions of the judicial establishment in Ireland might be carried out with perfect success, without impairing the efficiency of the tribunals, while a saving would be effected in the public expenditure.
  MR. HADFIELDwanted to know whether the Incumbered Estates Court was to be continued for ever, and what was the operation of the law which referred titles of estates to those Judges to be investigated, and which then brought such estates into the market with an indefeasible title; to be acknowledged for ever? Supposing that such a jurisdiction should be done away with, it appeared to him that the other part of the business discharged by those Judges might be turned over to the existing common law Judges in Ireland,
  1640
  and that it would be no longer necessary to have both staffs of Judges.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Court was one of the established and regular Courts of the country, and not a mere temporary tribunal. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had termed it the Incumbered Estates Court, but its correct name was the Landed Estates Court. The Landed Estates Court was very different from the original Incumbered Estates Court, which was established for one specific purpose—namely, to clear estates from incumbrances and to ascertain what surplus remained after that process had been gone through; whereas the Landed Estates Court did that one species of business, and a great deal more besides. Among other duties it did a great mass of business having reference to declarations of title. It further entertained applications for the purpose of exchange, while it had also to deal with the general record of titles throughout the country. As to the amount of business which was transacted by it, he had to state that, instead of its being of a temporary or evanescent character, it had continued to increase up to 1862, since which year it seemed to have been almost stationary. In 1859 only 298 petitions had been presented to the Court; in 1865 the number was 519, while the sums of money which were annually passed through the Court amounted to between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. He was sorry that no similar Court had been established in England, where he thought it would confer great advantage. In 1862 Parliament had established the Land Registry Office in England; but that plan had not turned out to be very successful, and he believed that circumstance was to be in a great degree attributed to the fact that it was based on a different principle from the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, which had proved a great success.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (The recited Acts of last Session to be carried out by Recorder of Titles.)
  MR. PIMwished to know what the clause meant. It was necessary that the person appointed to discharge the duties of "Recording Officer" should be in attendance every day; but it was only natural that Mr. Urlin, the person appointed to the post, should expect some

  1641
  vacation. He wished to know whether that Gentleman would be entitled to take a holiday; and, if so, whether, in the event of his being absent for a month from his duties, the person who under the 10th clause might be appointed his substitute, would be entitled to receive remuneration. He also wished to know whether the Recording Officer would be more independent of the Judges than any other Examiner, and whether the Judges could, without a dereliction of duty, in any degree throw off the responsibility which, under the law as it stood, it was intended they should exercise?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALagreed that it was important that they should have a distinct and clear apprehension of the responsibility of the Judges of the Court with reference to the record of titles. It was the very essence of the Act that the Judges of the Court, and they alone, should be responsible for the working of the Act; and he should deprecate any provision of the Bill which would have, in the slightest degree, the appearance of setting up any officer who would detract in any degree from the responsibility of the Judges. Mr. Urlin would be under the control of the Judges, and would be answerable and amenable to them in every way for the discharge of his duties. With regard to the question of salaries, the Treasury would have the power of regulating the salaries of the various officers. It was proposed to give to Mr. Urlin £200 a year in addition to his ordinary salary as Examiner; because, unlike the other Examiners, the duties of his office extended over the whole year, including the vacation. This £200 a year would be, as it were, the income provided for the officer who might perform the duties of Examiner during the vacations, and if Mr. Urlin had a holiday, and a substituted officer performed his duty, some arrangement would be made by which the substitute so provided would be paid out of the additional £200.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, the Judges of the Landed Estates Court had expressed the opinion that Mr. Urlin was not the fittest man for the post; in that case he thought it rather extraordinary to appoint him by name in the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved, that the Judges did not say Mr. Urlin was unfit.
  MR. MONSELLread the statement to which he had referred, and which declared
  1642
  that the Judges objected to Mr. Urlin's name appearing in the Bill, as they did not admit that he was the fittest of the officers to deal with the post, and they declined to be responsible for the working of the measure if they were refused the power of naming the officer they thought best fitted to do the work. On that ground he objected to the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, Mr. Urlin would be employed under and by the Judges of the Court, and would be responsible to them; and if there was any failure in the performance of his duties he would be removable.
  MR. BRADYconsidered that a clause involving so important a change ought not to be passed while the Law Officers on that (the Opposition) side of the House were not present. He, therefore, moved that Progress be reported.
  MR. CHILDERSregretted that such a paper as that read by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) should have been read to the House, and felt bound to say that the arrangement under which Mr. Urlin was appointed was made, after careful consideration by the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson), to supersede impracticable arrangements which had been proposed before, and under which the working of the Act must have broken down. It would have been better if the Committee had refrained from dealing with a personal matter like this, and had trusted to the late and present Attorney Generals, who had well considered the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that although he was not responsible for drawing the clause, he supported it, believing that Mr. Urlin was qualified to fill the office.
  MR. SYNANconsidered that the appointment should be left to the discretion of the Judge of the Court, and not filled by express enactment.
  MR. O'BEIRNEthought it would be unjust to Mr. Urlin, who had been a public servant for the last eighteen years, if the clause were left out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. O'BEIRNEproposed, with the view of destroying the existing monopoly by which the purchaser of stock by order of the Court was confined to a limited number of brokers in Dublin, to add after Clause 3 the following:—

  1643
  "It shall be lawful for the person or persons having the carriage of any order or direction of the Court for the investment of any money in the purchase of the stocks, funds, or annuities transferable at the Bank of Ireland, or the transfer for sale of any of such stocks, funds, or annuities, to employ any one of the licensed stockbrokers, being a member of the Stock Exchange in Dublin, to make such investment or transfer."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to the clause. It was a question of considerable difficulty. Arguments could be used on both sides with considerable weight, and as it would be impossible to accede to the clause without rendering a change necessary in the Irish Court of Chancery, he hoped the clause would not be pressed. It might be proper to make an alteration in the practice of the Courts, but if so it ought to be done after due notice and in a different form.
  MR. CHILDERSthought that if any change was to be made it would be much better to appoint a salaried broker in Ireland as was now the case in England.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he had been induced to move the clause at the request of the stockbrokers of Dublin. The English Court of Chancery ought not to be urged as an objection to making this change in Ireland. Since 1858 the business in the Landed Estates Court had been confined to six brokers only, and during that time £7,500,000 worth of stock had been purchased, and £2,500,000 invested by the court. It had given extreme dissatisfaction to a highly respectable body of men.
  MR. SYNANobjected to the sudden manner in which the clause had been brought forward. There ought to have been due notice given of it. It was not fair to deal with this subject in the partial manner proposed. If they agreed to the clause they would have a different practice in the Court of Chancery and the Landed Estates Court. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
  MR. PIMhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would consent to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday nest.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Bruce, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Sir George Grey.)
  [BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Supply of Water to District of Sewer Authority.)
  MR. HENLEYobjected to power being given to make waterworks a charge on the poor rates, which would impose a heavy burden on the land. As, however, the late and present Government had combined in framing the Bill, it would be idle for him to divide the Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Proceedings where Sewer Authority in Default.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was proposed to strike out this and several of the subsequent clauses, substituting a proviso that complaints against a local Board should be made to the Home Secretary, instead of to the justices. He regarded this as a very unsatisfactory mode of appeal.
  MR. BRUCEpointed out inconveniences attending a complaint against a public Board being heard by the local justices, who, moreover, in some cases had not adjudicated in a satisfactory manner.
  Clause struck out.
  Clauses 15 to 17 struck out.
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Police power with respect to nuisances.)
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, it was undesirable to mix the police up with these matters. They were not the proper persons to judge of what was and what was not a nuisance. This function should be left in the metropolis to the local authorities, whose officers hitherto had discharged their duties efficiently. He therefore moved the insertion of words exempting the metropolitan district from the operation of the clause.
  An Amendment moved, after "authority" to insert "except within the district of the Metropolis as defined by the Act for the better local Management of the Metropolis."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that there were

  1645
  great complaints of the manner in which the Nuisances Removal Act and the Public Health Act had been carried out within the metropolis. At this moment the police were largely used in London to report upon smoke nuisances and to carry out the provisions of the Common Lodging Houses Act, and their powers in these cases had been satisfactorily exercised. He regarded the clause as of the greatest importance for the preservation of the public health. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons were at present dying unnecessarily, and he knew no means so effectual for limiting that number of preventible deaths as the employment of the police in the removal of nuisances.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsupported the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, placed every private house in London at the mercy of any policeman who might choose to enter it, in order to sniff about for nuisances. It was most unwise in this way to throw contempt upon the persons who had been specially appointed to watch over the public health; nor was it expedient to cast upon those whose primary business it was to preserve the public peace the invidious duty of finding out nuisances. The result of passing by the local authorities and not acting through them, could only bp to make bad worse; whereas the object in view was to make bad better.
  MR. BARROWconcurred with the hon. and learned Member in thinking that the local authorities should not be put aside in order to give power to the police; but be objected to the principle of excepting the metropolis from the country at large.
  MR. BRADYalso objected to the manner in which it was proposed to employ the police, than whom he considered no class of men more incapable of looking after nuisances; and he was particularly apprehensive that in Ireland the agency of the police would prove obnoxious to the people.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had understood that an Amendment of which he had given notice would remove objections to the clause. Where the local authorities neglected to remove nuisances there must be some one to put them in motion. He admitted that it would be objectionable to leave it to the chief of the police to take the initiative on his own responsibility; but the ground of objection seemed to be taken away when the chief of the police could be put in motion only upon an application
  1646
  being made to the Secretary of State, supported by proof of the necessity for interference. It was in this way that the Smoke Act had been put into operation with beneficial result.
  MR. AYRTONalso deprecated the weakening of local jurisdiction. The distinction between London and the country had been already made by the law, the Metropolitan police not being responsible to any local authority. The Secretary of State, in assuming the same relations towards local bodies that the Poor Law Board sustained towards Boards of Guardians, should not do more than that analogy suggested. He was of opinion that the reasons against the clause as amended were far more weighty than those which had been urged in its favour. Nothing could be more injurious to a proper state of feeling in society than to vest in the police the right of making domiciliary visits to the houses of the people. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would be prepared to adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Chambers) in preference to his own Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that his right hon. Friend intended to propose the Amendment spoken of by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because, as the section now stood, every common policeman in country villages would have to carry out the provisions of the Act. They had a good object in view, but it might be defeated by bad machinery, and if enactments of this kind were to be carried into effect, it was better to lead the people than endeavour to drive them. It was no use to have a good object in view unless proper means were taken to attain it. If his right hon. Friend liked to take upon himself the duty he proposed, it could not devolve upon a more proper and responsible person.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) did not apply to the alteration suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the local authority neglected his duty power ought to be given to the Secretary of State to compel him to perform it. It might be thought from the present discussion that there was no necessity for the Bill; but it should be remembered that they were threatened with a severe visitation of the cholera, and every possible means should be adopted to avert

  1647
  the danger from houses whose condition was calculated to spread contagion throughout their neighbourhood. This principle ought certainly to be established—that if the local authorities did not perform their duty somebody ought to have power to compel them.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that it must be extremely satisfactory to the House to learn that in Marylebone the administration of affairs was so complete. But with respect to Marylebone and all other parishes it was only in case the local authorities did not discharge their duty the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have effect.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BAZLEYmoved an Amendment the object of which was to omit those words in the clause which give the chief officer of police the power of instituting proceedings for the removal of nuisances.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, to leave out the words "the chief officer of police may," and insert the words "such nuisance authority shall."—(Mr. Bazley.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 24: Majority 54.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Requisition of Ten Inhabitants equivalent to Certificate of Medical Officer) Clause A.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked for some explanation of the provision that a requisition of ten inhabitants should be equivalent to a certificate of the medical officer.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it sometimes happened that a nuisance might exist which a medical officer would not certify was actually injurious to health, but which, at the same time, for the comfort of the residents it might be highly desirable to remove. This clause gave facilities, for the purpose.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that for the sake of preserving health stringent measures might be submitted to; whereas if the comfort of the inhabitants merely were interfered with, they ought to be left to their common-law remedy. It must be a very queer nuisance which doctors would
  1648
  not certify to be injurious to health. As far as his experience went, they were by no means mealy-mouthed in such cases.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the case in contemplation was one where the medical officers omitted to certify.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that, according to the section of the Nuisances Removal Act referred to in the clause, the certificate was only to enable two justices to inquire into the matter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Definition of the word "nuisance.")
  MR. HENLEYhoped that no poor man's family, which might happen to number ten members or more, would on that account, and because it happened only to occupy two rooms, be disturbed on the ground of being a nuisance.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the definition ran thus:—"Any house, or part of a house, so overcrowded as to be dangerous, or prejudicial to the health of the inmates." What constituted the nuisance—the inmates or the house? and, if the latter, how was it proposed to remedy it? By pulling down a house which might otherwise be in excellent condition?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the nuisance was neither the house nor the inmates, but the overcrowding. The House had already dealt with two great causes of disease; it had done much towards improving the supply of water, and something also towards the removal of ordinary nuisances by drainage; and they ought not to overlook the source of evil the most difficult of all to struggle against—the overcrowding of houses. All evidence received went to show the gigantic nature of this evil in every large town; and deputations had waited upon him, not only from different parts of the metropolis, but even from Newcastle, on this subject. The deputations had urged, in the first place, the physical evil resulting from the crowding of large numbers into single rooms, but still more strongly the effects upon the morality of the people. In every large town thousands of persons were brought up in a state of moral degradation, which could only end in a great national danger. In Scotland the law was the same as in England until 1862, when the Scotch Police and Improvement Act was passed. By the 11th clause of that Act the word "nuisance" was taken to include any overcrowding of an inhabited house or part of a house

  1649
  He wanted to have a similar law passed for England. In the year when the Scotch Act was passed the city of Glasgow contained some of the filthiest wynds and alleys in the world; but the authorities set to work, they discovered the overcrowded houses, ticketed them, and fixed the number of persons who should be allowed to live in them. Had the Act been inoperative? Far from it, for the Glasgow authorities were now proposing to expend £1,250,000 in buying up the worst parts of the city and improving it. That circumstance proved that the possession of powers such as this Bill would give, and the exercise of them, would bring to light the existence of evils and inspire people with a desire to remedy them. He admitted the proposed innovation would be a serious one; but he believed it would be most beneficial to the working classes, and he therefore entreated the Committee not to shrink on account of an occasional hardship from doing what would be a great and permanent good.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which would, as in the Scotch Act, determine the number of people that might live in a house, nor was there anything in the clause which declared overcrowding to be a nuisance. The Bill merely declared that if a house was in a state injurious to health the magistrate should have power to get the House repaired, or order it to be locked up until it was repaired. According to his reading of the clause, nothing satisfactory could be done except by turning the inhabitants into the street. Were they prepared to pass a law by which power would be given summarily to turn people into the streets? In order to raise the question, he begged to move that the words—"Any house or part of a house so overcrowded as to be dangerous or prejudicial to the health of the inmates" be omitted.
  MR. COWENsaid, that the law, as it stood at present, was disgraceful. In the town which he represented (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) during the last twelve months there had been 500 cases of typhus fever sent to the Fever Hospital, of whom 100 died, and almost all of these cases had come not from common lodging-houses, but from overcrowded houses. He had a letter from one of his constituents urging the necessity of sanitary measures in the case of the fever dens of the town, and the adoption of steps to prevent overcrowding. He asked why they should not assimilate
  1650
  the English to the Scotch law in this matter?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause would not only affect houses containing more than two or three families, but cottages with but one family, if the children happened to be too numerous for the size of the dwelling; and he contended that it would be too hard to turn them out until suitable provision was made for them. Until some better provision was made to meet the case of the working class, he should hesitate to support this clause.
  COLONEL W. STUARThoped the clause would be retained, as something of the kind was indispensably necessary. In the district in which he resided cottages were crowded to a dangerous degree, and he knew of no law to prevent it; while the landlords would do nothing in the matter.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he was sorry to hear what had fallen from the Secretary of State, because in his opinion the present clause was the best portion of the Bill. For many years he had been the Chairman of a Board of Health in a large city, and experience had taught him that the provision contained in the clause was absolutely necessary if the health of the inhabitants was to be promoted.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHapproved the clause, observing that the evidence in support of it was conclusive.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the clause would, in effect, declare large numbers of cottages in the country containing but one family each, though a large one, to be nuisances, and the result would be to make the landlord turn the poor people into the street and pull the house down. Now, turning these people into the street without making provision for them would be a very serious matter. He would, therefore, oppose the clause, unless some proviso was inserted prohibiting the turning out a single family.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that a law declaring overcrowded houses to be a nuisance had been in force in Scotland for six years, and during that time whoever heard of a complaint, that any people had been hardly dealt with, reaching the Home Office? A large family inhabiting one small portion of the house would be a source of danger not only to the other people under the same roof, but to the whole district. He suggested that larger powers should be given, and that the authorities should be left to administer them. He thought the House would be satisfied with the Scotch precedent.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply to houses containing but one family. If the powers to which he alluded were to be given to the authorities, they would have no option in the matter, but be compelled to enforce them.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Scotch law might have worked admirably, but the present clause did not follow the Scotch law.
  MR. HENLEYasked what rule they were going to lay down as to the number of persons who might live in one room without its being prejudicial to health?
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, it was impossible to say absolutely what number of persons inhabiting a house would render it prejudicial to health. That must depend upon the size and construction of the house, its ventilation, and other circumstances. With regard to the matter of definition, the Scotch law was identical with that proposed in this Bill. When they afterwards came to the other clauses they might impose a small fine in certain cases and not in others, so as not to make the operation of the measure oppressive.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) had only held out the slightest hope that he would deal with the matter in the spirit just indicated by the late Solicitor General he should have been quite satisfied.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the definition given in the Scotch law might not be different from that contained in this Bill, but there was consequential legislation in the case of Scotland, which did not find its way into this measure. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would bring up a clause, legislating according to the Scotch law.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) seemed to think that if a house was overcrowded and a nuisance to the neighbourhood, he ought to be allowed to remain if the overcrowding was due only to the occupier's own family; but he (Mr. Bruce) did not think that even if the house were the man's own freehold he ought to be allowed to remain there to the injury of the community.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if poor people were to be turned out of their homes, some provision must be made, at least temporarily, to prevent their being left houseless.
  MR. BRUCEwould be most happy to consider any modification of the clause that was not inconsistent with its efficiency,
  1652
  but he should be sorry to bind himself to adopt any modification the effect of which he was not able to see.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

THE ATLANTIC CABLE.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. HUNT,in moving the adjournment of the House, stated that he understood the Atlantic cable had been successfully completed, and that the first message had been received. He wished to know whether his hon. Friend opposite could confirm the statement?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was happy to say that the statement was correct. He had great satisfaction in saying that the communication would be opened with New York to-morrow.
  An hon. MEMBERstated that he had in his hand a message that had just been received through the cable.
  Motion agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to apply a sum, out of the Consolidated Fund and the Surplus of Ways and Means, to the Service of the year ending thirty-first March, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DONSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1854) AMENDMENT [STAMPS] BILL.
  Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that every Affidavit renewing the Registration of a Bill of Sale shall bear an adhesive Common Law Stamp of the value of Five Shillings.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next

  PRISONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Bill for the amendment of the Laws relating to Prisons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 260.]

  CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION ACT AMEND MENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HUNT. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock, till Monday next.