§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. OSBORNEsaid, he had not the advantage of a seat in that House when this Bill was read a second time, and he believed that down to that time no explanation had been given by the late Secretary of State for War as to the precise state of the fortifications or of the alterations that had been introduced into them. A very strong opinion prevailed as to the inutility of these forts and the great waste of money that had been lavished on their erection. Of late the whole thing had undergone a considerable change, because one of the five forts had been struck off the list, and for one of the others they had not yet been able to find a foundation. None of the vessels recommended as floating defences had been constructed, although, according to the Report made five years ago, these constituted the most material parts of the harbour defences. It would further appear that they were embarked in a design for the erection of fortifications (without even a gun to place in them), which were to be armour-plated, the cost of which was never contemplated when the original Estimate was made. The original Estimate was for £11,000,000, but if they were to properly carry it out according to the improved science which had since developed itself, the cost would not be £11,000,000 only, but much nearer £30,000,000. It appeared to him to be very much like throwing good money after bad. In consequence of the lateness of the Session, and the short time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had been in office, he could hardly expect him in fairness to give the required explanation; but he wished he could have seen the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in 1670 his place to have asked him for an explanation upon the subject. He did not mean to object to go into Committee on the Bill. He was aware it was useless for him to divide the House. He had divided the House time out of number in the former Parliament on this question of fortifications, but he got no support, and he should not now attempt it. He thought, however, that before a large sum of money was granted some explanations should be given as to the precise state of the fortifications, and what was the ultimate design of the Government with respect to them.
GENERAL PEELcould not, from having only recently accepted office, give a precise account of the present state of the fortifications. Parliament having already sanctioned the raising of sufficient money to carry on, until next Session, the works named in the schedule of the Bill before the House, there would have been no necessity for bringing in this Bill were it not that he wished to call the attention of the House, and to obtain its approval, to a new work, estimated to cost £50,000, which had not yet been sanctioned. He could not, of course, give his approval to the application of money to a work which had not been included in the schedules of previous Acts. The £50,000 he referred to was for providing and fixing iron shields and generally re-modelling the river batteries at Tilbury Fort and the fort on the opposite shore at Gravesend. The Defence Commission had recommended in their original Report that these works should be re-modelled, but no steps had as yet been taken to carry them into effect. Meanwhile, as the new batteries in progress below Gravesend could not be finished for about two years, owing to its having been necessary to give time for their foundations to settle, it was necessary that the works at Tilbury Fort and the Fort opposite to it should no longer be delayed, for at present the Thames is defenceless against the attack of an ironclad ship. He originally proposed to move for power to raise £350,000, of which £300,000 was for the purpose of providing iron shields, turrets, and turntables for some of the sea batteries at the places named in the schedule; but the Estimates for these services were not sufficiently completed to enable him to state with accuracy the total amount that would be required for this purpose, and he had not yet considered what works, if any, of those mentioned in previous Acts could be dispensed 1671 with, in order that the total expenditure should be as little as possible in excess of the amount already brought before Parliament.
MR. GLADSTONEI have received the information given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with great surprise, and in the first place I must correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham and other hon. Members labour. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stated here that the Estimate for fortifications amounted to £11,000,000. [Mr. OSBORNE: Originally.] That is not the case. The Estimate was for £11,000,000 for the whole plan of fortifications designed and promulgated by the Defence Commissioners; but Her Majesty's Government of that date never assented to that plan. He did not mean to say that they came to a conclusion unfavourable to it, but a great portion of the plan was postponed, and they did not ask from Parliament any assent, expressed or implied, to any such project as that now before the House. The amount of the Estimate for which Lord Palmerston's Government asked the House was a trifle over £5,000,000. As matters went on there happened in regard to the works what happened in regard to most civil works and all military works — the Estimate grew considerably, and it came to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. The number and nature of the works to which the assent of Parliament had been given was never altered, and in successive years, as it became necessary, fresh sums of money had to be asked for from Parliament for executing these works, and no others. I mention this because the financial basis of the plan is altogether peculiar and exceptional. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Northcote) objected at the time, and with great force, to the scheme of constructing fortifications on loans. I joined with him in that opinion, but I concurred in it because, at the time the scheme was approved of, we were suffering from a very heavy war expenditure which rendered it totally impossible for us to meet the charge by taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not, I think, seen the importance of the proposal he makes. When I first saw that he was coming down to so small a sum as £50,000, I was somewhat puzzled, because it appeared to me that in all likelihood he would find that 1672 out of the sums authorized to be raised there was a sufficient margin for meeting that moderate sum. I now understand from him that this £50,000 is required and intended for the commencement of altogether new works. [General PEEL: It was recommended by the Defence Commission.] I must confess that, so far as I am concerned, I object to a question of this kind being raised in the last week of the Session in this manner—by letting in a small piece here and another there, involving an expenditure in new works of £50,000 to-day and £100,000 to-morrow. That, in my opinion, will be a most serious error on the part of the House. These charges, in my opinion, should be made in the Estimates at the commencement of the Session, or at a time when the House is able to give its best attention to the subject.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman has reduced the Estimates, but he does not appear to be sufficiently alive to this principle, that in 1860, under most peculiar circumstances, and when the public mind was fraught with alarm, a proposal was made not only for a large extension of fortifications, but that the expenses should be defrayed by loan; and I think that the peculiar circumstances of the period justified that it should be defrayed in that peculiar manner. But I confess that I know of no reason why in a period of financial ease, and with an annual surplus, if new works are needed, that we should resort further to the expedient of loans. If new works are requisite, I want to know why they are not to be put in the annual Estimates. I have not had an opportunity of communicating with the noble Marquess the late Secretary for War; and I have no knowledge that this was mentioned to the late Cabinet, or there being any intention on his part to make this proposal to Parliament at this period of the Session. Unless my right hon. Friend opposite is prepared to state that it was, I must assume that it was not the intention of the noble Marquess to do so. On general grounds it is most inexpedient that such works should be proposed at such a period of the Session, although my right hon. Friend might know that the expense would be confined within moderate bounds. I am jealous of establishing a precedent in this respect. The practice was to bring these matters before the House at the commence- 1673 ment of the Session, when the House was fresh, and able to give full attention to subjects which are so important and so difficult to carry out, and that practice ought not to be departed from, especially in the construction of works the cost of which has to be defrayed in this exceptional manner, except it can be justified by circumstances out of the general line, and they certainly do not now exist. Originally, the Estimate for these fortifications was £5,000,000; now it stood at £7,000,000. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has made provision for this sum of £50,000 by reducing the Estimates; but what security is there that that sum will not be returned to the Estimates, and that professional men will not, before the conclusion of the works, show that some further outlay is absolutely necessary? I submit to the House and to Her Majesty's Government that this is a disclosure entirely new, and I do not think that any hon. Member was aware of what was intended to be done by this Bill before he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I had no idea or expectation that a proposition would have been made in the last week of the Session to ask the House to sanction any new military defences, and still less that we should be asked to give our sanction to such a large undertaking under the peculiar financial conditions attending the same. Lord Palmerston, I think, partook of my convictions, that Parliament would not consent to an enlargement of the plan of fortifications. It is really such a departure from all the ordinary principles of peace expenditure as to be only justified in a state of war, or as a matter of expediency; and I hope my right hon. Friend will take into his consideration the circumstances under which provision was made for this expenditure in 1860. I shall accede with great reluctance at this period of the Session to the proposal for £50,000 to be expended for new works, because I dislike treating by way of Supplementary Estimates anything that can be included in the next year's Estimates. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to state that the matter is urgent, and that he cannot on the part of the Government be a party to its postponement until next year, I will not take on myself the responsibility of resisting the proposal; but I entreat him and the House not to attempt to commit the House to an expression of opinion in favour of new 1674 works on the principle of providing for fortifications in a time of peace and surplus by way of loan. I have no wish to do anything which might savour of obstructing public business, but should my suggestion not be approved of by the Government, I must reserve to myself the right of taking such a course as I might deem advisable at a further stage of the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the works were done by way of Supplementary Estimate it would then go in the natural course into the Appropriation Act, and it would not then be an irregular Act.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI wish to remind the House that Her Majesty's present Government is not responsible for defraying the expense of a system of fortifications by a loan, and that several Members who sit on the Ministerial Benches, on this side of the House, very much disapproved of the plan at the time. I quite agree that it should be the last resource for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire is not quite correct in the objection he has raised against our making an application of this kind so late in the Session. I find by reference that Lord Palmerston himself so late as the 23rd July, 1860, made a most important application to this House with reference to fortifications and works. [Mr. GLADSTONE: It was known all the Session.] The House must also be aware that so far as money is concerned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has it in his possession, and that all he wished to do was, acting on the recommendation of the Defence Commission, to bring the matter under the attention of the House. If the House is prepared to say—and I am not inclined to dispute it—that the present course is an objectionable one, that it is too late in the Session to propose it, we will not press it. I wish, however, the House to clearly understand that the proposition is one in accordance with the authority of the Defence Commission, and that it is not brought forward later in the Session than the great scheme of Lord Palmerston was brought forward. We are not asking for any fresh Vote, my right hon. Friend being in possession of the funds necessary for the work.
COLONEL SYKESrose to make his annual protest against the expenditure of public money for these fortifications. He 1675 was an advocate for maintaining and properly securing our dockyards, but he considered the works in progress quite unnecessary. Many of the forts were, in his opinion, quite unnecessay, and if the whole army of England were to man the works which it was proposed to erect, they would not be sufficient for the purpose, some of which were thirty miles in length: £5,150,000 had been already expended, as he considered, uselessly. The real defence of England was the strong hands and stout hearts of the people, not bricks and mortar. He trusted that many of the proposed works would be abandoned.
CAPTAIN VIVIANwas very glad to hear the course which the Government had resolved to pursue; for if they had done otherwise he should have felt bound to oppose the Vote. If he had had the honour of a seat in the House when the scheme of fortification was proposed, he should have voted with the minority against it. He thought that this great scheme of fortification was a mistake, and that we had committed ourselves to a great plan when scientific men were divided in opinion as to what was the best mode of fortification. At Plymouth they were facing large works there with polished granite, which many believed was the worst possible material with which they could attempt to construct fortifications. The Secretary for War had said that the forts were to be faced with iron; but the Americans gave us their experience, that the fortification which gave the Federals the most trouble was Fort Moultrie, in Charleston Harbour. It was originally stone, and the garrison suffered severely, whilst the stone remained; but as soon as the stone was knocked to pieces and became almost dust, then the enemy's shot had little effect upon it, and they were never able to take it. He thought there was great folly in expending £8,000,000 for that which in ten or fifteen years would probably become valueless. There was, at all events, no pressing necessity for the money now asked, and he was glad that the proposal was to be withdrawn.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the present proposal was to modify that of 1860, and to render it consistent with the state of knowledge of the present period. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Vivian) could hardly object to the present proposition, unless he objected to all fortifications. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had formerly opposed all fortification, and especially the con- 1676 struction of the Spithead forts. He (Mr. Newdegate) had supported Lord Palmerston in the proposal to erect those forts, and the repulse of the Spanish attack upon the port of Lima had amply justified his vote in favour of the forts at Spithead. The experience of the American and other wars taught us much, and the Spanish fleet in America had recently had marked experience of the power of land fortifications against ships. What more powerful corroboration could they have of the soundness of Lord Palmerston's opinion than this proof of the strength of the forts against the Spanish fleet? This experience should not be thrown away, and agreeing with the Government in the views which had induced them to avail themselves of recent experience, he thought that it was not unreasonable that the House should be asked for this money. He did not see what useful result could ensue from postponement, considering the experience of other countries in reference to this subject.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the question seemed to be whether the time had not arrived when the further sums which were wanted should be taken by annual Vote, instead of the expense being thrown on posterity. He considered the original plan of fortifications wild and extravagant, and nothing contributed so much to enable the Government to carry out this particular plan than the mode of taking the Vote out of the ordinary course of Supply and leaving to our successors to pay the terminable annuities. He thought that the time had arrived when the Votes for the money required should be taken in the ordinary course. He wished it to be understood that he did not wish to prejudge the case of this particular fort; he only said let the Vote for the money be introduced in Committee of Supply, and then ample consideration would be given to any plan for fortifying our dockyards and rivers.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHconcurred in the opinion that the time had come when we should close our capital account, and put the charge upon the annual revenue. He said this with more freedom because he had supported the proposition of Lord Palmerston under the pressure of the occasion, and in consideration that the money would not immediately come out of the pockets of the people. But the principle adopted upon an emergency of that kind ought certainly to have a limit. 1677 He was very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not oppose the proposition to reserve this question for consideration in the Estimates for next year.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the feeling of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters had never been very strongly in favour of the course that had been taken by Gentlemen sitting opposite, of providing for this particular class of expenditure by means of terminable annuities. Indeed, at the time it was first proposed many of them objected to it. At present, however, the practice had gone on so long that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War thought that the only course he had to pursue was to proceed upon the same principle that the House had sanctioned for several years, and therefore, believing that the works in question were absolutely necessary, he had thought it desirable to call the immediate attention of the House to the subject by bringing in the Bill in order that they might discuss the question. The right hon. Gentleman wished at the same time to strike out of the scheme already sanctioned the part authorizing the construction of a central arsenal, and he had done so by means of a clause inserted in the Bill before them. The Government, however, now thought that after the opinions which had been expressed in the House upon the subject it would be better to withdraw the Bill for the present, and to proceed next year in the ordinary and convenient form of presenting an Estimate for these works, so that the House would have a fair opportunity of discussing the necessity for them. Her Majesty's Government concurred in the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had passed upon the system of bringing in Supplemental Estimates.
§ MR. HORSMANthought the House did not fully remember the circumstances under which the Resolution of 1860 was taken to construct these works by means of a loan. There were then two questions before the House—first, the question as to building the fortifications, and next, whether the expenditure for them should be defrayed by means of a loan. But there was another more important question, and that was the limited time that was allowed to finish the works. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had said that at the time that Resolution was agreed to the country was in a state of alarm, virtually 1678 in a state of war; that was the state to which they had come. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say "war."] The question, which was very much before the House during that Session, was the defenceless state of the country, and over and over again it was urged upon the Government that the coast was improperly defended, and the consequence was that a report was laid before them suggesting that certain fortifications should be constructed, and hon. Members had then a full opportunity of discussing the question. There was an Estimate originally of £11,000,000 for the expenditure; but, at the same time, there was an estimate given to them as to the amount to be spent in each year, and the time required for completing each fort, some of which were to take five years, some ten, and some fifteen years. And then it was that the Resolution was brought forward that, considering the large amount to be spent in three years or the work would be useless, it was impossible to pay the money within that period out of the taxation, and therefore that it was necessary to pay for it by a loan or to give up the idea of paying for it at all. This principle was not intended to be adopted with the money to be raised for future years; and its adoption then only arose from the state of alarm which they were in, and of the necessity of proceeding as rapidly as possible. It had escaped his recollection that any objection to this course was then urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, though he did recollect that there were objections by the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), and others, who objected to fortifications altogether.
§ MR. WATKINthought that the House was much indebted to the Government for giving way to the feeling expressed in regard to this Vote. Since Lord Palmerston brought forward the proposition in 1860 they had the experience of the American war, and there had also been the experiment of fronting the forts at Cronstadt with iron. In America, earthworks, which were the cheapest fortifications that could be made, had withstood the whole power of the North, and that they could be constructed in a few months. He had himself gone over the earthworks at Richmond, and he found that fortifications which extended twenty miles had been constructed in less than a year, and he believed he was in compass when he said that the whole cost had not exceeded £500,000. This was, of course, without the harbour fortifi- 1679 cations. Many of these enormous earthworks stood repeated attacks, and these cheap fortifications, which could be rapidly constructed, were the strongest obstacle the Northern forces had. He suggested that there should be another Commission to consider the question.
MR. KINGLAKEthought the hon. Gentleman mistaken in assuming that forts were so useless as he supposed. They were wanted for the purpose of enabling the few to act against the many. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the great result derived by the Americans from earthworks, but the Americans were acting with large armies, and it was precisely for the purpose of dispensing with large armies that forts were required. Another hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that forts were of little value against ships. [Captain VIVIAN: I never said that; I alluded to granite forts.] His own impression was—and certainly, the experience of the Russian war supported it—that granite forts with casemates were invulnerable against attacks by ships. This, at all events, was the result of the bombardment of Sebastopol.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that the experiment which had been carried on at Shoeburyness and elsewhere had proved that granite forts were utterly useless against heavy guns. A mixed system of granite fortifications faced with iron was much better; but forts made altogether of iron were well-nigh invulnerable. He thought that the question should be further examined before they went to the enormous expense contemplated.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill withdrawn.
§ PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
§ (Mr. Bruce, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Sir George Grey.)
§ [BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 23 (Addition to Definition of Nuisance.)
§ MR. POWELLobjected to leaving out smelting-houses from the operation of the Bill.
MR. BRUCEsaid, it never was the in- 1680 tention of the Government to interfere with smelting-houses. Parliament had legislated against alkali works and coke works, but had declined to interfere with the manufacture of copper. It had proceeded on the wise and cautious policy of only legislating against smoke and noxious vapours, when it was established beyond doubt that effectual means existed for suppressing them. It had been shown that these means existed in the case of the vapour from alkali works and coke, but it had not been proved to be the case with respect to copper. When such a case was made out it would be desirable to adopt the same legislation for copper works. At the same time, the Amendment was not necessary, because it was never intended that the clause should interfere with copper works.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, it should be remembered that, though this clause provided against the emission of smoke from furnaces, no attempt was made in the Bill to prevent the emission of chemical vapours from arsenic works and other manufactories of that nature, which was infinitely more injurious to public health than smoke. He held in his hand a treatise, the author of which, a scientific man, clearly demonstrated that smoke, so far from being injurious, destroyed the elements of contagion and infection that existed in the air. It was within the recollection of the House that when the cholera visited England, Birmingham, the most smoky of towns, was almost entirely free from the disease.
§ MR. ADDERLEYconsidered that the freedom of Birmingham from cholera on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member arose, not from its smoke, but from the fact of its high and healthy situation. In Bilston and other parts of the black country where there was no lack of smoke the ravages of cholera were more extensive than in any other part of the country.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that though the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets might be right in saying that the Bill did not provide for every evil, yet it would remedy a great many that now existed. The measure had not the scope which many hon. Members desired, but he thought the country owed a debt of gratitude to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) for having taken up and dealt with the subject. It was a most difficult one to deal with, and if the Bill succeeded in its operation great good 1681 would be done. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) that Birmingham escaped the cholera, not because of its smoke, but because of its situation, and of its drainage. He trusted that the Bill would pass this Session, and that every effort would be made at both sides of the House to secure that result.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 24 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 27 (On Complaint of neglect of Duty of Nuisance Authority in abating Nuisances, Justices may enforce such Duty) struck out.
§ Clause 28 (Power to cause Premises to be cleansed, lime-washed, or otherwise disinfected.)
§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEthought the word "infection" which occurs in this clause ought to be defined. The medical officer, before surveying a house which was supposed to be infected, was recommended by the Committee of Privy Council to have on a particular dress, consisting of "strong water-tight boots, reaching to the knees, and greased all over, a waterproof coat closely buttoned up to the neck and at the wrists, and the head covered with a cap which takes the hair well in." He hoped the medical officer would be clothed in this safety dress before he embarked in the dreadful danger of visiting these nuisances, especially as he had to report to the nuisance authority; or, going into these pest-houses, he would himself come out pestiferous. It was the more necessary that there should be a definition of "infection," from the visitation of cholera with which we were threatened. He had formerly asked a question on this subject, and referred to the fact that the Emperor of the French had been visiting the cholera hospitals in Paris. There was also the experiment mentioned in the newspapers of a young student named Jerard, who, to show that cholera was not infectious, took the perspiration off the forehead of a dying man, and the fur off his tongue, and put them in his own mouth. It was announced that the Emperor of the French had for the second time visited the cholera patients in the hospitals at Amiens. A. Commission which inquired into the ravages of the yellow fever at Bermuda reported that it was not infectious; and he could give a long list of similar conclusions respecting diseases that were supposed to be infectious. 1682 The Appendix to the Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, whom he could not acquit of sometimes creating unnecessary alarm, contained the satisfactory intelligence that for twenty-eight years there had not been a case of smallpox among the attendants at the Small-pox Hospital, although outside its doors some one had taken the disease. It was true that the attendants were vaccinated, but was vaccination held to be a preventive? By no means, and Dr. Jenner knew it; and even some whom he vaccinated had been attacked with small-pox. In conclusion, he moved that the clause be postponed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet would admit that any disease was infectious; but the public generally were satisfied that infection existed in many cases, and if there were only one or two disorders that were infectious, a sufficient case was made out for the retention of the clause.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it had been pointed out to him that while a local authority had power to compel a landlord to fumigate and limewash a house, it had no power to make him close it for a short time, although on public grounds that might be desirable.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHILDERSproposed to substitute for the words "the nuisance authority may" the words "it shall be the duty of the nuisance authority to" (cleanse and disinfect).
§ MR. WALPOLEaccepted the Amendment, having intended to propose one similar to it.
§ MR. AYRTONobjected that this Amendment would place a community at the entire mercy of "any legally qualified medical practitioner," on whose certificate the cleansing was to take place. It was a most monstrous proposition to invest "any legally qualified medical practitioner" with such domineering functions.
MR. BRUCEreplied that the words "if it appear to the nuisance authority" (that cleansing would prevent infection) invested that authority with discretion.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 29 (Nuisance Authorities may provide Carriages for Conveyance of infected Persons.)
MR. BRUCEpointed out that in some 1683 places—as, for instance, towns having a hospital—carriages were not required. He preferred, therefore, that the clause should remain permissive.
§ MR. MELLERmoved an Amendment to the effect that the clause should not apply to carriages licensed by the Commissioners of Police in London, or by the local authorities in the country.
§ MR. ADDERLEYappealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. POWELLmoved to add the words, "Provided such carriage shall be disinfected."
MR. HENLEYremarked that the House ought to be informed what disinfecting meant. The particular process to be used ought to be specified in the Act.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that there were several modes of effective disinfection well known to medical men and at hospitals.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that might be, but would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House what the method was?
§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEpointed out that there were great doubts as to what was the most efficacious system of disinfection. A work recently published on the subject stated that one of the methods employed made matters worse than they were before. He thought it was desirable that the particular process to be made use of should be specified in the Act.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that was a matter which might safely be determined by the authorities.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 30 (Removal of Persons sick of infectious Disorders, and without proper Lodging, in any District.)
§ MR. AYRTONremarked that it enacted that any Justice of the Peace might order any person to be attended to, lodged, and maintained at the expense and without the consent of the local authority. This was to be done in the case of any person who was unprovided with proper lodging and accommodation. Now, according to the law of the land, such a person would have to be maintained and taken care of by the Board of Guardians, and the cost of maintenance would be imposed upon the whole union rated for the relief of the poor. On what principle, then, was it that power was to be given to a Justice of the Peace to order a person to be maintained at the expense of the local authority without the 1684 consent of such authority, which, he might remark, was not necessarily the body chargeable with the maintenance of the poor.
§ MR. WALPOLEthought that the objection of the hon. Gentleman would be met by the provision of Clause 35.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the object of the clause was to provide for the case of a vagrant who came into a town, was lodged in a low lodging-house, and then was seized with typhus fever or small-pox. In such a case the great object would be to get the man to the hospital as quickly as possible, and the power was therefore intrusted to the medical officer and the Justice of the Peace who were at hand. If application were made to the Board of Guardians, who sat perhaps once a week, the whole object would be frustrated.
§ MR. AYRTONthought the matter should be placed in the hands of the relieving officer, and that the infected person should be sent to the parish infirmary. The expenses should be defrayed out of the poor rates.
§ MR. SELWYNdid not think the clause was well drawn, but it was plain that its object was to provide for a different class from paupers. In this case a man was to be removed against his will for the sake of the public good.
MR. HENLEYagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the clause was badly drawn; and he doubted whether under it a Justice of the Peace could send a patient to any hospital except one provided by himself.
§ MR. AYRTONobjected to the novel regulation that persons were to be dragged from their houses against their will by an order of justices which might be granted behind their back.
§ MR. STEPHEN CAVEremarked that the clause did not apply to persons occupying a house, but to persons living in common lodging houses.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 31 (Places for the reception of dead bodies may be provided at the public expense.)
§ In the absence of Mr. WALPOLE,
§ MR. ADDERLEYmoved the insertion of words giving authority for burials by the relieving officer.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
1685§ Clause 34 (Lodging-houses.)
§ MR. GRAVESsaid, he thought the clause ought to be made to apply to houses the rooms of which were let as separate tenements. He had one in his eye. It was a house of five rooms, each room being occupied by a family. He moved to insert the words, "fixing the number of persons who may occupy a house or part of a house in lodgings, or occupied by members of more than one family."
MR. HENLEYsaid, when they remembered the number of houses in London and other large towns which were let in lodgings, he thought the power given by this clause was a very large power, and there ought to be some restrictions on it. He moved to insert the words, "in the day time," so that the officers to be appointed under this Bill might not have the power of "rampaging" these houses at any time of night.
COLONEL SYKESthought the Amendment would make the clause comparatively inoperative. It was only at night that this overcrowding took place. He had once visited a place in London where he had found twenty two human beings and one dead body in a room twelve feet square. It was surprising that people would tolerate such a state of things, which the very beasts of the fields would not submit to.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that out of fifty cases of typhus reported by an inspector at Newcastle only one had occurred in a common lodging-house, which could be visited night and day. Notwithstanding the praiseworthy energy which was shown in carrying out the law, the inspectors found themselves helpless for want of a power such as this clause would give them.
MR. COWENexpressed the opinion that the Bill had been well drawn, and would meet especially the case of Newcastle most effectually.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Power to provide Hospitals.)
§ MR. WALPOLEmoved that that portion relative to the sanction of the Poor Law Board to any proceedings of the nuisance authority be left out.
MR. HENLEYpointed out that it had got into a very unfortunate position. The House had deliberately taken the matter out of the hands of the guardians, and put it into the hands of the Sewers authorities, 1686 who could not possibly know anything about it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 36 (Penalty on any Person, with infectious Disorder, exposing himself, or on any Person in charge of such Sufferer causing such Exposure.)
MR. HENLEYrequested the right hon. Gentleman to state how people were to avoid spreading infection.
§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEtook the opportunity of reminding his right hon. Friend of the statement of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, to the effect that medical men were constantly conveying scarlet fever to their own children. If the thing could be avoided at all, they, being medical men, must be held to have been guilty of committing such an enormity wilfully. But, as if that were not enough, these people were to be taken before the magistrates, to infect them.
MR. BRUCEobserved, that there was no doubt of the truth of the remark of the hon. Baronet; and even when medical men had changed their clothes and washed themselves after visiting a patient afflicted with an infectious disease, they had been the means of conveying that disease to others. He presumed, however, that no man suffering from scarlet fever would dangerously expose himself.
COLONEL SYKESsuggested that the words "without proper precautions" should be omitted, leaving the clause to run—"Any person suffering from any dangerous infectious disease who shall wilfully expose himself."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that that would prevent any such person from being removed to an hospital, or from going from home for a change of air.
§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEasked what the country practitioner was to do? He would have to take a whole wardrobe about the country with him.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 37 (Penalty on Persons letting Houses in which infected Persons have been lodging.)
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSmoved to substitute for "inn" the words "a house licensed for the sale of exeiseable liquors."
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the Amendment would exclude "temperance hotels." He 1687 believed the word "inn" would include beerhouses.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ MR. GRAVESmoved a clause relating to cases of cellar occupation, which had been declared illegal both by general and local Acts; but, inasmuch as the penalty prescribed was a money one, the occupier by reason of his poverty was entirely beyond the law. The result was that the Act was totally inoperative. This clause would empower the nuisance authority, where there had been two convictions within three months, to permanently close the cellars.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Schedules and the Preambles agreed to.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSexpressed the hope that a Consolidation Bill would be prepared during the recess.
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that this Bill had been brought in with a view to the ultimate consolidation of the law on the subject, and he purposed introducing a Consolidation Bill next year.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]