Commons Sitting of 11 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Parliamentary Deposits [No. 432]; on Paris Exhibition [No. 433].
Second Reading — Court of Chancery (Officers) [235]; Canongate Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) * [2]; Turnkike Trusts Arrangements* [233]; County General Assessment (Scotland)* [225]; Galashiels Jurisdiction * [234]; County Courts Acts Amendment* [212]; Game Laws Amendment (Ireland)* [226].
Committee — Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension [227]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [248]; Poor Law Board, &c. [193] [R.P.]; Barrack Lane Windsor (Right of Way) * [229]; Judges Chambers (Despatch of Business) * [154]; Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [124] [R.P.]
Report—Corrupt Practices at Elections *[119 &c. 247); Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension [227]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [178 & 248]; Barrack Lane, Windsor (Right of Way) * [229]; Judges Chambers (Despatch of Business)* [154].
Considered as amended—Naval Stores* [215]; Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate* [211].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * [206], and passed.
Withdrawn — Bankruptcy (re-comm). [131]; Judgment Debtors* (re-comm.) [132]; Bankruptcy Acts Repeal* (re-comm.) [133]; Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange * [224].

STEAM FERRIES BETWEEN GRANTON AND BURNTISLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Peebles, Whether instructions will be given to the Crown Agent in Scotland to prosecute in cases of excessive crowding of passengers on board the Steam Ferries beteen Granton and Burntisland; or, whether the Crown Agent in Scotland will take any other steps to prohibit such daily and constant overcrowding of the above boats, to the danger of Her Majesty's faithful subjects?
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that no complaints had been made to the Crown Agent in Scotland in regard to the matter. In consequence of the Question asked the other day, the Lord Advocate had asked the police to report any cases of overcrowding which might come under their notice. The Merchant Shipping Act contained provisions against overcrowding, and if the Act were infringed the parties would be liable to prosecution. The authorities in Scotland would direct their attention to the subject.

STAFF OFFICERS OF PENSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the grievance felt by some of the senior Staff Officers of Pensioners, because the Memorandum, dated War Office, 15th March, 1842, promising that their situation should "be considered a full pay appointment," has not been carried out, many of them having been induced to leave other "full pay" situations in order to obtain it; and also, to the fact of the retiring allowance granted to them being considerably less than that given to other paying officers holding likewise home appointments, but whose duties and money responsibilities are not nearly so great as those of the Staff Officers of Pensioners?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that so far as he could ascertain, the senior Staff Officers of Pensioners did hold, and always held, full pay appointments. He was not aware that the Staff Officers had any reason to complain of their retiring allowances. The appointments were in his hands as Secretary of State, and hardly a day passed that he did not receive the most pressing applications from officers to hold their appointments.

ARMY MEDICAL WARRANT OF 1858.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether so much of the Army Medical Warrant of the 1st October 1858, as has not been expressly cancelled by the Warrant of the 1st April 1867, is still in force; and, if so, whether it is to be acted upon; and, whether any order has been issued, and by whom, and when, to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1866, in relation to Army Medical Officers, and if same can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had already stated that all parts of the Army Medical Warrant of 1st October 1858, which were not specially repealed, were in force and acted upon. The recommendations of the Committee of 1866 consisted of two parts—one financial, and the other relating to discipline. The former had been carried into effect, and he should lay a copy of the Warrant on the table. The latter had been referred to the Horse Guards to deal with it. They had not

  1391
  yet issued their decision; but they had acquiesced in the recommendation to the extent he had stated on a former occasion.

PRIVATE POSTAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Postmaster General, notwithstanding the offer to carry Letters free of charge, declines to allow the insertion in The Postal Official Circular of the names of Steamers sailing from Liverpool at stated periods to Brazil and other places, whereby the public is deprived of the opportunity of more frequent and quicker communication with those places in addition to the Post Office Mails?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the practice of publishing in the Postal Official Circular the names of private ships carrying letter bags had been discontinued some years ago, the information being often calculated to mislead the public, as the vessels did not always sail at the time appointed. It was not accurate to say that the steamers sailing from Liverpool to Brazil carried letters free of charge, because they received certain gratuities for carrying letters to Brazil and other places. The public were not deprived of the opportunity of sending letters by those steamers, because if they were addressed to go by private ship they were sent by the first that sailed.
  MR. BAXTERgave notice that early next Session he should call attention to the whole system of the Packet Service, and would move certain Resolutions thereon.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS TO HOUNSLOW.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is in a position to give further information to the House as to the circumstance of the Troops coming up to Hounslow for the review, not receiving their rations till 4 o'clock in the afternoon of their march from Aldershot?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Since I was asked a Question on this subject on a former evening, I felt it my duty to institute a close inquiry into the circumstances to which the Question referred, which has deeply interested the public mind, and which cannot be considered creditable to the military service. I find that on the 25th of June a requisition which I now hold in my hand, was issued from the
1392
Quartermaster General's Department to the Deputy-Commissary General, intimating that a brigade of cavalry, with a military train, numbering about 1,200 men, would march from Aldershot to Hounslow, on Wednesday the 3rd of July. The requisition goes on to say—
"And it is requested that the necessary arrangements may be made for the issue of rations and forage to the men and horses during their stay at Hounslow Heath."
I can only arrive at the conclusion that the Deputy Commissary-General, to whom this requisition was addressed, was the officer responsible to see that this requisition was carried out. In justice, I am bound to say that it has been occasionally, if not always, the practice that troops on the day of march should take with them provisions for that day. I am also bound to say that the officers connected with this brigade were not altogether free from, something like want of care. The General commanding the brigade decided upon marching at a very unusual hour; and I believe the officers commanding the regiments of which the brigade consisted might have received some portion of the provision which they required if they had taken care to apply for it. But I feel, on the other hand, that some one must be held responsible for the supply of rations to the troops. It would not do, in such a case, to say that one officer might have done this and another officer might have done that. Here was a requisition directed to the Deputy Commissary-General, requesting him on the 25th of June to provide for the accommodation of the troops on the 3rd of July—thereby giving him ample notice; and I hold that it was the duty of that officer to have made whatever inquiry was necessary for the purpose of carrying out those arrangements, and that if anything went wrong the responsibility must rest with him. I am convinced from the character of that officer there was nothing like intentional neglect; but, at the same time, it is absolutely necessary that proper care should be taken of the troops, and it is my intention to remove that officer from the London district.
LORD DUNKELLINasked whether this was the only accident that happened to the troops moved up to the Review, or whether there were other cases?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had not heard of any other cases of neglect of the troops on their march to the Review.

THE 13TH HUSSARS.—QUESTION.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that a second Major is to be appointed to the 13th Hussars; and, if so, whether the step will be given in the Regiment without purchase?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the 13th Hussars were now serving in Canada, and that he had no intention of appointing a second Major to that regiment.

MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.—QUESTION.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is his intention to take any steps to record the opinion of the House of Commons on the murder of the Emperor Maximilian and his Generals?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask the House to take any steps of the character proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure we all sympathize with his feelings, and every one, I think, will agree in lamenting the violent and untimely death of a gallant and amiable gentleman, whose high spirit and enterprize, under happier circumstances, might have rendered him distinguished either on the battle-field or in the councils of Europe. But if we are asked to record a judgment of this House upon his execution I confess I see very grave objections to a step of that kind. I do not see how we could come to any such Resolution, or how we can even discuss it without entering into a general debate upon the merits and policy of the Mexican expedition — into the position and status of that unfortunate Prince, and the right by which he claimed the possession of supreme power in that country. All these circumstances it would be necessary to consider, and some of them would, I think, have a very material effect on our judgment. I do not think this would be the right moment to choose for a discussion of that kind, especially as it is one on which great difference of opinion might arise. Then, again, comes the question of precedent. We might, I think, if we accepted my hon. Friend's suggestion, set a precedent which might embarrass us very inconveniently on some future occasion. This is not the first case—and, unhappily it is not likely to be the last — when the triumph of one party, after a protracted
1394
civil war, has been followed by an unwise, a lamentable, and a sanguinary act of revenge. Are we in all these cases to take notice of such acts in this House, and pass a Vote of Censure upon them? If we are not to do so in regard to them all, on what principle are we to draw a distinction? That is a question which the House would have to consider. And lastly, Sir, I would say—though I say it with great respect—that, great as are our power and our influence, we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not the Parliament of the world. We are in no sense responsible, directly or indirectly, for the lamentable event which has occurred; and I think it is very doubtful whether a habit of international criticism in Parliamentary debate would be found practically useful or conduce to a good understanding between nations.
MR. OTWAYwished to ask the noble Lord, whether Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the late Emperor of Mexico is not at present in England; and, whether, after the statement recently made by the Prime Minister that the execution of the Emperor Maximilian was "a base, cruel, and unnecessary murder," it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to accredit, a Minister to the President of the Mexican Republic, or to withdraw her legation from Mexico?
LORD STANLEY: It is true that Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the late Emperor of Mexico is now in England on leave. His duty is discharged during his absence by the Secretary of Legation acting as Charge d'Affaires. But that Gentleman was only accredited to the late Emperor, and with the death of that unfortunate Prince his credentials lapse. No question, therefore, has arisen, or can arise, as to his withdrawal. The gentleman left in charge had received, before this lamentable event occurred, instructions not formally or officially to recognize any new Government which might be formed in the case of the downfall or overthrow of the Mexican Empire, but to confine himself, pending the absence of official instructions, to looking after any matter which might arise affecting British interests. The question whether anybody shall be accredited to the Government of President Juarez is not, I think, one on which we are called to decide in haste or under the influence of temporary feelings. We do not yet know what is the real state of Mexico, how far Juarez is

1395
really de facto master of the country, or what are the chances of his power being permanent. Upon that ground—setting aside altogether what has lately happened—I should object to any precipitate decision with regard to renewing diplomatic relations with Mexico. But as to the permanent suspension of those diplomatic relations, the objection to that course is, I think, a very obvious one. It would do no hurt, or only very little, to the Mexican Government—for I believe the principal business of a British Minister in Mexico is to urge upon that Government various British claims, to which it is not, perhaps, very agreeable to them to listen. It would do no harm to that Government to suspend diplomatic relations with them, but it would be a very serious thing for British interests and for those British subjects who have claims upon it. They are not responsible for the late deplorable proceedings, and I do not think it would be fair to make them suffer for them.

LAND REVENUES OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the statements in a letter from The Times' correspondent at Calcutta, dated 3rd June—namely, that the Secretary has given orders that no part of India is to receive a permanent settlement of the Land Tax which was likely to be affected by canal water within the next twenty years — such orders being a reversal of the policy of Lord Canning and of Lord Halifax, and likely to be injurious to many native landowners, and to the survey and settlement which are going on at a cost of £250,000 sterling, are founded on fact; and, whether he proposes to lay any Papers before the House?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was certainly founded on fact; but at the same time it was so phrased as to convey an erronous impression of what had been done. The hon. Gentleman put his Question as though the policy of Lord Canning and Lord Halifax was precisely identical in that matter, which was not the case. Lord Canning originally proposed that in cases in which no considerable increase was to be expected in the land revenue, a permanent settlement should be granted. That
  1396
  was the effect of Lord Halifax's despatch in 1862; and all that had been done since then had been to explain the somewhat indefinite terms of that despatch. The first and the principal explanation was given in a despatch from Lord Halifax in 1865, in which the principle was laid down that a permanent settlement was to be granted in the case of land, of which a certain percentage was brought under cultivation; and in that despatch it was stated that it was under consideration what was to be done with regard to the lands which were subsequently to have the advantage of canal irrigation. Last year the question what was to be done in the case of lands receiving canal irrigation after the permanent settlement was brought before Earl de Grey, who, in a despatch of March, 1866, laid down the principle that no permanent settlement should be granted in any case in which lands were likely to receive a canal irrigation according to the scheme at present in contemplation. The language of Earl de Grey's despatch was considered by some people in India not very clear, and the question arose as to the exact meaning of its terms. A despatch came from India in the beginning of this year asking for a clearer definition of a despatch of his own to which the hon. Member referred, and in which he had denned what was taken to be the meaning of Earl de Grey's despatch. He thought it would be inconvenient to raise a discussion in the House on that subject, which was rather intricate, but he would lay on the table all the Papers, including the three despatches to which he had alluded. He would only take the liberty of saying that he had not reversed the policy of his predecessors, but had only given a definition of what he believed to have been their meaning.

THE NAVAL REVIEW.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the forthcoming Review, at Spithead. I understand that accommodation is to be provided for only about 420 Members of this House, whereas we number altogether 658. It is true that we may not all want to go to Spit-head; but I recollect that Lord Halifax, when First Lord of the Admiralty, provided on a similar occasion accommodation not only for every Member of the House of Commons, but for two or three friends of

1397
each Member in addition. I was myself a Member of the Board of Admiralty at the time, and I had several tickets to dispose of. Now, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to inform us that ample provision will be made for every Member of the House who may wish to go to see the Review on Wednesday next, because I am told, Sir, that many of us, in consequence of not having put our names down on your list, may be precluded from the advantages of witnessing that great display?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Baronet gave me no notice that he was about to make an inquiry of this complicated and delicate character, I should be very sorry, indeed, to trench in any way upon the privileges of Members of this House, but my impression is that on the former occasion to which the right hon. Baronet has referred, the accommodation provided turned out to be in excess of the demand made upon it. Everything, no doubt, will be done on the present occasion which ought to be done to provide for Members of this House the necessary accommodation. I heard the other day that it was estimated about 450 Members would probably go to see the Review; but I have since heard from the highest authority in the House that only 330 Members applied to have their names put down.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYasked, whether it was true that the Members of the Government were to be conveyed to see the Review in a large ship, equal in size to that which was set apart for the conveyance of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament? He hoped not, because a better arrangement would, in his opinion, be that the Government should go in the same vessel as the Lords and Commons, and that the ship which was said to be intended for them should be set apart for the accommodation of ladies and friends of Members.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty happens to be just now at Portsmouth. We can, however, telegraph to him for information on this subject, and communicate the result to the House should it sit until we receive a reply. I think my hon. Friend will excuse me if I am unable to give him at this moment a more definite answer.

TRADES UNION COMMISSION AOT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 227.]
(Mr. Secretary G. Hardy, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
TRADES UNION COMMISSION AOT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 227.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, said, he proposed briefly to state its objects, he presumed that every one had seen the accounts which had appeared in the public press of the evidence given by the witnesses who had been examined before the Assistant-Commissioners appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the trades outrages at Sheffield; and all were, he had no doubt, animated by feelings of indignation and disgust at the state of things thus revealed. Subsequent to the completion of a considerable portion of their labours the Commissioners had informed him that they were in possession of information which led them to the conclusion that it would be desirable to extend to other places—at least to one other place—the same kind of investigation that had been made at Sheffield. Having heard their statement he confessed he had deemed it expedient that some such inquiry should be instituted, to ascertain whether the outrages brought to light at Sheffield were confined to that town, or, whether a similar system prevailed in other parts of England. Under those circumstances he undertook to bring in the Bill now before the House extending the provisions of the Act relating to Sheffield to such places as the Secretary of State, on the application of the Commissioners, might deem it proper to apply it. The Bill, it would be observed, did not confer an absolute power on the Commissioners to institute an inquiry wherever they might think fit. They must, in the first instance, make application to the Secretary of State, before whom such facts must be produced as to satisfy him that such an investigation was necessary, leaving it entirely to his discretion to determine whether it should be instituted or not. That was the simple object of the Bill. No names of places were specified, inasmuch as he deemed it more advisable to give general powers to the Commissioners to call the attention of the Secretary of State to any information which they might receive, without specifying any particular

  1399
  locality, as in the case of Sheffield, for the mention of which there was, no doubt, ample justification. He had no wish, he might add, to make any statement on the subject which might seem to be too strong; but the Commissioners stated that they had received information which would bring to light matters very discreditable to the districts concerned; and the best means of healing those wounds in our social system which led to the appointment of the Commission originally was, in his opinion, to lay them open, however disgraceful they might be.
  Moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of throwing any obstacles in the way of the Bill. In this sad, distressing, and most important matter the responsibility had been assumed by the Government, and it would not become a private Member to interfere. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to give the Commissioners the power in the first instance of extending the inquiry beyond Sheffield, or that inquiries should be instituted in any other places until he—the Secretary of State—was satisfied as to the grounds on which it was proposed that the inquiry should take place. Before, however, the unprecedented powers given in the case of Sheffield were sanctioned in the case of other places, he might be allowed to refer briefly to what had happened in that town. Nobody could allude to the terrible and distressing disclosures there brought to light, without feeling how deep a stigma they were calculated to cast on the honest and manly character of Englishmen. He, as an Englishman and a Yorkshireman, felt deeply the disgrace of having found Yorkshiremen capable of being hired for the purpose of dastardly assassination, and other Yorkshiremen capable of hiring them. He thought, however, that the truth should be arrived at, and that if the disgrace attached to other parts of the country, it should be exposed. If fresh legislation was required it must be to do everything in their power to prevent any oppression by one body of workmen over their fellows, while every facility was given for justifiable and lawful combination. He must, however, ask whether it was necessary to pay the price for the information
  1400
  which we were paying in the case of Sheffield. The case of Sheffield was unprecedented in the annals of England; but it certainly was as unprecedented that murderers of the worst description, who had been committing crimes for years, should be allowed perfect immunity. He never heard of such a case in the annals of this or any other country. All that was required to enable a murderer to be perfectly free was that he should come forward and confess. These men were relieved from the terrible anxiety which must have been upon them lest justice should overtake them, and were set free by the Legislature. He could not help doubting whether it was necessary to give the immunity to all. He cast no blame upon the Commissioners. Mr. Overend had conducted the inquiry with the greatest possible ability; but the result had been that all who were concerned in these murders had been pardoned. When the Bill was brought before the House at the beginning of the Session, he ventured, as a magistrate of Yorkshire, to express some doubt, not being informed that the police had given up all hope of discovering the murderers, whether Parliament ought to take the matter out of the hands of the police and magistrates, and offer free pardon to the offenders. He was met, however, with the convincing statement that the murders in Sheffield had probably been committed at the instigation of some one behind the scenes; that the actual perpetrator was not so bad as the instigator; and that, if the Government was empowered to tempt the actual perpetrator to confess his crime, they would be able to fasten upon the instigator. It was true that there was no precedent for the actual perpetrator of a crime being admitted as Queen's evidence; but he felt this case was so exceptional that he could make no objection to what was proposed. But what had actually been done? Hallam, who was the actual perpetrator of the murder, came forward and gave evidence with respect to it; and, if the police of Sheffield had been worth anything, it would surely have been possible for them, after having received the evidence of Hallam, to fasten the crime upon Crookes and Broadhead. That, he regretted, had not been done; but, on the contrary, the instigators, Broadhead and Crookes had been pardoned, and the Commissioner, in open court, announced that any one who had committed murder in connection with

  1401
  trades outrages had only to come forward and tell the Court all about it, in order to procure a free pardon. He hoped the House would understand that he had no feeling of vengeance against any of these men; but it was important that care should be taken lest by their legislation they sapped the principles of justice in the minds of those for whom they legislated, and their idea of the heinousness of the crime of murder. He could not help thinking that the extraordinary course that had been taken would, to some extent, have that effect. It was stated in the former debate that the object of the punishment of crime was the prevention of its recurrence. But prevention was not the sole object. They all felt the necessity, in order that the law should be asserted, of inculcating the notion that justice must be executed throughout the country, and it would be bad policy, even upon the question of expediency and prevention, that they should allow a different notion to enter into the minds of the masses. He might be told that in these cases public opinion did that which the law failed to do. But when they found what had happened at Sheffield, they had reason to doubt whether they had not gone too far in shaking the principle of justice in the minds of these men. The crime was extraordinary; the utter failure of the police was extraordinary and disgraceful; but as extraordinary as either of these was, the simple fact that the man who had been planning murder for years, and setting persons to destroy certain others, quite reckless as to who else might be killed in the attempt, actually asked for money to pay his expenses in going to make his confession. If public opinion had really been at work in Sheffield, it would have been impossible for Broadhead to have made that claim. That which was the only possible excuse for these crimes was the idea that the perpetrators were not murderers, but were carrying on a social war between classes; and the object of Parliament should have been, if possible, to prevent that idea; but he was afraid that they had done something towards encouraging it by showing their great anxiety to obtain information, while they were careless as to what its effect might be upon the principles of justice in the country. Broadhead, it appeared, was driving a good trade as a publican in consequence of his evidence before the Commissioners, his house being filled with
  1402
  persons who went to hear about the murders, and Crookes being the hero of the bar-room, He believed the working men throughout the country were generally as much shocked at these proceedings as that House was; and in The Beehive, a weekly paper belonging to the trades unionists of London, there was last Saturday a leader describing, in terms of fitting condemnation, a state of things in Sheffield which might well induce Parliament to pause in what they were now doing. The writer stated, upon the information of a person thoroughly acquainted with the leading characters in the abominable outrages which had taken place, and who had come from Sheffield within the last few days, that it was highly probable that, after the inquiry had closed, Broadhead would be re-elected as secretary of the Saw-Grinders' Union. He trusted the statement was not true; but it was evident that the working men of London had reason to suspect that it might happen; and therefore he trusted that the House would consider whether, in their anxiety to get at all the facts with regard to trades unions, they had not gone farther than they ought in making terms with murderers. He had not the slightest idea of taking upon himself the responsibility of interfering with the passing of the Bill; but he hoped the Government would be sensible of the truth of that which he had brought before them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not but express a hope that the powers given by the Bill would be used with great reserve. Undoubtedly, it was very shocking to the public mind and conscience that parties so deeply stained in guilt should go forth to the world and become objects of that depraved curiosity which was always the passion of a certain portion of society, and which made murderers invariably objects of interest to many who had not the slightest sympathy with the crime. He, like his hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was perfectly right in not questioning the decision of the Government, who were the proper judges in a matter of this kind, trusted that the most severe restraint would be exercised in the employment of the power which the Bill conferred, and that no indemnity would be granted except under the gravest and most peculiar circumstances. He did not hesitate to say that, if they were to see the case of Sheffield repeated in half-a-dozen or a dozen towns—that was to say,

  1403
  similar outrages brought to light to the same extent, together with the same number of indemnities or pardons, as the price of the information—they would lose, on the whole, a great deal more than they could gain by the powers proposed to be given by this Bill; for what was requisite for legislation they knew already. He would not presume to say that the House should refuse the Government the powers for which they asked; but he hoped they would be exercised with the utmost reservation and caution.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he cordially concurred with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with regard to the Sheffield outrages. He would remind the House that the appointment of the Commission was originally sought by the masters, but was subsequently supported by the workmen, who were much struck by the fact that, notwithstanding the £100 offered by the Government and the £1,000 by the inhabitants of Sheffield, no clue to the perpetrators of the outrages could be discovered. For his own part, he begged to express his thanks to the Government for sending that Commission to Sheffield, as it had led to the discovery of the perpetrators of these outrages. A public meeting, attended by 15,000 working men of Sheffield, had unanimously expressed its horror and shame at the facts which had been brought to light by the Commission. He deeply regretted that the perpetrators of these terrible outrages had escaped the punishment due to their crimes.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that while he regretted that punishment had not overtaken the perpetrators of these crimes, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in condemning the course that had been taken in reference to this subject. The first step to be taken, when they found that such a hideous disease, as that disclosed by these inquiries, infected any portion of the people, was to endeavour to ascertain its extent and depth, and, so far as he could see, no course could have been adopted for that purpose more efficacious than that which had been followed in the present instance. The hon. Member for Bradford talked about sapping the sense of justice among the population of Sheffield by the course which had been taken by the Commission; but he thought that their sense of justice must have been already sapped before such deeds could have taken place.
  1404
  The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had observed that the inhabitants of that town had shown their horror of these outrages by offering £1,000 for the discovery of their perpetrators, and had expressed their indignation and shame that the perpetrators could not be discovered. But it must not be forgotten that the very miscreant himself who had plotted and planned them all—Broadhead—had not only expressed his indignation at these acts of violence, but had actually offered a reward on behalf of the community to which he belonged for the discovery of the perpetrators. When it was proved that a reign of terror of this kind existed, it behoved Parliament to take steps to bring the whole system upon which it was founded to light, and the first step to be taken in the matter was to ascertain, by means of inquiry, the extent and depth of this horrible wound. If it was supposed that practices of a similar kind to those brought to light in Sheffield existed in other parts of the country, and the means hitherto adopted had failed to discover the perpetrators, it was the duty of the House to give the Government its support by passing this Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he admitted the importance of discovering the perpetrators of these crimes, and the system under which they had been committed, and, in the case of Sheffield, he thought there was good reason for the course which had been adopted for that purpose. No doubt in Sheffield outrages of the gravest description had been committed, the perpetrators of which the police had been unable to trace; but when the powers which were granted in that case were proposed to be extended to other places he agreed with the suggestion that great care and reserve should be exercised in the employment of those powers. He thought that the utmost care should be taken to hold out no offers of immunity except where there was no chance of the perpetrators being discovered and brought to justice. He was sure the Home Secretary would feel the importance of the suggestion, and he hoped that before the discussion closed the right hon. Gentleman, would be able to give the House some information as to the principle on which he proposed to proceed. He did not know what cases the Commissioners had in view; but supposing that some gross outrage had been recently committed, and the police were endeavouring to discover the offenders, he hoped that care

  1405
  would be taken that any prospect of discovering and punishing the perpetrators might not be baffled by persons being invited to come forward and obtain an indemnity for their crimes, instead of being made to answer for them in a Court of Justice. This was a very exceptional case, and nothing but an exceptional case would justify the course they were pursuing. Any person who had read the evidence given before the Commission would recollect that those who had been proved to be guilty of these outrages had added to their other crimes by denying upon oath in the first place any knowledge of the crimes to which they had afterwards confessed. It was in every sense most desirable that these indemnities should be limited as far as possible; for it was most humiliating to the sense of justice in this country that those who had confessed to having perpetrated these outrages should not only escape punishment but should quietly resume their daily avocations without being driven from the town by the indignation of their fellow-citizens. So far from such indignation being expressed, he was sorry to see, from what appeared in the newspapers, that Broadhead was driving a good trade as a publican in consequence of the notoriety he had attained. He trusted that he would not be permitted to continue that business one single hour after the magistrates could legally interfere, by refusing to renew his licence. He was also greatly surprised to find that a clergyman, doubtless actuated by a benevolent motive, had interceded with the employers of Crookes, the actual murderer, in order to induce them to receive him back into their service, from which they had properly dismissed him, on the ground that his wife and children would be reduced to distress, and that he would be thrown into temptation to commit fresh crimes, should they not do so. He was, indeed, surprised that any of his fellow-workmen would consent to associate with him for a single day. He hoped some better feeling would arise in Sheffield, and that it would free itself from the odium which attached to it in consequence of the perpetration of these crimes by showing in a marked manner that it did not sympathize with them. If the Government obtained the power which this Bill was intended to confer, he hoped it would not be exercised in cases where the guilty parties might be made amenable to punishment.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He thought that the information which had been obtained through the means of this Commission was of the utmost value. When he had brought this question forward last year, the House received his statements, as to the proceedings adopted by the trades unions, almost incredulously. Since that time he had had papers put into his possession which proved that these inquiries ought to be extended a great deal further. They frequently read in the papers accounts of accidents arising from men falling from scaffolds, or of scaffolds falling and injuring workmen. He was informed that in many cases these so-called accidents were really premeditated crimes, the scaffolds having been purposely rendered insecure by the orders of the trades unions. The House would admit that this was a terrible state of things, especially when it was recollected that out of the 800,000 working men in this county 530,000 belonged to these unions. This system of tyranny involved a much wider question than the mere discovery of the perpetrators of the outrages at Sheffield, as by it the means of supporting themselves was taken from the workmen, and their wives and families were forced to starve. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had suggested that these inquiries might be carried too far. Now, he (Mr. Cochrane) wished that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would carry the inquiry further, and could devise some means for getting at the secret papers and secret rules of these societies, which he was afraid would show a terrible state of moral degradation on the part of those by whom these societies were administered and governed.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had been engaged, as he had been during the last few months, in an inquiry into the operation of these unions, he would not have spoken so broadly and sweepingly of them. With regard to the special subject of this Bill, the matter rested entirely with the Government, and if they took the responsibility of extending the inquiry, he should be the last to say one word against it. He quite agreed, however, with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that there was no necessity for extending the indemnity clause. He was convinced from the

  1407
  experience he had had in Sheffield that, without that clause, there would have been very little difficulty in ascertaining the perpetrators of the outrages in that town; and that if three such competent lawyers as those who were sent there had gone down with a Commission, but without any power of indemnity, there were dozens and dozens of men in Sheffield who would have come for ward and given evidence sufficient in skilled hands to enable them to ascertain and pick out the miscreants who had committed these outrages and bring them to justice. ["No, no!"] The outrages, it must be remembered, affected one or two small trades, which could be ear-marked, not only at Sheffield, but at other places. He really thought that it the Government did give these extreme powers they should re-consider the indemnity clause, and take particular care that the perpetrators of these outrages were not indemnified in the wholesale way in which it had been done at Sheffield. This wholesale indemnity must have a very evil effect upon the population generally.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he trusted that the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that dozens and dozens of men at Sheffield could have given evidence, without the indemnity, sufficient to bring the outrages to light and lead to the conviction of the offenders, was not accurate. The Courts of Justice had been open all along, there had been magistrates and police anxious for information, and if there had been numbers of persons in a position to bring this revolting plot to light, and who had yet refrained from doing so till the indemnity was offered, the disgrace resting on Sheffield was deeper even than had been supposed. When the inquiry was first proposed it seemed to him that the outrages were so remarkable as to require exceptional powers of investigation; and the result had justified that opinion, and had revealed a condition of society probably unparalleled in any town in the civilized world. The secrets of this horrible tribunal had been revealed — for trades unions were in fact a tribunal like the Inquisition, conducting their deliberations in secret, and enforcing their edicts by penalties equalling in severity any criminal code. He hoped greater care would be shown by the Commissioners as to the examination of witnesses in future inquiries; for though, when the proceedings of these unions were completely unknown, it might
  1408
  have been proper to welcome evidence from any quarter, the Commissioners were now better aware of the state of the case, and he thought it might now be sufficient to call a few witnesses, in order to elicit sufficient evidence to lead to the conviction and punishment of those whom they might implicate. As to the perjury committed by witnesses at Sheffield, he believed that this offence was distinctly excepted from the indemnity, and men who had at first denied their complicity in these outrages, and had afterwards admitted it, were therefore amenable to prosecution. He hoped the power to give indemnities would be exorcised with great discretion.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought the Home Secretary ought to exercise great discretion in sanctioning inquiries to be held under the powers of this Bill. He (Mr. Neate) did not believe the working classes generally were implicated in these outrages. He was not aware that atrocities like those at Sheffield had been committed elsewhere, though no doubt in different parts of the country there had been many trades' outrages of a lesser kind, and men had been assaulted and beaten for not complying with the rules of the unions. These cases might be ascertained by making inquiries of the police, and he hoped the Home Secretary would show great caution in exercising the powers with which he was invested by this Bill. He observed that Mr. Overend, the Assistant - Commissioner, had said that these outrages showed the necessity of greater legal protection for the unions, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman concurred in that inference.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to extend Act to other Places).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he desired to offer a few remarks on what had passed in reference to this Bill. He quite agreed that this legislation was exceptional, and that exceptional legislation of this kind should not be resorted to unless the circumstances were themselves exceptional. He admitted, too, that such inquiries were to be set on foot for the purpose of bringing to light—not crimes which it was within the proper province of the police to ascertain, but crimes which had been concealed by a combination of persons who ought to have revealed them,

  1409
  but who had not done so. If the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes) was correct in stating that there were numbers of people in Sheffield who would have given the information without an indemnity, he could not but ask him how it was that these outrages had been so long undetected? He remembered that when he first went to the bar, Sheffield was pointed out by his friends on the Northern Circuit as a place where outrages were going on and where no evidence could be obtained. The fact was that society at Sheffield—speaking not of the towns-people generally, but of these particular combinations—had been rotten at the core. These crimes had been going on for so long a time that there had arisen an utter recklessness as to the acts which were resorted to, and the disclosures at which the public had been so much shocked had only brought to light what had been long going on. He could assure his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) that he was sensible of the responsibility which the Bill imposed upon him in reference to these inquiries; but he was glad to think that at the head of the Commission was one of the most eminent Judges who had ever sat on the English Bench (Sir William Erle); and he was sure that these exceptional powers would only be applied for in cases where the truth could not be arrived at without them. With regard to the indemnity, it was painful to reflect that the perpetrators of such crimes should go unpunished; but the fact was this—they got a certain amount of evidence from one witness, which perhaps implicated another person; the examination was pressed, and then the witness asked whether, if he stated such and such things of another man, that man would be allowed to come forward and obtain the indemnity; then when these persons were called forward they confessed not only to the crime in which they had been thus implicated, but to other crimes, as to which the Commissioners had no information, and which were thus brought to light. The result was that the inquiry had shown that these were not isolated transactions, but that there existed a system which could be only exposed by promising an indemnity. It appeared that although the police constantly suspected that these outrages sprang from certain members of trades unions, and that they were done by them for offences against their rules, yet so secretly were they carried on that in hardly any
  1410
  instance had they been able to sift these cases to the bottom or bring the perpetrators to justice. In one of the worst cases many years ago the parties were brought to justice because they threw on the fire a barrel of gunpowder which exploded before they could get away, and they were so injured that they were taken on the spot. But in similar cases it happened over and over again that the police could obtain no information, and the parties were never brought to justice. If it were true, as the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes) believed, that there were people ready to reveal those transactions fully without these extraordinary powers being granted, he was sure that Sir William Erle would never have called upon the Home Office to assist him with exceptional legislation, because he had the power of calling these witnesses before the Commission without such exceptional legislation and getting these facts proved. It was because the Commissioners stated that it was impossible to do so without exceptional powers that he had brought this Bill before the House, and asked them to agree to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERconsidered it was most desirable that those scandals should be exposed, and no persons were more desirous that they should be exposed than the great majority of the working men and of the members of the trades unions. On looking to the evidence it would be found that the evidence of Hallam was not given on the condition that an indemnity should be given to Crookes and Broadhead. The power should not be so used as to make if impossible to punish any of the criminals. With the knowledge of what had passed he could not help thinking, if they had to do the thing over again, Hallam'a evidence would certainly be made use of as Queen's evidence for the conviction of Crookes and Broadhead. The effect produced would have been far better if there had been a trial before the Judges. The heinousness of the crime of murder might be diminished in the minds not only of the Sheffield people, but of all men in the same condition of life, when they read the account of what was done, owing to the fact that the Legislature had made terms with murderers. He could not help thinking that the law must run the risk of being less powerful from the acknowledgment thus made of its utter uselessness to have justice done.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESbegged to observe in reply to a remark of the Home Secretary, that when that right hon. Gentleman went the circuit in Yorkshire the feeling in respect to these matters was very different from what it has become within the last three or four years. When he (Mr. Thomas Hughes) was there three years ago the feeling of the great majority of persons belonging to the trades unions had been softened by remonstrances from London and other parts of the kingdom in respect to those outrages, and there were persons amongst them who would only have been too glad to make a clean breast of it. He (Mr. Thomas Hughes) adhered to what he had said. Public opinion on this subject had undergone an immense alteration, and now the working classes in question were entirely in favour of this inquiry, and were ready to give all the information in their power. Under these circumstances, he could not help thinking that the indemnity was needless, or, if not, that it should be exercised most scrupulously and carefully. The working men at a great public meeting had resolved that, notwithstanding the disgrace that had fallen on the town, they were heartily glad that the Commission had been sent down.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that no place in Yorkshire in proportion to its population sent so few cases of crime to the assizes as Sheffield. He begged to know whether means would be taken to indemnify the persons who had given evidence in a Court of Law, in consequence of the statements made by them? The question was, were the Commissioners themselves free from all responsibility?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would not answer the question off-hand. He would, however, ask the Commissioners whether such a clause was necessary for their own security, and for that of the persons who had given evidence before them; and, if so, to send him a clause to that effect? If it were necessary to insert such a clause he would take care that it should be printed before the Report was brought up.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he felt very strongly that there was only one compensation for the extensive disclosure of crimes of this description, accompanied by a promise of impunity, and that was the discovery of the means of prevention for the future. He had acted under this persuasion, when he gave his assent to the
  1412
  original Bill. It was impossible to shut their eyes to the extreme gravity of a proposal, not only to give, in one particular place, under particular local circumstances, indemnity for crimes of this description, but to extend the indemnity to all the towns of the kingdom. It had never before happened, to his knowledge, that Parliament had been called upon to take such a course, and it should only be taken for reasons of great public advantage. The mere disclosure was not of public advantage if the crimes disclosed were to pass with impunity. The disclosure could not be considered of public advantage unless it was anticipated that means would thus be discovered for the prevention of such crimes in future. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had spoken of something like a promise or undertaking given in the course of the examination that some of the witnesses should not only be indemnified themselves, but that any other person who might be implicated by them should not be proceeded against. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) doubted whether his right hon. Friend could have been correctly informed in this matter. He was aware that some such statements had been made, but he did not see how, under the Act, the Commissioners could give such, an undertaking. The only indemnity they were authorized to give was upon a certificate that the witness had made a full and true disclosure touching all the matters upon which he had been examined. They could not give an undertaking to indemnify directly or indirectly any other person who might not satisfy this condition. If it should turn out that such a thing had been done, he must enter his humble protest against it.
  MR. AYRTONasked whether inquiry had been made into the conduct of the magistrates and the police of Sheffield in regard to these outrages. The magistrates all along had the legal power of summoning before them the members of the trades unions, and compelling them to give the information to a large extent which had been given to the Commission—that was to say, to produce all their proceedings, and examine them on oath touching them. No step, however, had been taken to vindicate the law during all that period, although the magistrates must have known pretty well what was going on around them. If the law had been firmly administered by the justices, a good deal of the facts would have come on which

  1413
  were now disclosed to the Commission; and if the present investigation was carried further, it ought to be part of the duty of the Commissioners to inquire into the conduct of the justices of the pence or the stipendiary magistrates, as the case might be, with reference to the illegal practices of the trades unions. It was clear there had been a dereliction of duty on the part of the magistrates of Sheffield, as well as on the part of the people.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he thought the question a very proper one. An hon. Gentleman who was a sort of confessor in ordinary to the trades unions of the country in general, and to those of Sheffield in particular, had told them that there were people who, a long time ago, were ready to give evidence without any indemnity being granted them. He should like to know why on earth the magistrates or the police were not at hand to take the evidence which those people were, ready to give, and why the perpetrators of these crimes were not at once fixed upon and punished as they richly deserved to be?
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was not aware that any charge of dereliction of duty could be brought against the Sheffield magistrates. One of the chief grounds for appointing that Commission was that all the efforts of the magistrates and the police had been set at naught by these parties, and nothing could be clearer than that all those efforts had been so set at naught. If the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets impugned the conduct of the magistrates, his best course would be to make a Motion in that House for an inquiry into that conduct. But as far as the evidence had gone, the fact appeared to be that the designs of these parties had been so covert, and had been carried out with so much secrecy that the ordinary course of justice was defeated.
  MR. POWELLthought another reason for the inaction of the magistrates, and other authorities, might be the reign of terror which had existed in Sheffield with such intensity that even persons who suffered dared to take no action in the way of prosecution, for fear of dangerous results to themselves, from the combinations that existed in the town. Some few years ago, there was a meeting of the Social Science Congress at Sheffield, and it appeared that a murder had been determined upon in that town before that meeting took place. During the presence of the philosophers, in order to throw
  1414
  dust in their eyes, that murder was postponed till the visit of the philosophers and philanthropists was over. As soon, however, as they were gone, the victim was followed day after day, week after week, and ultimately that fearful crime was committed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY (OFFICERS) BILL (Lords.)— [BILL 235.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the necessity for the Bill arose mainly from the enormous increase of business, in consequence of the winding-up of joint stock companies having been placed under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The business thus thrown upon the Court was of a very important character. These companies often consisted of many hundreds of partners, with conflicting interests, and many points of difficulty arose in connection with them. To show how great and how regular had been the increase of administrative business in the Court, he might mention that the number of orders made in chambers in 1862, was 4,900; in 1863, 5,400; in 1864, 6,200; in 1865, 6,800; and in 1866, 7,800. It was quite impossible to keep pace with the increasing business with the existing establishment; and the main object of the Bill was to confirm certain temporary appointments which it had been found absolutely necessary to make, and to give powers for appointing additional officers.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERexpressed his entire concurrence in the statement of his hon. and learned Friend. The state of things in the Court of Chancery was such as imperatively to require the additional assistance which the Bill provided. He also hoped that some means would be found for relieving the extreme pressure of business recently experienced in the Court of Appeal in Chancery. He need not state to the House the sense which all who were connected with that Court entertained of the very great and serious loss which the public had sustained by the unexpected and premature death of one whom no one acquainted with the administration of justice

  1415
  in that Court for some years past could ever remember without the highest admiration and respect for his public services, his eminent judicial ability, and his great integrity of mind. No one who knew Lord Justice Turner personally could think or speak of him without the strongest feelings of personal affection. If any judicial abilities could have met the great demand occasioned for some time past by the business of that Court, it would have been those of that learned and lamented person, and the able Colleague with whom he had been associated. It was of the utmost importance that steps should be taken to facilitate the despatch of business in that branch of the Court of Chancery, and he hoped that the present Bill, with such Amendments as might be deemed expedient, would be put into a law before the close of the Session, and might have some effect, even before the vacation, in lessening the arrears of business before the Court.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLScomplained that while the business in the Accountant General's office had largely increased, the Bill made no additional provision for its satisfactory despatch. The office, he added, did not open for the receipt and payment of money till eleven o'clock, and he could see no good reason why that should be the case, since the banks opened at nine.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)replied that there were, he understood, certain circumstances connected with the Accountant General's office which placed it in a different position from ordinary banks with respect to the transaction of its business. His hon. and learned Friend had, however, authorized him to state that he would give the necessary explanations on the point when the Bill was committed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read the second time, and committed for To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY (on re-committal) BILL.

  [BILL 74.] COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Order for going into Committee read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when a Question was put to him a week ago as to whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bill in the present Session, he had some hope, though not a very sanguine one, that something
  1416
  might be done in the direction proposed even before the Recess, Looking, however, at the position in which the public business now stood, and the advanced period of the Session, he frankly admitted that it would be, in his opinion, impossible to go on with a Bill which contained 479 clauses, and to pass it, even if he were to ask the House to sit de die in diem. He therefore thought it his duty to move that the Order of the Day be discharged. He, however, believed that the care and labour bestowed on the measure had not been thrown away. The leading provisions of the Bill had been received with very general assent throughout the country, and he believed it would not be found expedient to introduce into it any very great alterations. The measure, at the same time ought, no doubt, to receive full and fair discussion, and he did not think that he should be justified in pressing it forward under present circumstances. The criticisms upon, it which had reached him from all quarters, especially from the Chambers of Commerce, were, upon the whole, extremely favourable; the only adverse criticism, upon it as a whole, being contained in the statement that it was impossible to tell whether it was a debtor's or a creditor's Bill. That was, however, he thought, the highest compliment which could be paid it; for it was a Bill which had been framed in the interest of the whole community, and not of any particular class. In conclusion, he had only to say that he hoped to be able at the earliest possible moment next Session to introduce another Bill of substantially the same character, which would lead to the satisfactory settlement of a long vexed question. He begged to move that the Order for going into Committee on the Bill be discharged.
  MR. LEEMANthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for taking the course which he had adopted, inasmuch as the House was thereby secured from much inconvenience. He would suggest that before the measure was re-introduced, it should, as far as possible, be divested of the cumbrous machinery with which, as it now stood, the arrangements with creditors were surrounded.
  MR. NORWOODalso thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for the great attention which he had paid to the subject, and the courtesy which he had manifested in dealing with it. The withdrawal of so important a Bill might occasion some disappointment in the country; but at the

  1417
  present advanced period of the Session, it could not, he thought, with advantage be proceeded with.
  Order for Committee discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY ACTS REPEAL BILL.
Orders for Committee read and discharged; Bills withdrawn.
POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL— [BILL 193.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL— [BILL 193.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, said, he hoped the House would consent to go into Committee, and pass the unopposed clauses. He had no desire to proceed with those clauses on which Amendments were to be moved, and which might therefore give rise to discussion.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped the Poor Law Board had considered whether it was desirable to proceed with those clauses which were so strongly objected to. The object of those clauses was to vest more power in the central authority, and to diminish that of the local authorities. The effect would be, if carried, to cause gentlemen in the country to retire from the discharge of what had hitherto been considered important local duties. He deprecated the idea of the Central Board interfering in the election of nurses, cooks, and other menial officers of county unions. The Board also wished to claim the right of appointment of auditors. That was also objected to by boards of guardians, because they believed auditors should be gentlemen residing in the locality. By the Bill before the House it was proposed to vest the appointment of chaplain and all the officers of the union workhouse in the central Board instead of in the guardians. He thought that part of the Bill most objectionable. He had no objection to the Board in London being made permanent, provided they were compelled to place on the table of the House all the general orders they issued, so that hon. Members might call attention to them, if necessary.
  MR. NEATEhoped the Government would not ask the House to go into Committee
  1418
  until they had had an opportunity of fully discussing the principle of the Bill, as was promised when the second reading was taken at a very late hour on a former occasion.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHobjected to the appoinment of the auditors being vested in the Central Board. One of the auditors for Derbyshire resided in Wales, and recently he audited the accounts of three of the Derbyshire unions. They took him but a few hours altogether, but he charged each of the unions his travelling expenses from Wales. He thought that the sooner the auditor's accounts were audited by others the better. The auditors ought to be selected from persons residing in the district.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if this Bill were passed every executive function would be centred in the Poor Law Board, and would most effectually destroy some of the most important duties of the local administration. Such a system would tend to deteriorate the character of boards of guardians, seeing that persons of respectable and independent character would decline to submit to be controlled at every turn they took in the administration of local affairs.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEhoped the Bill would be postponed, in order that it might be more fully discussed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think much good was to be done by a general discussion, since the clauses required much separate consideration, and he suggested that the House should go into Committee and pass the unopposed clauses, on the understanding that Progress should immediately be reported. He did not look upon this as an opportune time for making the Poor Law Board perpetual. The Union Assessment Act had only been in operation two years, so that we had as yet had but a very short experience of union, administration — for until there was an equality of charge over the whole area there was no common interest, and each guardian perpetrated his own petty job. The Central Board had taken advantage of the weakness of that system to engross a great deal of power, and this had tended not to improve the administration of the Poor Law, but to deteriorate it and make it permanently inefficient. The rates were still made and collected by the parochial authorities, although they were now administered by the union; and while any portion of the old parochial system remained

  1419
  the administration must necessarily he defective. When we reaped the full benefit of union administration he believed the powers of the local Boards would have to be enlarged rather than diminished, and the object of Parliament should be so to improve the law as to render unnecessary the interference of the Central Board, with its largely-increasing staff and emoluments. He should wish to take the sense of the House on renewing it for five years only, during which time local administration might be made so efficient as to enable the country to dispense with it, or at least to contract its powers.
  MR. COWENalso protested against the tendency which the Poor Law Board had all along shown to deprive the local guardians of all proper power. The Board ought to relax its powers, instead of attempting to increase them at the expense of thy guardians, which rendered it almost impossible to get men of respectability to undertake the office. He remembered when he was Chairman of a board of guardians that difficulty was felt, and the interference of the Board had rather increased than diminished since then.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was not able again to address the House, was anxious at this period of the Session to get the Bill into Committee, but would not proceed with the clauses if it was the general wish that he should not do so.
  MR. WHALLEYconcurred in the objections which had been made by hon. Members to the permanency of the Poor Law Board; but there was another evil to be guarded against. There was a danger that the Poor Law Board would use its powers in conformity with the new power that was rising in the country—that of the Romish priesthood. Let hon. Members look at the extraordinary clauses in this Bill, which related to the keeping of a creed register. Clauses 33 to 39 were very objectionable. The 34th provided that if a child had been baptized in a religion other than that of the father or mother the entry on the register should be made according to the baptism unless the father or mother otherwise required. It was constantly the practice for the Roman Catholic priests to get hold of children during the absence of the fathers at work, and without the knowledge of the mothers, and to baptize them by the dozen. These children were afterwards followed into the
  1420
  workhouses and the industrial schools, and they were brought up in the religion into which they had been thus surreptitiously baptized, and not in the religion of their parents. He was sorry that the Government had acted in collusion with the Roman Catholic priests in adopting these clauses.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYtrusted that the Gilbert Unions would not be included in the Bill. They were carried on to the satisfaction of the ratepayers, and, as there were only a few of them, he hoped they would not be abolished.
  MR. J. B. SMITHregarded the Bill as an infringement of the great principle of self-government. He could not assent to the Motion to make the Poor Law Board perpetual, instead of renewing its powers from time to time. Who were the Poor Law Board? Every two or three years the President was removed by a change of parties, and Mr. Lumley and two or three other gentlemen ruled the whole of the kingdom.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no wish, under the circumstances, to proceed with the first clause of the Bill, to which, however, he had no reason to suppose any opposition would be made. Some centralization was inherent in the very idea of a Poor Law Board, and, considering the powers given to the Board under recent Acts of Parliament, it was hardly consistent to limit the duration of the Board to five years. During the last few days deputations had been received from the guardians at Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and other large towns, and none of them were otherwise than satisfied that the central authority should be placed upon a permanent basis. The apprehensions expressed in regard to the increase of the powers of the Board were much exaggerated; for, if in one part of the Bill they assumed a power which they did not now possess, in another they gave up powers which they now enjoyed. The clauses objected to both by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) obtained the deliberate recommendation of the Committee upstairs.
  MR. J. B. SMITHdoubted whether the deputations to the Poor Law Board were empowered to discuss the principle of the permanency of the Board.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was glad to know that the Government undertook the responsibility of adopting the clauses to which he had referred.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2.) BILL— [BILL 167.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
Lords' Amendments considered.
On Question, "That this House do agree with the Lords to these Amendments,"
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEbegged leave to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the Amendments bore no reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to the subject-matter of the Bill, or to any of the places named in the Bill as it left this House; and that the said Amendments attempt to set aside the provisions of a previous Act of Parliament which is not even referred to in the Bill. He must say that, in all his Parliamentary experience, these Amendments were some of the most extraordinary kind that he had ever known or heard of. The Local Government (No. 2.) Bill was drawn up in the Home Office, for the purpose of confirming by Act of Parliament the provisional orders relating to Sheffield, Derby, and five other towns named in the Bill. The town of Hastings, which he had the honour to represent, was not one of the towns, and was not in any way named or referred to in the Bill. Well, the Bill, as introduced by the Home Secretary, passed through each stage in the Commons without amendment. It then went in usual course to the Upper House, there it was read a first and a second time. It was not referred to a Select Committee; but in Committee of the Whole House, certain Amendments, totally irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, were introduced. Those Amendments referred only to the town of Hastings. But the town of Hastings was not named in them—neither was any notice given to the Mayor of Hastings, nor to the Local Board of Health of that town, nor to himself as Member for that borough. When the Amendments had come back to this House for approval, the Home Secretary personally knew nothing about them, nor their nature; and it was due only to the accidental discovery that he (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) had made in looking
1422
at them that any attention was called to them. If this species of legislation was to be carried on, and this case be formed into a precedent, there would be an end of all trust and all faith in Parliamentary practice. He called on the House to enter its protest against such legislation. He was sure that the Upper House could scarcely have been aware of the nature of the Amendments. He begged, therefore, to move that this House do disagree to the said Amendments; and that a Select Committee be appointed "to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed."
MR. HUNT, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said, the Bill sought to deal with a place which was not named in it at all; and as all the parties interested had not been served with proper notice, it would be most irregular to accede to these Amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, "to draw up reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Mr. DODSON, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH, Lord HOTHAM, and Mr. BONHAM CARTER.
House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.