Commons Sitting of 25 November 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Thetford, v. The Hon. Alexander Hugh Baring, Chiltern Hundreds.
GENERAL COMMITTEE—On Controverted Elections appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Burials (Ireland).
Ordered—Burials (Ireland)*; Industrial Schools (Ireland)*; East London Museum Site.*
First Reading—Burials (Ireland)* [5]; Industrial Schools (Ireland)* [6]; East London Museum Site * [7].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Amendment [2]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* [4].

THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT AND MR. ODO RUSSELL.—QUESTION.
SIR THOMAS LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the newspapers of a domiciliary visit having been made, by order of the Papal Government, at the house of Mr. Odo Russell, our acknowledged Agent at Rome; and what steps the noble Lord intends to take if such a report be substantiated?
LORD STANLEY: What has occurred in regard to the transaction referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet is briefly as follows:—On Saturday, the 9th instant, Mr. Odo Russell being then at Florence, the Pontifical police entered and searched the Palazzo Chigi, in which he resides when at Rome. They declared that they were in search of concealed arms, and they searched the rooms minutely, but they did not touch Mr. Russell's papers or books. Mr. Russell, on arriving at Rome three or four days afterwards, learnt what had taken place, and he very properly lost no time in applying to Cardinal Antonelli for an explanation. Cardinal Antonelli replied that no perquisition, in the ordinary sense in which that word is understood, had been intended or had taken place; but that the police had received information that several Roman palaces, and among them the palace in question, had been marked out by the revolutionary party to be blown up with gunpowder in the same way as the Pontifical barracks had been blown up. Cardinal Antonelli added that the search he had ordered was therefore made not in consequence of any suspicions concerning the inmates, but to secure the safety of

163
their property and lives. Mr. Russell stated that he considered that explanation satisfactory, and I concur in that view.

ARMY—THE CURRAGH CAMP.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the attention of the War Department has been drawn to the wretched state of the vagrant population in the immediate neighbourhood of the Curragh Camp; and, whether it is the intention of the Government this Session to extend the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Act to all camps and garrisons and sea-port towns in the United Kingdom?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that his attention had been drawn for some time past to the state of the neighbourhood of the Curragh Camp, and he was sorry to say that his noble Friend had not used too strong an expression in designating it as wretched. He must, however, remind the noble Lord that the powers of the War Office at the Curragh were confined to the limits of the camp, and that it was for the local authorities to consider the condition of the population beyond those limits. The powers conferred by the Act referred to in the Question were not very well adapted to the condition of the Irish police, and it was therefore his intention in the course of the Session to ask the House to agree to an alteration of the Act, so as to enable the Irish Commissioners of police to exercise the same powers as were now exercised by the English Commissioners. The Contagious Diseases Act had not been applied to the Curragh because there was no hospital there. Great difficulty had been experienced in procuring a site for the necessary buildings; but through the liberality of the Duke of Leinster that difficulty had been now overcome, and it was hoped that an infirmary or hospital would be erected as soon as possible. With regard to the second part of the Question, he would remark that the Act was already in operation at Aldershot, where there was a hospital, and that hospitals were also in course of erection at Shorncliffe and Colchester. Until the result of this trial of the Act had been ascertained, he was not prepared to ask Parliament to go to the expense of extending its provisions to all camps and garrisons and sea-port towns in the United Kingdom.

  THE POOR LAWS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHasked the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill this Session to consolidate and amend the laws for the Relief of the Poor?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was his intention, as soon as possible after the Recess, to introduce a Bill for the amendment, but not for the consolidation, of the laws relating to the Relief of the Poor. Many high authorities were of opinion that at present it would be premature to attempt to consolidate the statutes relating to this subject. He might mention, however, that all those statutes up to the end of the year 1866 had been collected and edited in a form very compendious and easy of access by a gentleman highly qualified for the task.

  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RITUAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to state what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take with a view to carry out the Recommendations contained in the First Report of the Ritual Commissioners? At the same time, he wished to state that he was sure the public would hear with satisfaction that the Commissioners had re-commenced their sittings, and that they intended to sit twice a week. ["Order!"]
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was not prepared to state that Her Majesty's Government had decided upon the course it would take. Neither it, nor anybody else was in a position to do so, for he did not think that the Commissioners had yet sufficiently reported on the subject.

  THE GIBRALTAR SHIELD.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Committee which have lately tested the Target known as the Gibraltar Shield; and whether thirty-four of these Shields had, previous to the trial, been sent to Gibraltar and other Fortresses in our Colonies?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhad no objection to lay the Report on the table. The latter part of the Question of his lion, and gallant Friend was substantially true. Thirty of these shields had been sent to

  165
  Malta and Gibraltar at the commencement of the present year, and four or five more were made with the intention of their being sent to Bermuda; and it was these latter which had been tried and had formed the subject of several notices in the newspapers. It was quite true that the shields were sent out before being perfectly tried, but the cause of so unusual a proceeding was as follows:—When the present Government assumed office in the summer of 1866 the attention of his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) was drawn to the very unsatisfactory state of our defences at Malta and Gibraltar, and he at once gave instructions to send out heavy guns to these fortresses. The shields that were intended for the protection of these guns had to be constructed with the greatest possible expedition, on a plan which had to a certain extent received the sanction of the Iron-plate Committee. The experiments which had since been made had been reported not to be generally successful, and so much attention had been directed to the matter that he had thought it his duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into all the circumstances. Of that Committee his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had consented to act as Chairman.

  CRETE.—QUESTION.
  MR. POWELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Correspondence respecting the disturbances in Crete has taken place since the dates of Papers already presented to Parliament; whether it is intended to lay upon the table any further Papers on this subject previous to the Christmas Recess; and, whether, should there have been such Correspondence, Communications have passed between the Porte and the British Government respecting these events or the future settlement of the Island?
  LORD STANLEY: There is some further Correspondence on the subject of Crete, which I shall be prepared to lay on the table of the House in a few days. With regard to the last part of the Question, the best thing I can do is to refer the hon. Member to the Papers, which will be in his hands shortly.

  CLIFTON AND BEDMINSTER WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, Whether the attention of the Board has been directed to the de-
  166
  fects alleged by the Commissioners of the "British Medical Journal" to exist in the Clifton and Bedminster Workhouse Infirmaries, and to the expressed desire of the guardians of Bedminster and Clifton that the state of those houses should form the subject of a formal Poor Law inquiry; and whether the Board propose to order such an inquiry?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the attention of the Poor Law Board had been directed to the statements made in the British Medical Journal respecting the two workhouse infirmaries in question. He thought the House would be of opinion that so expensive and protracted an inquiry as a formal investigation must needs be ought not to be ordered by the Poor Law Board without due consideration and without overwhelming necessity. He could only say that, as at present advised, the Poor Law Board did not intend to order any formal inquiry to be made in either case. With regard to Clifton, the correspondence was not quite closed, the demand for the inquiry came from the guardians, and the Board had every reason to believe that the condition of the infirmary was satisfactory. A correspondence was also still going on with regard to Bedminster. He might inform the right hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the ordinary Reports of the Inspectors which had been presented to the House, a Report upon the Bedminster Workhouse had recently been made to the Poor Law Board by their medical adviser, Dr. Smith, who in the autumn of last year was instructed to visit a number of workhouses, with a view of testing the Reports of the regular Inspectors. The Report of Dr. Smith would soon be laid on the tables of both Houses. Although the question was not absolutely decided, his impression was that a formal inquiry was not necessary in either case.

  THE BRITISH MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to propose, during the present Session of Parliament, any measure for the better administration of the British Museum and other Institutions in the United Kingdom connected with Science and Art?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no intention of bringing forward a measure of that kind; but he should be happy indeed to see the measure of the hon. Gentleman, for he was sure

  167
  there was no one who could offer suggestions more valuable on any question of science and art. He was occupied at present upon a measure of a more limited kind, which would effect some separation of the collections in the British Museum, having promised last Session to give the subject his attention.

PARIS EXHIBITION PURCHASES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum of £15,000 voted by Parliament for purchases of objects in the Paris Exhibition, in consequence of a Report of the Select Committee appointed last Session, has been expended; and, if not, why not?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, it was the opinion of the House last Session that we should expend on purchases no more than we could save out of the Vote for the Exhibition; and, as we could not feel sure of a greater surplus than £4,775, that was all that we have as yet expended with that object.

  POSTAGE RATES TO INDIA.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the new proposed Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the Mail Service to the East being approved by the Legislature, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase the rates of postage on overland letters between England and India?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the same Question was put to him last Session, and he then intimated that it was the intention of the Government, when the new service commenced, to increase the rate of postage to 3d. per half-ounce, and that intention still continued.

  RATING UNDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HUTTasked the Attorney General, Whether, under the provisions of "The Representation of the People Act," the Overseers of the Poor are required to place on the rate book the names of all the Occupiers of Tenements whose Rates before the passing of that Act were paid by the Owner according to the provisions of the Small Tenement Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think the solution of the Question will be found in the 7th section of the Act of last
  168
  Session, and in the Interpretation Clause. The former says—
  "The full rateable Value of every Dwelling House or other separate Tenement, and the full Rate in the Pound payable by the Occupier, and the Name of the Occupier, shall be entered in the Rate Book. Where the Dwelling House or Tenement shall he wholly let out in Apartments or Lodgings not separately rated, the Owner of such Dwelling House or Tenement shall be rated in respect thereof to the Poor Rate."
  Therefore, in cases to which the exception does not apply, it will be the duty of the overseers to put the occupiers on the rate book.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolution, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty," reported, and agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.
  SUPPLY—Committee appointed for Tomorrow.

METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 2.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir J. Fergusson)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to suggest some Amendments which it was desirable to discuss at once rather than in Committee. Many years ago the streets of the metropolis were regulated by the General Police Act, which prohibited the obstruction of the streets by goods, barrows, &c. It put all persons on a perfect equality, and anyone violating the law might, on refusing to comply with it, be apprehended by the police or summoned by private persons. Under this Act, some four or five years ago, a contention arose in consequence of the very summary measures adopted by the police. They began driving away itinerant dealers and stall-keepers and summoning them. Agitation and deputations to the authorities followed, and he was asked to help in obtaining redress for what was considered a grievance, that grievance being that the supposed offenders should be disturbed by the police when nobody else complained. In consequence of his representations to Sir Richard Mayne, an arrangement was come to, that persons with barrows and trucks should not be disturbed by the police except on the complaint of the occupier of a house, or of persons who alleged that a thoroughfare was impeded. That arrange-

169
ment answered perfectly well. After this an Act was passed placing all open spaces, if neglected by their owners, under the local authorities. It was certainly difficult to apply the Act, because the phrase—rather a vague one—was that the space must be "ornamental." That law had left a large number of open spaces in towns untouched, except by the Police Act. Now, the Act of last Session summarily deprived the occupiers and owners of tenements of any rights of property over the open spaces between the pavements in front of their houses and the high road. He had called the attention of the Secretary of State to this provision whilst the Bill was in Committee, and the Secretary of State had admitted that the Bill as it came down from the Lords went too far; but the Act as it was passed absolutely abolished all claim of any person by prescription or otherwise to use this land unless it was enclosed by a railing and no one had been in the habit of passing over it. Some persons complained of the inconvenience to which this Act subjected them; and now a Bill was introduced to exempt those persons, and those alone, from the operation of the Act last year. Costermongers, street hawkers, and itinerant dealers were to have the sole privilege of obstructing the thoroughfare as much as they pleased, subject only to the control of the police. Now, the Bill would raise many difficulties. In the first place, what was a costermonger? It was a very loose word properly used to describe a fruiterer, so that any man who dealt in fruit might hereafter incumber the footway, but not if he dealt in any other article. "Hawker" had a recognised meaning, and referred to persons who were licensed. But licensed hawkers did not deal in these things at all; and "itinerant dealers" did not remain stationary. Whatever might be the meaning of the clause, its results would be most extravagant. The proper mode of dealing with the question was that a person selling goods in the streets should not be interfered with unless the occupier of the house before which he stationed himself, or the persons using the streets, or the local authorities, made some objection. If objection were raised in that way, the case should be considered by a judicial authority; but to give entire authority to the police was most improper. Nothing could be worse than to confer upon a police-officer a kind of patronage over a comparatively low class of society.
170
In what did it end? The police-officer would practically let out these stands and levy blackmail on the costermongers. The proper remedy was to repeal the 6th clause in the Act of last year, which was wholly unnecessary.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the hasty legislation of last Session could not be cured by legislation of a character equally hasty. There was no reason why special rights should be given to costermongers, at the expense of many other persons; and the fact was that many plots of ground in London were now being enclosed for fear the costermongers should squat there. These men did not pay rates or taxes, and medical men said they did more harm than good, for, though their goods were cheaper, they often sold vegetables and fish which were unfit for consumption. Last Session he gave notice to move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought the present Bill should be directed simply to repealing the 6th section of that of last year, and that in February the Home Secretary should introduce a measure dealing with the whole question, and refer it to a Select Committee in the first instance.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not see that there was any interference with the rights of property under the section contained in this Bill, for the open spaces referred to had been so long neglected by the owners and occupiers, as to give the public the right to walk over them. Neither was there any hardship in the Commissioners of Police appropriating certain open spaces to costermongers in the same way as commissionaires and shoeblacks were allowed to be stationed in different places. Under the Metropolitan Streets Act the regulation of the traffic of the metropolis was practically handed over to the police, and for that reason the 6th clause seemed as much in accordance with the spirit of the Act as the other clauses. It was not, however, for one policeman to make regulations; it was for the Commissioners of Police to lay down general rules for the purposes of traffic. He presumed that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the Act of last year that the police should have a considerable discretion with a view to regulate the traffic in such a way as to prevent obstructions or hindrances to free circulation, and therefore it was that certain powers were proposed to be given to the police under the Bill now before the House. With

171
respect to the spaces between the footpaths and the roads, to which the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) had referred, they were placed under very peculiar circumstances. In many places the apace between the footway and the road remained open for public traffic; in some cases, and under present circumstances, occupiers had begun to enclose them, acting on a dictum of one of the magistrates of the police courts. But they could not take away the right acquired by the public of going over that part of the street when they had agreed to that condition with the Metropolitan Board of Works, even though it had not before become part of the footway by being left open to passengers. Of course, the Bill before the House was open to improvement; but he confessed the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to him to apply. The section of the Act of last year was a good section, but the evil of it was its extreme stringency. Any person passing along the street would be able to lay information against the persons who exposed their goods for sale and it was with a view to get rid of that and to give a discretionary power to the police that the present Bill was introduced. He was ready to discuss with the hon. Gentleman any mode in which it might be possible to render the Bill more efficient; but as it stood it would affect itinerant tradesmen in a very different way from that in which it would affect the fixed traders of the metropolis.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that with respect to the spaces between the footpaths and the roads many of them were freeholds, and whether those freeholds had been dedicated to the public was a question for a Court of Law to decide, and ought not to be meddled with by the Legislature. It would be exceedingly desirable to deal with this Bill in such a manner as to repeal that portion of the Act of last Session which related to open spaces between the footway and the carriage way. As to the case of the costermongers and other small traders, the clauses of that Act were no doubt very oppressive. The Act was passed in a hurry, and Parliament was so full of Reform that it could not attend to anything else. He did not think this Bill dealt in a proper manner with itinerant traders, who were a very numerous, industrious, and respectable class. The tendency of police regulations was too much to interfere with the poor. The easier this traffic was made the better;
172
for when the industry of the poor was destroyed they were driven into evil courses or into the workhouses, and then they cost the country money and in one case something more. The more the principle of free trade was carried out with respect to the poor the better. He did not approve the arbitrary power which this Bill gave to the Commissioners of Police to make regulations with respect to a very large class. In this metropolis it was estimated that there were 50,000 people engaged in these humble trades, and to give one man arbitrary power over such a multitude without any appeal or mode of restraint was a thing which the House ought not to do. He did not believe that Sir Richard Mayne or Colonel Eraser would do anything which they thought wrong; but they might make regulations which to them might appear "exceedingly useful," but which might interfere very much with the industry of these poor people. This power was unnecessary—the common law was quite sufficient to prevent obstruction in any thoroughfare. But it was one thing to prevent obstruction in thoroughfares and another to prevent people having the full use of them. One use of thoroughfares was to enable these poor people to go along them and obtain a livelihood by selling articles, and if in some cases obstruction was caused, it was better to put up with a little, to live and let live, than to push matters too far against the poor. The proper course to take would be to repeal the 6th section altogether, and he begged to give notice that when the Bill went into Committee he should move an Amendment to that effect.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that in order to amend the Act of last Session, which did an injustice to one very large class in the community, it was proposed by this Bill to do injustice to another. By the Act of last year it was summarily decided that all the spaces between the footpath and the roadway were to be considered part of the footpath; by the present Bill all rights, whether of prescription or otherwise, were to be at once done away with. Instead of repealing the objectionable clauses of the Bill of last year and allowing the matter to be dealt with under the common law, here was a Bill which said that the Act of last year should be carried out in every case except that of costermongers and itinerant traders—the real fact being that the space in question was part of the premises of the owners of the houses. This Bill proposed to reinstate the costermonger,

173
but not to allow the owner of the house to expose his goods on his own premises before his own house. The police were to have full power to permit costermongers to sell goods in front of another man's house—perhaps the very same articles in which the shopkeeper dealt—and vend them to the annoyance and perhaps injury of the shopkeeper. But if a man were, even in unloading, to allow his goods to remain in the open space before his door until he should bring them into his premises he would be liable to a penalty. The legislation of last year took place by the advice of the police and at the suggestion of Sir Richard Mayne, and here was another suggestion which would land them in another difficulty. The simple way out of the difficulty was to repeal the 6th section of the Bill of last year.
MR. LOCKEalso recommended that the right hon. Gentleman should confine the measure to the simple repeal of the 6th clause of the Act of last year. In some cases a right existed on the part of shopkeepers to use the open spaces, and it was unjust to sweep such rights away. He would repeat his suggestion to defer the operation of the Act till the close of the present Session, and meanwhile to give all the parties interested an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the second time, and committed for Thursday.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.
Estimate presented,—of the Sum required to be voted towards defraying the Expenses of the Expedition to Abyssinia beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 8.]

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House, that his Warrant for the appointment of Members to serve on the General Committee of Elections was upon the Table:—Warrant read as followeth:
Pursuant to the provisions of "The Election Petitions Act, 1848," I do hereby appoint—Samuel Whitbread, esquire, Member for the Borough of Bedford; James Clay, esquire, Member for the Town of Kingston upon Hull; the Honourable Edward Frederic Leveson Gower, Member for the Borough of Bodmin; Sir Frederick William Heygate, baronet, Member for the County of Londonderry; Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, baronet, Member for the County of Perth; and the Honourable Algernon Fulke Egerton, Member for the Southern Division of the County of Lan-
174
caster—to be Members of the General Committee of Elections for the present Session.—Given under my hand this twenty-fifth day of November, 1867.
J. E. DENISON, Speaker.

BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee:
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law which regulates the Burials of Persons in Ireland not belonging to the Established Church.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONSELL and Mr. SULLIVAN. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 5.]

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of The O'CONOR DON, Bill to extend the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The 0'CONOR DON, Mr. MONSELL, and Mr. LEADER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 6.]

EAST LONDON MUSEUM SITE BILL.
On Motion of Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Bill to provide for the acquisition of a Site for the East London Museum, ordered to be brought in by Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. ATRTON, and Mr. BUTLER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 7.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Sis o'clock.