§ 1. £1,200, Supplementary, House of Commons Offices.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)said, these expenses wore growing very fast. He noticed that £300 a year extra was charged for going through the names in Petitions, and he also saw that £200 more was required for the new arrangement for orders of admission. He wanted to know whether it was merely a temporary increase, or would it be a permanent increase?
§ * THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldhamsaid, that these items were nearly all owing to the extraordinary length of the Session. The Treasury had no control over these expenses. Very few of the items in the Vote would occur again, unless they had another extraordinary Session such as the one just terminated, which they all trusted would not happen again. With regard to the Petitions, he had himself considered the question, and had asked the authorities whether it would not be possible to have some cheaper method of doing the work. He would call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions to the subject.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid, he had never been able to understand why the Civil Service expenses connected with the House of Commons and the House of Lords should not be placed upon the same footing as items in other Public Departments. He hoped the Treasury would consider the inauguration of a more reasonable system of dealing with the business of this House, and he trusted that they would have control over these expenses. Having regard to what 352 happened to the officials of the House of Lords last Session, he thought the time had come when the House of Commons should set an example in this matter.
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)said, he would like to know what the officers of the House did respecting these matters. According to his right hon. Friend, the present practice was about as bad as it could be, because the Treasury had no control. Practically, there fore, there was no control except what was exercised in Committee. In the existing state of things nobody could give an authoritative reply to questions on this Vote, or furnish information as to the actual state of affairs. He hoped the Government would take the earliest opportunity of effecting an alteration.
§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, he would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the whole system, involving so much cost as these Petitions did, could not be re-considered from first to last. This year there was an increase of some hundreds of pounds in the cost of counting, and then there was the cost of printing.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)asked whether, considering the length of the last Session, the case of the underpaid messengers and others would be remembered.
§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that a number of extra men were appointed to deal with the work last Session. He sympathised with the object which his hon. Friend the Member for Preston had in view, but it was not easy to give effect to it. In the first place, it would require legislation. The whole of the management of the officers of the House was carried on under Act of Parliament. The power to meet and consider these items of expenditure was now vested in the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and several other important officers of State. They had the power of considering this question of salaries and of expenditure, hut so far as the Treasury was concerned it had no power over that expenditure. With regard to Petitions, he had said before that he was anxious to draw the attention of the Committee to that matter, and he would be very glad if they would take into consideration some cheaper method of carrying it out. For his own part he 353 did not see any great advantage in going through the number of signatures to Petitions, but when any charge was made as to want of honesty in a Petition the Committee ought to have power to examine into it closely.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had rather sheltered himself behind the Commission, and had stated that the Treasury had no power in this matter, but unless he could get a satisfactory assurance from him he was afraid he would have to begin on this Vote with a long series of Motions for reduction. He bad had a Report made of pluralists in the Public Service—those who held more than one office—and he found that the number was 439.
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERT rose to Order, and submitted that the question of pluralists was not one that should be introduced on this Vote.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid, the question of pluralists did not seem to be relevant to this Vote, and he did not think it would be in Order.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would not pursue the subject. With regard to the cost of counting signatures to public Petitions, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman said he would give up that system. He did not know what was to be done with Petitions. He conceived that it might be advisable either to print them and bind them up in such a shape as would form interesting reading for wet Sundays, or to make a precis of them, or they might bo useful for bonfires on November 5. But to do no more than count the signatures was futile, and when be found that the cost of counting them amounted to £550 a year, his conscience revolted, and his constituents would not think he was doing his duty if he did not protest against it.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he desired to emphasise what bad been said with regard to those at the bottom of the staff', who received from £1 to £2 a week. He was bound to say that the House was always ready to give an increase to the higher officials, but they altogether forgot the lower ones. If he remembered rightly, last year his right hon. Friend suggested that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this subject. Could the right hon. Gentleman promise that a Committee would be appointed 354 during this Session, or that the whole matter would be considered?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he had no power to do so. The power rested with the Speaker and the other Commissioners, under Act of Parliament.
MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said, he did not wish to dwell upon the appointment of a Select Committee, but he confessed that he thought the Commission was a wise provision made by Statute. Of course, he assumed that the Commission was a practical working body, composed of eminent persons, they had been told, holding high office in the State, and be assumed that the Commission met with tolerable frequency, and that all these important matters were fully considered by them. He did not think the Committee would wish to take the control out of their hands. The Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to inform them how many times the Commission met during the year, and whether any record of its proceedings was preserved.
§ MR.A. C. MORTONsaid, that in view of what had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury he would bring the matter forward again on the Vote on Account. He desired to protest against what he had said—namely, that because this was a Statutory Commission they could not appoint a Select Committee to consider it. If be recollected rightly, this House had many a time appointed a Select Committee to consider the effects of Acts of Parliament, and he therefore did not think that would be a bar at all.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.I may say, speaking quite frankly, that I have never heard of the existence of this Commission, or that I was one of its Members. The Committee may draw what inference it pleases from that fact.
§ MR. HANBURYasked the late Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who had held Office for some six years, to give the House the benefit of any information he possessed with regard to the Commission.
§ MR. MATTHEWS (Birmingham, E.)I can only say that I have never received a summons to attend during the whole of the six years I had the honour of holding office. I can only infer, of course, from that fact that no meeting of the 355 Commission took place during that time. Of course it would be impossible that a Member of it, even an ex officio Member, should receive no summons.
MR. GIBSONBOWLESsaid, he desired to call attention on this Vote to the question of pluralists. He found that no less a person than the Serjeant-at-Arms was a pluralist. He received £1,200 a year as the Serjeant-at-Arms, in addition to £114 which he received as Groom of the Robes.
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTrose to Order. The item of £300 did not in any way include the salary of the Serjeant-at-Arms, nor did it refer to anyone who could properly be termed a pluralist. There were wages paid to extra cleaners and messengers.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that it was hardly consistent with the dignity of the House that its Serjeant-at-Arms should be also a Groom of the Robes.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had had his explanation. It had been stated that the Vote did not apply to anyone who might be called a pluralist, and, therefore, the hon. Member was out of Order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he must ask for details, as the Committee had not got any statement before them.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he understood the learned Attorney General was also a Member of the Commission, and he would like to ask him what his experience was of the work of the Commission?
§ * SIR C. RUSSELLI wish to say that if I have the honour of being a Member of this Commission, I now hear of it for the first time.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, it was very clear that this Commission was not very efficient, but partook of the nature of a sham. Practically, so far as he could see, £300 came under the control of the Committee on Petitions, and a Committee of this House was spending the money. As individual members of that Committee they must see that the money was not being thrown away. When the constitution of this Committee came before the House, they would require to know something on the subject. He regretted that the officers of the House had not received anything for the extra work they had done.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S. E.)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, if the Commission did not sit, who did the work of appointing the Commissioners?
§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERTI can only say that the Speaker undertakes the responsibility of representing the Commission.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid, he should move to abolish this system altogether when they came to the Civil Service Estimate-. He understood there was a Statutory Commission which was to meet to regulate appointments of officials, and various financial matters connected with this House. As he understood it, that Commission never sat; everything was transacted by the Speaker, or one of the permanent officials. He should like to know whether, under the Statute, the Speaker had the power to appoint all the officials of this House, and practically manage it as the head of one Department without at all calling into action his colleagues on that Commission? They had the Statute forming this Commission and requiring it to meet and carry on the business of the House, and if it had not met for six years the question was, had the business of the House been transacted contrary to the Statute during the whole of these six years?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he did not go quite so far as to say that this Commission had not been carrying out its work. He believed that the Speaker, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, from time to time, taken into consideration matters in connection with the salaries of this House. The Commission, as a body, bad not sat for a long period. He knew one period during which they held sittings, for he had seen the Report of their meetings, and that was in the year 1880. He did not say they had not met at other times. Any member of the Commission had the power of calling the Commissioners together by applying to the Speaker. If they had not recently been called together, he did not know that the Speaker had conferred from time to time with the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day for the purpose of considering all questions with reference to this House. He should say the best plan for his hon. Friend the Member for Preston to follow would be to bring the matter forward on some Notice of Motion on going into Supply. It was deserving of consideration, and he thought that 357 would be the best way by which the hon. Member could accomplish the object he had in view.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had staled that it was competent for any member of the Commission to call the Commission together, but it appeared from the testimony of both Front Benches that a number of the Commissioners did not know they were members of the Commission. If they did not know they were Commissioners, how did they know they had power to call the Commission together? Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to let these gentlemen know they were Commissioners and had this power?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTIt is impossible to take any steps except through the proper authority of the House—that is, the Speaker. I will take every step I can to bring this discussion before him, and I shall be able to take his advice upon the best course to pursue.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, this was evidently a serious matter. So far as he could detect, it was something like the Liberator Society. Here was he believing there was nothing wrong in the matter because he knew the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and such like had given their names to the Commission. -Now, however, they knew the Commission had been summoned once in the year 1880, and since then occasionally a Commissioner had been consulted by the Speaker or the authorities. How did they get these names? He had been reposing in the trust that the Home Secretary was a member of the Commission, and he had also been under the impression that in some sort of way his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was also exercising a certain supervision over the matter. But one gentleman after another repudiated it and said he had never heard of it. It was like getting money from the public on the faith of certain names appearing on a prospectus and then gentlemen saving they did not know their names were upon such a document. They ought to have some understanding on the matter. He was not going to say anything about the Serjeant-at-Arms being also Groom of the Stole; but he wanted to know were any of these cleaners pluralisms. Did they also act as Ladies of the Bed-Chamber?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER)I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is trifling with the Committee.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREconsidered they bad a right to know whether any person under the denomination of a cleaner had any other pay from the Government.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to know whether this Estimate had been before the Commission and sanctioned by them?
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)said, that some years ago he brought certain matters before the House, and there was then an implied promise that they should be brought before the Commissioners. That was in 1887, and yet they had no information with regard to the Commission having sat during all this intervening period. That being so, they were not carrying out the Statute at all with regard to these matters.
§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERTwould like to Say one or two words with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. That hon. Member rather suggested that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had given his name to this Commission. He would like to point out that this was a permanent Commission created by Acts of Parliament, the first in the time of George III., on which certain officials were named as Commissioners, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, and the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for the time being. He would again suggest that the hon. Member should raise this question by way of a Notice of Motion on going into Supply.
§ SIR. A. ROLLITsaid, there was a more important aspect of the question than the one of alteration or reform, and that was-—was there any authority whatever for making these payments? Obviously the question of the regulation of the House and the salaries of the officials was entrusted to a Statutory Commission, which was to take care that these salaries were properly adjusted, and unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to give the House the assurance that the Commissioners had met and had sanctioned these payments, the [louse had no authority whatever to deal with it. Here they had an increase of from £220 to 359 £530 for merely counting signatures, and the right hon. Gentleman did not give them a vestige of authority or sanction for the grounds upon which that change took place. He did not see how, strictly speaking, the House was in a position to make these payments without committing a breach of the Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to give them some assurance that the matters had been investigated and were in order, so that the House would have something on which to act.
§ * SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, everything had been in order, and those accounts would all be passed by the Committee on Public Accounts, who were authorised by this House to deal with any of the Estimates at present under the consideration of the Committee. All these items had been considered by the authorities of the House and authorised by the Speaker. He was told it was not usual to call the Commission together except when any new appointments were made or salaries were revised. It was not usual to call the Commission together to consider normal expenditure.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 2. £1,200, Supplementary, Home Office.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said, he did not rise for the purpose of questioning the amount, still less questioning the principle, of this Supplementary Estimate; but they must bear in mind that a Supplementary Estimate was supposed to consist of expenditure which could not have been foreseen when the regular Estimate was presented to Parliament. He wished an explanation as to how it was, under the circumstances, which were common knowledge, that this expenditure was not foreseen to the extent of making it possible to have it in the original Estimate. He could not help bearing in mind that about the time when the regular Estimate for the Home Office staff was being prepared, or rather at the time when it was still possible to insert additional items, the Home Secretary was at Liverpool proclaiming his intention to pursue, to use a general term, it forward policy with regard to the Factory-Act passed by the late Home Secretary. That intention could have been inferred from the fact that he described the 360 Factory Act as a dead letter up to the time he took Office. That being the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, it was very extraordinary that this expenditure which was necessarily to be involved in a policy of this kind should be so very little foreseen. It was a fact that no sum was taken for this service at all in the original Estimate, but in another part of the Home Office Estimate it had been the practice to provide for special inquiries by a sum of £1,000. That sum not only was not increased, but was diminished this year to a slight extent. A considerable period of time seemed to have elapsed between the announcement by the Home Secretary at Liverpool and the appointment of the Committees he so announced; and there were only two possible conclusions which could be drawn from this fact. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not foresee that there was any really practical work or any work involving special effort or expenditure going to take place; or, if he did foresee such a thing, there were other Members of the Government with whom he found a difficulty in getting the necessary funds provided. In the latter caseall he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) could say was that the right hon. Gentleman, although he was entitled to take credit for himself in this matter, was not able to claim credit for the whole of the Government to which he belonged.
§ MR. ASQUITH(who was indistinctly heard) said, that as far as his recollection went the Home Office Estimate was prepared in the latter end of the year, and he did not think at that time he had any definite idea of carrying out these special inquiries. The hon. Member had referred to a speech of his in Liverpool in January, 1893, in which he used some general language as to his intention to appoint Committees of Inquiry into certain dangerous trades; but, as a matter of fact, the earliest of these Committees was not appointed until the following April. The work done by such Committees was very valuable. He had been most careful to make the inquiries as inexpensive as he possibly could; but the necessity of employing scientific experts, both as members and as witnesses, and of incurring a considerable amount of travelling expenses, had led to a larger sum than he anticipated, or was altogether 361 glad to see. He was, however, satisfied that such expenditure would turn out in the long run to be economical expenditure, and be a great saving of life and health in these industries.
§ MR. HANBURYurged the advisability of the publication of the Reports of these inquiries.
§ MR. ASQUITHAll the Reports have been published and laid on the Table of the House.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)asked whether the Committee which had to do with the lead industry received any information as to the most valuable inquiries with reference to lead mining which had taken place in Western Australia?
§ MR. ASQUITHwas not aware, but would inquire into the matter.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONhad no doubt that this money had been very usefully spent, and the work done important. He noticed at the bottom of the page, "Deduct from Estimate net savings on other sub-heads of the Vote £1,600." He objected to this way of keeping accounts. They made savings under some sub-heads, but the Departments were allowed to spend them on other matters. That was objectionable, and if too much money was voted it ought to be returned. It was the practice of Departments to get more money voted than they wanted, and then if anything turned up they might not have thought of before they could spend these savings on what they liked, and unless they wanted more money than the savings they did not come to Parliament at all. The savings under certain sub-heads ought not to be spent on other matters.
§ MR. ASQUITHsaid, the question which the hon. Member had raised did not affect this particular Vote, and was a matter for the general Estimates, and not one over which he (Mr. Asquith) exercised any responsibility. He could not see any serious danger in this connection. As far as this Vote was concerned, they stated the whole amount they proposed to spend, and then they set forth that as they had saved £1,600 on the financial year they only asked for £1,200, the £1,600 saved making up the £2,800 required. He failed to see any objection to that.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, his contention was that what was voted for 362 certain specific purposes ought not to be spent on purposes entirely different.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. £1,500, Supplementary, Colonial Office.
§ DR. CLARKdesired to know how much had really been spent on telegrams? As far as he could see there was £2,250; was that all for South Africa? He saw that £5,000 for telegrams to the High Commissioner was extra, and he desired to know whether £7,250 instead of £1,500 had been spent extra on these telegrams?
§ * SIR A. ROLLITdid not grudge the telegrams, because it was important the Government should have the quickest information, but he did think it was sometimes questionable whether the Government got value for the expenditure thus incurred. In the present case the cost of telegrams in relation to South Africa alone was £6,000, being an increase of £3,750 on the original Estimate of £2,250. He would like to contrast what private enterprise sometimes secured with what found its way to the Government. Recently there was an unfortunate conflict in the neighbourhood of Zambesi between our Authorities and the Portuguese Authorities. A statement of the events and the details of the occurrence had appeared in The Times, if not in other papers, but the Government up to this time had received no direct official information by telegram or otherwise. Private enterprise had anticipated the Government by 10 days or a fortnight. He should like to know whether the Government had received direct information on this matter by telegram or otherwise? If not, they were led to the conclusion that notwithstanding their large expenditure a newspaper was in possession of much earlier information than the Government with all its resources.
§ MR. HANBURYpointed out that the Supplementary Estimate referred to the expenses of telegrams to South Africa, but there must also be telegrams to be paid for from South Africa, so that the expense would be even larger than appeared on this Vote. Perhaps his hon. Friend would also be able to say whether the expenditure in telegrams had been in any way increased by the remarks made in the House by the hon. Member 363 for Northampton in reference to South African affairs.
§ MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)said, he thought that in many cases a little expenditure in postage stamps would effect almost as good an object as a large expenditure in telegrams. He was aware that the Colonial Office did not show that despatch in answering letters even which might be expected. He knew of one case in which complaints from very important Bodies of gross interference with public rights and the rights of the subject in South Africa had been sent to the Colonial Office as long ago as January, and yet the people who had sent them, though they were in Loudon, had not received even an acknowledgment of their receipt. It would be well, therefore, if there was a little more expenditure on postage in the Colonial Office.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, Poplarsaid, that the great addition to the expenditure on telegrams was due to the Matabele War, when it was necessary that the authorities at home should be kept informed of what was going on in the front, to the Swaziland Conventions, and the disturbances in Pondoland. It might be that if there was no such thing as the telegraph, the affairs of the Colonial Office would be bettor conducted. But as they had the telegraph things were conducted by telegram, which was a very expensive amusement, and not quite so efficient as they would wish. With regard to the communications between the Portuguese and the British Authorities, if the hon. Member for South Islington put down a question on the subject he would obtain the necessary information. As to whether the cost of telegrams was in any way increased by the questions put by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton in the House with regard to South African affairs, he should say that it was unquestionably so. When assertions were made in the House as to public concerns the Government had to obtain at the earliest possible moment information in regard to them. But they could not put the blame for the increased cost on the hon. Member for Northampton. If an hon. Member in the exercise of his duty found it necessary to raise matters in the House, the Govern- 364 ment were bound to obtain the necessary information.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that as he was neither a company promoter nor a holder of shares in those bogus companies, he thought this expenditure for telegrams was a waste altogether. He thought the company promoters ought to be made to pay it. He hoped the Radical Government, considering how many poor people there were in the country who had nothing to do with company promoters, would not waste the taxpayers' money in this fashion. They were told with regard to the Vote, that though the cost of telegrams had increased by £2,250, there had been a saving in salaries. Therefore, the Government proposed to take money voted for salaries to defray the cost of telegrams. If a sufficient saving had been made in salaries to cover the extra cost of telegrams the Government would not have come to the House at all, and the House would have known nothing about the increase in the cost of telegrams. In all those Departments it was the practice to spend money on purposes for which it had never been voted by the House. He thought that if there was a saving on any Vote the money should go back to the Treasury, and the Department should come to the House for any extra money they might want. He hoped his hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary would promise, as the Home Secretary had promised on the previous Vote, to have this objectionable practice put a stop to in the Department which he represented.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, that if the hon. Member for Preston had read the telegrams with regard to South Africa published in the Blue Book, he would see that the expenditure was not due to the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, but was due to the Colonial Office sending out telegrams protesting against the filibusters and freebooters under the control of the Chartered Company. As to the murder and looting which had taken place in South Africa, the subject would come up on another Vote, and would be then discussed. He merely wished to say now that it was not an economist like his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, but the Chartered Company, that was responsible for the increased expenditure in telegrams.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had been told that whilst out of the House his hon. Friend the Under Secretary had placed the responsibility for this large increase in the cost of telegrams on his shoulders. He never could get the real facts from his hon. Friend. He never attached the slightest importance to these telegrams. His hon. Friend telegraphed to Sir Henry Loch; Sir Henry Loch telegraphed to the person implicated, and then a most unsatisfactory telegram was sent home. He thought the whole expenditure should be charged to the Chartered Company.
§ MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he had not thrown the responsibility for the increase in the telegrams on his hon. Friend. On the contrary, he had said that his hon. Friend was not in any way responsible for the extra expenditure. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, he thought it of importance, and it would receive attention so far as the Colonial Office was concerned.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. £1,081, Supplementary, Local Government Board.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was in connection with the cholera that this extra expenditure had been incurred? He had frequently drawn attention in the House to the way in which the expenses for the prevention of the introduction of cholera into these countries had been borne. He had been told that it was absolutely necessary that the localities should bear the expenses. Was this extra item of expenditure incurred by the visits of Inspectors to localities in order to dictate to the localities the money they should spend for a national purpose, without any choice of their own? He would also point out that the House passed a Vote every year for quarantine. If quarantine was no security against the introduction of cholera, it was no use at all; and if it were a security against cholera, why should those men go about the country incurring this extra expenditure?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI would remind the hon. Gentleman that this has nothing to do with quarantine. Quarantine is confined to yellow fever. If the hon. Gentleman was in the post which I had the honour to occupy last year, 366 he would be aware that when an outbreak of cholera occurs the first step taken by the people of the locality, by the general public, and by the House of Commons, is to ask the Local Government Board to immediately send down an Inspector to investigate all the circumstances of the affected district, and to see that the proper remedies are taken to prevent any spread of the disease. I can assure the Committee that it was to the admirable manner in which these gentlemen conducted their work that we were able to grapple with the cholera in 1892 and 1893. I do not think any money has been so well spent, or from which the country has received a more adequate compensation, than this small sum for medical inspection in a time of very great difficulty. I am sure the country, as well as the Local Government Board, owe a debt of obligation to those gentlemen, who were ready at all times to proceed to those places where outbreaks of cholera occurred.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of George IV., which he would find on the Table, he would see that quarantine referred not only to yellow fever, but to every infectious disease, and to merchandise as well as to persons. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Act, and make him a very handsome apology.
§ Vote agreed to.