Lords Sitting of 27 April 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Turnpike Trusts Union.
2a Cruelty to Animals Prevention.
3a Prisoners' Removal (Ireland); Smoke Prohibition.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Harrowby and the Bishop of Durham, from Stow, Louth, and several other Places, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops.—By the Earl of Eglinton and Lord Stanley, from Greenock, Leith, and a Number of other Places, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Earls Mounteashell and Nelson, and Bishops of Durham and Oxford, from Liverpool, South Shields, and a great Number of other Places, for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—By the Bishop of Durham, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, that Measures may be adopted for the preventing Explosions in Collieries.—By the Duke of Argyll, from the Free Church of Canongate, Edinburgh, against Sunday Railway Travelling.—By the Earl of Harrowby, from St. Mary, Newington, against Sunday Trading.—By Earl Fortescue, from Barnstaple, that the Jurisdiction of County Courts may be Extended to Causes of larger Amounts.—From Waterford, for the Enactment of Sanitary Measures; also for the Establishment of an accurate Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland.—From Loddiswell, that a Demand may be made on the Brazilian and Spanish Governments for the Liberation of all Slaves—By the Earl of Eglinton, from Greenock, against the Repeal of the Merchant Seamen's Fund.—From the Alleged Lunatics Friend Society, for Inquiry into the Present Mode of Treatment.

AFFAIRS OF SICILY.
LORD BEAUMONTwished to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council
922
(Marquess of Lansdowne) when the long-promised papers on Sicilian affairs would be presented? In putting this question, his noble Friend would excuse him if he also took the opportunity of asking another. He had recently received information, not only direct from Palermo, but also through Reggio and Naples, that the same scenes of disorder and violence which there was so much reason to deplore at Messina, had been repeated at Catania. He had seen accounts, which stated that the line of march of the Neapolitan army was marked by burning villages; that the road was covered with the bodies of murdered men and women; and that after the taking of Catania, that city was delivered up to the soldiers for a whole day to be pillaged, sacked, and burned. He was anxious to ask this question, because he had heard a rumour that the property of the English and French residents was respected, though situated in the middle of Catania, from which he should draw the conclusion that the commander of the Neapolitan forces connived at the conduct of his soldiers. He repeated, therefore, his anxiety to know whether the noble Marquess had received any information, on which the Government could rely, respecting the truth of these statements?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that, with respect to the first question put by his noble Friend, he knew of no other bar to the production of the papers relating to the affairs of Sicily, than the difficulty of arranging so vast a mass of documents. He could assure his noble Friend and their Lordships that they would be produced as speedily as possible. With respect to the second question, he was extremely sorry to be obliged to say that he had seen not only private letters, but also a regular despatch, inclosing one from Her Majesty's Consul at Catania, confirming the statement made by his noble Friend, that that city had been delivered up to pillage. He did not know whether his noble Friend wished that despatch to be produced; but if so, perhaps he would move for it.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he begged to remind the noble Marquess that he had given to him ten days ago the same answer he had just given to the noble Lord opposite. He did not think the answer of the noble Marquess a satisfactory one, inasmuch as that there was a large mass of papers must have been long known, and

923
therefore during the whole of those events the papers might have been in course of preparation for being laid before the House at the earliest possible period consistent with the convenience of the public service. Her Majesty's Ministers might gain considerable advantage in not only concealing any knowledge of events during their progress—an act of which he did not complain—but also in concealing all knowledge of them, even after the events had terminated, until so distant a period, that the public interest in them had subsided, or almost completely ceased. He thought that the papers in question ought to have been produced long ago, and he considered that the answer of the noble Marquess was anything but satisfactory. With respect to the atrocities which it was alleged had recently been committed in Sicily, he should observe, that he had no doubt but that lamentable scenes took place in all wars, and more especially, he was afraid, in all civil wars. When he heard it said that the allegations upon that subject were confirmed by a despatch from one of Her Majesty's Consuls, he could not help recollecting that nothing could be more vague, or less worthy of reliance, than the rumours on which one of Her Majesty's Consuls had advanced statements with respect to former atrocities in the town of Messina. He hoped the noble Marquess would not give them a second set of "atrocity papers" after the experience they had had of the first batch. But he trusted that the papers which had been already moved for, would be laid before Parliament at the earliest possible period in so complete a form as to enable them to form an accurate opinion upon the subject.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the noble Marquess would perhaps allow him to remind him that just before the late war, in answer to a question put by him, he had stated that he was uncertain whether the papers connected with the war in the north of Italy could be produced before the adjournment of the House. On further inquiry, however, the noble Marquess had found that they could not; but he had promised that they should be produced as speedily as possible. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had certainly expected that they would have been submitted to the House immediately after the holidays; but as he had been disappointed in that expectation, he wished to know whether those papers also would be speedily produced, or
924
whether there would be any further delay in bringing them forward.
LORD EDDISBURYsaid, that the delay which had arisen in the production of the papers referred to by the noble Earl, was in a great measure owing to the extreme pressure of public business for some time past in the Foreign Office. Those papers would be produced on an early day, and with as little delay as possible.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had never heard anything more unsatisfactory than the answer of the noble Lord. The noble Marquess had informed him before the recess that those papers were so nearly fit to be produced that he was in doubt if they could not he submitted to the House before the adjournment for the holidays; and it had only been on subsequent inquiry that he had ascertained they could not. The transactions to which they related had been concluded long before the termination of the affairs of Sicily. A promise had been given in the Queen's Speech, at the opening of the Session, that those papers should be laid before Parliament; and he certainly could see no reason why they had not yet been forthcoming. He could understand, however, that much time and great management would be required in the arrangement of those papers; and his experience had led him to believe that such management might be thought necessary. But he said, that there was no valid reason whatever for not having produced long ago the papers relating to the war in the north of Italy.
LORD EDDISBURYdenied that there had been any manufacture of papers, and said, that the only arrangement required was, that they should be properly laid before Parliament. The noble Earl must be aware, from his own experience, that it would be highly unwise and inexpedient to publish a mass of diplomatic papers without a careful consideration on the part of the head of the Foreign Office.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid that, although the length of the delay in bringing forward those papers might give rise to suspicion, he had no doubt but that when produced they would be found perfectly genuine, and that they would be laid before the House as soon as possible. He had, however, seen so many evils arise from the premature publication of diplomatic papers, that he did not wish to press for their production. He had seen, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) had seen, instances

925
of papers having been shovelled on the tables of the two Houses of Parliament which ought never to have been produced at all; and sometimes very injurious consequences had followed the adoption of such a course. With respect to the statement of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Beaumont) that the gallant officers commanding the Neapolitan soldiers were suspected of having connived at the atrocities which it was said those soldiers had committed, he should observe that that was a very hard charge to bring against those gallant officers; and for his part he could not help protesting against it. He should also remind his noble Friend that after a town was taken by storm, no officer could prevent the occurrence of outrages in the midst of the exultation and the unnatural state of fever to which the spirits of troops then rose after the great personal dangers to which they had been exposed. He was bound in charity to believe that nothing-had recently taken place in Sicily beyond what usually took place in the storming of a town, and especially in the case of a civil war, for it was uniformly found that the atrocities committed during such a war wore greater than those committed during any other species of contest.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, that with respect to the charge of the noble Lord opposite, that the account of the British Consul of what had occurred at Messina was made up of loose statements, he begged to state that he happened to have seen an officer who was present at the time, and who had been called upon by the British Consul, who stated to him that he was about to make a report of what had occurred, and this officer stated to him that he ought to be careful above all things to take nothing upon report or upon loose evidence, and state nothing in support of which he had not distinct and positive evidence from sources worthy of credit. This officer stated further, that he had gone over every one of the cases with Mr. Barker, the Consul, and had satisfied himself of the entire accuracy of every particular alluded to. He thought that the noble Lord might at least have given a public officer credit for a little discretion and fairness in his statement. With respect to what had recently occurred on the coast of Sicily, he had to state that he had received communications from the admiral and other officers on that coast speaking of the horrors of the scenes in Catania, and describing them as a repetition of those which had before taken
926
place in Messina. They also declared that the whole march of the Neapolitan army had been marked by fire and sword, and by the assassination of women and children. He believed that his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) had in no way exaggerated the horrors which had accompanied the plunder and destruction of Catania—one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. It appeared that while that city had been given over to fire and pillage, the houses of the English and Maltese residents—and he did not know but the same thing had also happened with respect to the houses of the French residents—had been respected. Now it would be difficult to suppose that if the soldiers had been under no regular direction, they should have spared the houses of the English residents, who were no favourites with them. After the pillage and plundering had proceeded for some time, a remonstrance was made to General Filangieri, the Neapolitan general, by the officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships, representing the horrid scenes which had taken place, and requesting him to endeavour to put a stop to them. Whether, on account of that remonstrance or not, he could not say, but certainly after that remonstrance had been presented, steps were taken to put an end to that state of things.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid that he would not move for the production of that particular paper, because, if laid upon the table, it would perhaps produce no more effect upon the noble Lord opposite, than the one before their Lordships with respect to what had occurred at Messina, the events which took place having been described by the noble Lord as the usual events of war. When he had heard that the property of English and Maltese subjects were alone respected, be certainly thought it but fair to suppose that the army had acted under positive and direct orders throughout the entire transaction. His Lordship then moved for a series of papers connected with the transactions of this country with Naples and Sicily, commencing with the year 1814, and continuing down to the present time. His object in moving for the production of these papers was in order to enable their Lordships distinctly to see whether or not this country had not violated some of its most solemn engagements with respect to those countries. If it appeared to him, upon the face of those papers, that they had abandoned the solemn engagements entered into by this

927
country, either at a remote period or recently, nothing would deter him from bringing a Motion before their Lordships, in order that they might express their opinion of the Government which had thus sacrificed the national honour by not fulfilling the national engagements.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid that the whole of the papers moved for by the noble Lord had either been already printed or were in course of preparation for printing.
Motion agreed to.

SANITARY CONDITION OF LONDON.
LORD REDESDALEwished to know whether any measure affecting the health of the metropolis was in preparation, or when it would be brought forward? Seeing that London had been excluded from the operation of the general Bill of last year, it was the more necessary to have some information respecting this question.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, the Bill of last year had especially provided for the appointment of two commissions with reference to the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers and the City of London. A great part of the works to be undertaken was to be executed and conducted under the management of local boards; and it was of great importance that everything which was undertaken should be maturely considered before it was entered upon. There was the question of house drainage—the question of the disposal of the refuse matter—the preservation of the River Thames from improper contamination. The supply of pure water to the metropolis was another subject which should necessarily come under consideration. With respect to the question of burials within the precincts of the metropolis, he hoped to be able to bring in a Bill on that subject during the present Session.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, a proper sanitary system ought to be applied to the whole city of London, whatever might be the opinion of those supposed to be authorities on the subject.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PREVENTION BILL.
The DUKE of BEAUFORTmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he felt it his duty to oppose this Bill. The effect of one portion of it would be to deprive many persons in reduced circumstances of the assistance which they at present derived
928
from the services of dogs. The Act proposed to provide a general registry of the number of dog-carts within every county in England, and the species of dogs licensed to draw those carts; and in another portion it provided, that if it should appear that any load manifestly beyond its strength should be drawn by any dog, the owner of the dog-cart should be liable to very severe penalties. Another clause to which he objected, prohibited any men, women, or children from riding in carts drawn by dogs. He thought that this would inflict hardship upon many infirm and decrepit persons, who were in the habit of being drawn by that docile, well-behaved, and excellent animal—the dog. He certainly did not think that it was any cruelty to dogs to allow them to draw carts—he had frequently seen his own children riding in a dog-cart with great delight. These regulations in the Bill to which he had referred were, however, totally unnecessary, as the sixth clause enacted, that any person guilty of cruelty to animals should be made amenable to the law.
The DUKE of BEAUFORThad no objection to amend the Bill in Committee, in order to meet the views of the noble Lords.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, that this Bill was full of restrictions and penalties, and no case had been shown to exist calling for this large amount of interference. Any legislation upon this subject would, in his opinion, always prove inconsistent. Had the noble Duke never seen a very heavy man upon a very little horse? or persons urging their horses to the fullest speed, until they were ready to drop, in racing and hunting; and were not those cases of cruelty to animals equal to any of those to which this Bill had reference? He should move, as an Amendment to the noble Duke's Motion, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
After a few words from the DUKE of BEAUFORT,
The LORD CHANCELLORput the Motion for the second reading, and declared it to be resolved in the affirmative.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that under the plea of putting down cruelty to animals, among other things this Bill proposed to put down cockfighting. He did not, however, think that there was any cruelty whatever in that, when fairly and properly conducted.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsupported the Bill because it was intended to put an end

929
to a very great evil. The noble Earl who last spoke had objected to the measure because he said it dealt only with those cruelties practised by the poor, and not with those inflicted by the rich. If the noble Earl would refer to the second clause, he would find it was a general one, and had reference to the rich as well as the poor. For his own part he was willing to go further than the noble Duke who had introduced the measure, and to prohibit the driving of dogs under any circumstances. By being so employed on work for which he was not fitted, the dog was exposed to a great amount of suffering.
EARL GREYthought that most of the vices, and cruelty amongst other vices, were not proper subjects of legislation; but improvements were to be effected by the progress of civilisation, and the changes it produced on the tempers and characters of individuals. He was convinced that to attempt to put down acts of cruelty by legislation would do more harm than good, for they could only enforce it by informers, and that sort of machinery. What greater cruelty was there practised in this country than steeple chasing? It was difficult to define what was cruelty or what was not, and it was a question that must be determined by public opinion. It was in the highest degree objectionable that they should pass a Bill of this kind; and if the House should divide on the question, he would vote against it.
The EARL of MALMESBURYconsidered that this Bill would interfere with a certain class of persons, and he was inclined to prevent that interference, because hundreds of persons obtained a livelihood by having their carts drawn by dogs. They were employed to draw fish and other articles in parts of the country; and in these times it would be unwise to restrict persons in gaining their bread, unless it was clearly proved that the manner in which they did so was shocking to the public, and demoralising to the people. He hoped that part of the Bill would be withdrawn.
The DUKE of ARGYLLdiffered from the opinion which had been expressed by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies. To carry out the noble Lord's principle, they should not only refuse to pass this Bill, but they should move for the repeal of many laws now existing, as there was no line which they could actually draw between what was cruelty and what was not. He so far agreed with the noble Earl
930
as to think that it would be better if these cruelties could be put down by the improved moral feeling of the community; but he did not think this a reason why they should not attempt to mitigate the evil by legislation. He asked the noble Lord would be move for the repeal of the law to prevent bull baiting? As a large class of the population was dependent upon the labour of dogs, he was not prepared to legislate on the subject; but if that clause were left out, he would give his hearty support to the Bill.
The EARL of CARLISLEwas proceeding to address their Lordships, but was interrupted by
The LORD CHANCELLOR,who intimated that the second reading of the Bill had been carried.
EARL GREYobserved that an Amendment had boon moved, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to say that he was not aware of the Amendment being moved.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, he had distinctly moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
It was then arranged that the Amendment should not be then pressed, but the objection made in another stage of the Bill.

UNION OF TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
LORD REDESDALElaid on the table a Bill to facilitate the union of turnpike trusts. It was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
House adjourned to Monday.