Lords Sitting of 14 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Fisheries (Scotland).
2a Coin River Water Bill; Common Lodging Houses (Ireland).
3a Offences against the Person; Larceny, &c.; Forgery Bill; Malicious Injuries to Property; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Exchequer Bills (£13,230,000); Customs.

ITALY.—EXPEDITION AGAINST NAPLES.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he had privately given notice to his noble Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of his intention to put a Question with respect to the unopposed departure from the port of Genoa of a certain armed expedition, which was notoriously of an offensive character, and was supposed to be destined for the Neapolitan shores. It was not his intention at present to say a word as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government; he merely wished to ask whether his noble Friend would lay upon the table of the House any despatches, cither from Sir James Hudson or from our Consul at Genoa, giving an account of the manner in which the expedition was permitted to sail. He was quite ready to accept as conclusive what was stated by the Foreign Secretary in the other House of Parliament—namely, that Her Majesty's Government had distinctly remonstrated with the Government of Sardinia on this subject, declaring that any interference by way of support, or any complicity on the part of the Sardinian Government, would naturally lay them open to the suspicion of having acted in direct violation of international obligations. He merely asked the question for the sake of the information it might elicit, because if the intelligence re-

  1179
  ceived this morning was confirmed it was notorious that the expedition had failed of exciting insurrection in the Neapolitan territories. Unfortunately, everything connected with Sicily exposed us to a most unjust prejudice in many parts of the Continent, and direct attacks had been made in foreign newspapers against Her Majesty's Consul at Genoa for assisting in the departure of the expedition. He (the Marquess of Normanby) knew the English Consul at the port, and felt sure that the rumour was unfounded; but it would conduce to the public convenience if the Government would lay upon the table any papers which had been received on this subject. His object was to take the surest and most complete mode of disproving the accusations which had been made against Her Majesty's diplomatic agents in that part of the world for acts of which he believed them to be perfectly incapable.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that if his noble Friend would move for copies of or extracts from the despatches from our Consul at Genoa there would be no objection to produce them; but that no despatches had been received from Sir James Hudson on the subject. He need hardly say that there was no foundation for the rumour alluded to by his noble Friend. But his noble Friend seemed to think, from the statement of the Foreign Secretary the other evening, that a remonstrance had been addressed to the Sardinian Government respecting this very expedition. What had really taken place, however, and what the Foreign Secretary had stated, was that some months ago, when there was a rumour of a similar expedition, Her Majesty's Government had remonstrated with the Government of Sardinia on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he would at once move for the production of the papers. The noble Marquess then moved an Address for
  Copies of or Extracts from any Despatches of Her Majesty's Consul at Genoa relating to the Departure of a Military and Naval Expedition from the Port of Genoa for the Dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies.
  Motion agreed to.

CONTRACT GUNBOATS.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE THE EARL OF HARDWICKE moved for, Return of all the Vessels or Gunboats below 1,000 Tons Burden built by Contract since the Year 1852, with the Names and Residences of the Contractors of each
  1180
  Vessel; showing at the same Time the Year of their Construction, the Price contracted for, together with their present Condition as to Sea-worthiness. The noble Earl said he was induced to make this Motion in consequence of the reports which had been for some time current, and which were now thoroughly believed, that a number of the small vessels built within the last four or five years by contractors, under the sanction of the Crown, had turned out to be in such a decayed condition that they were not supposed to be fit for any service whatever until they had undergone a thorough repair. These rumours had naturally produced in the country a feeling of indignation; because it was felt that there was something, either on the part of the Government or on the part of the contractors, or perhaps on the part of both, owing to which a large sum of money had been lost to the country, and the hope and belief which had been entertained that the defences of the country were daily strengthening and improving had been at once destroyed. This was a matter for very grave consideration. He was bound to say that the present Government were not implicated in this matter, as the contracts were made before they came into office, and he had no doubt the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was as anxious as he was himself to remedy so great a grievance. The contractors, no doubt, undertook to perform that of which they had notice in the document called a "specification of work," which he had not moved for, but which would, if the present Return were granted, as it would be necessary in fairly judging of the state of the case; and he intended, on a future occasion, to move for it. From what had fallen from one of the Ministers in "another place," he understood it was well known to the Government that there was in the merchant builders' yard at the time the contracts were entered into no timber of good quality, but only such as was usually termed unseasoned, and only fit for temporary purposes. If it turned out that the contractors made the agreement with a clear engagement to perform the very best work at the very best prices, and that the specification contained those words which involved the very best description of construction, with the most expensive materials, and the best price, and if the Government were then aware that the timber was unfit for use, then he must say that, the Government were more in fault than the contractors: be-

  1181
  cause, if it had been thought necessary to run up a number of vessels for temporary use, it would have been easy to draw up specifications which would have allowed of vessels being built for temporary purposes at a moderate cost. If, on the other hand, the contractors made an agreement, and stated that they were quite prepared to build ships with the best materials and the best work, then they were the parties to be censured. But with regard to the Government, he wanted to know where the responsibility rested, in order that he might lay his hand on the right person. He knew that the responsibility of the Government, as a general matter, was very attainable; that is, the Government was responsible, and if not acceptable to the country, would speedily cease to be a Government. He knew also that the Board of Admiralty was responsible for naval matters. Yet, as it happened in this case, there was not what was wanted, knowledge in combination with responsibility. There could be no real responsibility where there was no knowledge. While a civilian was at the head of the Admiralty, there was a difficulty in dealing with questions connected with management of the naval resources of the country. But in this case this did not apply, for he apprehended that the real party responsible was the Surveyor of the Navy. Now the Surveyor of the Navy, since it had been discovered that these boats had rotted, had changed his name, and become "Controller" of the Navy. What he (the Earl of Hardwicke) wanted to know was, whether the Controller was responsible for what had taken place? That functionary was bred a seaman, and was a highly respectable officer; and he was placed in the position of Surveyor of the Navy, for which situation a person should be selected who was brought up from his earliest life, as an apprentice in the building yard, to the use of the adze. But at present all the Surveyor could say was, that as he had not been educated to the business of a shipwright, he knew nothing of the details of construction, and could only refer to those under him in order to ascertain whether the work had been done agreeably to the specification. Formerly they had for Surveyors of the Navy responsible officers—men who had served their apprenticeship and gone through the various grades of the shipwright business. Those men looked to promotion to the Surveyor-ship of the Navy just as an eminent lawyer looked to becoming Lord Chancellor. Sir
  1182
  James Graham, in his wisdom, when First Lord, abolished the system, and appointed a gentleman who, however distinguished in other matters, was utterly incapable as a Surveyor. The powerful Whig jobbery of the day introduced Sir William Symonds as surveyor. He was an excellent officer and able man, but he was quite ignorant of shipbuilding, and in his new office proved quite a failure he was succeeded by Sir Baldwin Walker, who was an able naval officer and an excellent administrator, but was no more fit for Surveyor than he (the Earl of Hardwicke) was he knew nothing whatever of construction, he had never been educated to it; yet he was the only person whom the Admiralty had to make responsible for these vessels. It would not be difficult to find men who were thoroughly fitted for the office. He knew he might be told that there was a Board of Construction. He knew very well what a Board of Construction was, and what a Board of Admiralty was also. There was a First Lord of the Admiralty at the head of the one, and a Surveyor of the Navy at the head of the other, and neither of them had been educated to the profession which he had undertaken. Those men who were responsible had no professional knowledge, and those who had professional knowledge were irresponsible. The case of these gunboats was one of so flagrant a character, and it was important that the fullest information should be obtained on the subject, that he hoped the House would grant him these Returns. If they did, he would promise to follow the matter up with the view of bringing before them the exact state of facts with reference to the boats themselves, and also the responsible persons connected with these transactions. The subject would at any time have been an important one, but it was more especially so now when we were building by contract on so large a scale. No less than £1,000,000 was to be expended on four iron vessels for which a contract had been entered into. These vessels were to cost £250,000 each. Under these circumstances he was sure their Lordships would agree with him that it was their duty to do all that could be done in the way of precaution for the future. With regard to those gunboats which were the subject of his remarks, he was told that a few of them had been examined and found in a very decayed state, and that two or three were broken up; but from the information he had received—which he hoped might not be accurate—he was led to be-

  1183
  lieve that the whole of them were more or less worthless. He was told that the whole sixteen which had been hauled up at the slip at Portsmouth were rotten, and that the condition of the remainder was such that those which were to be repaired would cost as much for repairs as the cost of their original construction. There was not only the question of unseasoned timber, but also that of the fastenings. Their Lordships had no doubt heard that in some cases there was no thorough fastening, but that while a bolt-head appeared at each side there was no union in the centre. This was even a more important matter to the seaman than the other. A seaman might not perhaps care so much about being obliged to be at sea for a few months in a vessel of which the timber was not sound; but what must be his feelings if he learned that he was aboard one which had not proper fastenings? He trusted their Lordships would grant him Returns which might be the means of bringing home to the proper parties acts which he could not designate by any other term than criminal. There was the more necessity for the supervision of Parliament, where they had rascally contractors on one side and an irresponsible Surveyor on the other.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: There can be no objection to give the information which the noble Earl desires, and which, indeed, has already been moved for and ordered in the other House of Parliament. One part of the information sought for in the Return would be difficult to obtain immediately—namely, the present state of all those boats with respect to sea-worthiness. We have at present no fewer than 162 gunboats, and to be able to give an account of their sea-worthiness we should be obliged to have them all brought into dock, stripped, and examined. That cannot be done with regard to the whole of them, as your Lordships will see when I state how they are distributed. There are 53, divided into three divisions in different ports, at home; at Haslar, 45; in commission at Pembroke and elsewhere, 8; in China, 24; North America, 3; Mediterranean, 3; South-east Coast of America, 2; connected with the Coastguard, 14; in course of construction, 10;—making a total of 162. When the present Board of Admiralty came into office we heard a great deal about the gunboats, particularly those at Haslar, and we thought it our duty to have them inspected. They were inspected, and certainly a considerable amount of decay was found in them.
  1184
  I believe, indeed, their defective state had been discovered some months before, and at the time of our inspection workmen were already engaged in repairing them. More hands were put on, and during the whole of the summer there were 100 men employed. Of the 45 gunboats at Haslar 23 have been thoroughly repaired; 6 more are in hand; so that 29 are either repaired or in a state of progress. We have been told that it was a mistake to keep the gunboats out of the water; but some of those afloat are quite as much decayed at those at Haslar. The one class does not seem to be more exempt from decay than the other. With regard to those in commission we have heard no complaint. We have had gunboats constantly at work in China and with our Coastguard, and, as far as we know, they have been, and are, perfectly efficient. So that the matter is not quite so serious as some people suppose; nor is it correct to say that no reliance whatever can be placed upon any of the gunboats. I admit, however, that great blame rests somewhere for the mode in which many of these vessels were constructed. But we must look back to the circumstances which then existed. We commenced the Russian war with no gunboats. We were then engaged in repairing ships and replacing sailing by steam vessels. Your Lordships may be aware that in the private builders' yards there is at any moment but a small stock of timber, and therefore when this pressure arose the builders had great difficulty in obtaining timber. Under these circumstances the Government offered not only the contract price, but also a bonus for each gunboat that was completed within a certain time; so that the builders had the advantage not only of the contract, but also of the bonus. This however was not much to their profit, because the shipwrights in the Thames, being bound by no engagements, demanded an increase of wages; and this, combined with the rise of the price of timber, had been so seriously to the disadvantage of the contractors, that it is reported that some of them had been ruined by their contracts. As regards what took place in 1854–55 I speak quite independently; I am in no way responsible for what the Government did then; but I have inquired into what occurred, and I have been told that in many of these yards there were two inspectors—a chief inspector, and a leading man under him—to watch the progress of the work. They were, however, working day and

  1185
  night; it was during the winter, in many cases snow was upon the ground; and thus under this pressure opportunities were offered to dishonest workmen to commit the fraud which has been referred to by cutting off the bolts. What makes that offence more flagrant is that the copper was supplied to the contractors in long lengths by the Admiralty to be cut up for bolts as it was required by the builders. So far as we have gone we have found only two or three vessels in which this iniquitous fraud has been committed, and I do not attribute it to the contractors, but to some of the workmen who may have been introduced into the yards under the pressure of the period. That question of the bolts was brought under the notice of the Admiralty only about two months ago, since which time I have instituted inquiries with a view to taking such legal proceedings as may raise the whole question, and, if possible, secure the punishment of the guilty parties. What the noble Earl said about the Surveyor of the Navy is not applicable to this case. At that time great exertions were being made in our dockyards to fit out vessels rapidly; there were a number of vessels to be built, and contracts and specifications to be drawn up, and the Surveyor of the Navy, as he was then called, could not himself visit the private yards and inspect the works which were going on there. He was much more usefully employed in overlooking the great works which were going on in our dockyards. All he could do was to employ the best men he could get as inspectors. With the advice and concurrence of the superintendents of the different yards he took the best leading men and workmen, and sent them to the different contractors' yards to inspect the work which was going on there. That I believe is the system which has always prevailed, and I know no better one which could be adopted. If you are building a house you must trust to the clerk of the works, and if he chooses to connect himself with the contractor and permit him to put in bad timber, you are quite helpless until you find it out some time afterwards. In the same manner, in the case of building a ship, if the man or men whom you appoint as inspectors enter into connivance with the builders—I do not say that that was the case in this instance—but, if they do, I do not see what resource you have or by what moans you can protect yourselves. The noble Earl complains that the Sur-
  1186
  veyor of the Navy is not a practical shipwright. That question has been discussed over and over again. We have had shipbuilders as Surveyors of the Navy, and naval men have complained of them, that though they could build a ship they knew nothing about fitting it, and that the vessels which they constructed were not suited to go to sea, In the last arrangement which has been made the Admiralty took; this course. They appointed a practical shipbuilder to attend to the construction of the vessel, a practical engineer to look after the machinery, and a naval man to act with them and to give them advice. So far as I can learn—although, of course, great improvements may still be made, and I think naval architecture is making very rapid progress—the ships which have been built under this system are very satisfactory. The Channel fleet has, as your Lordships are aware, been at sea in one or two gales, and it has been tried, although not very seriously, yet enough to enable naval officers to judge of the qualities of the ships of which it is composed. As soon as it arrived in port I wrote to the captain of each vessel, and asked him to tell me what he thought of her and of her behaviour while she had been under his command, and what, if any, improvements be could suggest in her build. Upon the whole, the Reports which I have received in reply are most satisfactory and do great credit to the builders of these vessels, because they show that they are very efficient ships and have, so far as they have been tried, behaved very well. Therefore, I think, in opposition to the view of the noble Earl, that the system which we have got is, upon the whole, a good system. The reason for changing the title of the Surveyor of the Navy to that of "Controller of the Navy" is to show that he is not actually a shipbuilder, but that he is to overlook the other two departments, and to bring the practical knowledge of a seaman to the technical information of the shipbuilder and the scientific information of the engineer, and by the combination of the three to give to naval men the assurance that they will have placed under their command the best ships that can be constructed. It is impossible that any of these officers should give to the dockyards the practical inspection which is necessary, and, therefore, I had intended to connect with the department of the Controller an officer who should visit the dockyards, see what is going on and communicate with the

  1187
  Admiralty more readily than can be done under the existing system. The reason why I have yet made no such appointment is, that a Commission on Dockyards has been moved for in "another place," and I thought that it would be better and more respectful to Parliament to wait for its Report than at once to carry out my own idea. It has been said that many of these gunboats were constructed of green wood. That, however, is not the worst, for in many cases not only was the wood which was used green, but the sap was not properly removed from it. That was a much greater fault, because it was hardly to be expected that in private yards there should be a proper supply of seasoned timber; but the material which was used might in all cases have been properly prepared for use. In order to prevent similar occurrences in future, we have laid down a rule that when any builder applies to the Board of Admiralty for a contract for building ships, the Board shall send a person to visit his yard to see what stock of timber and what slip accommodation he has got. By watching carefully the quantity of timber they keep in store, and by giving the contracts to those builders who keep the largest quantity of suitable timber, the Admiralty hope to secure the use of proper materials in the construction of their vessels. The iron-coated vessels which are now being built are not vessels in which the question of seasoned timber materially enters; that used is chiefly foreign wood, and is used internally for strengthening the sides of the ship, and in no part is in contact with the water. With regard to the gunboats at Haslar, after consulting the other members of the Board, I am inclined to believe that vessels built some time ago, and which had not yet been launched, would be found now to be sound and well-seasoned. There were thirty or forty of those gunboats; and it was now intended to have them of a somewhat better class than those which we now possessed, so that they might be enabled to take a part in our colonial service, and save the expense of employing larger vessels. Reverting, however, to the quality of the timber used in the dockyards, I would remark that the foreign oak and teak, being brought from a distance, was all well seasoned, and the Admiralty were using that more and more every year. It was obvious that of English oak there was not a sufficient quantity in the market to meet the requirements of the dockyards,
  1188
  but for some purposes they were obliged to use it. Considering the rate at which they were building last year, it must be obvious that our stock of timber was limited in comparison with the demands upon it, and efforts were therefore being made to obtain timber from all parts of the world. Last year there were added to our efficient navy, by launching new vessels or by the conversion of sailing into steam vessels, 17 ships of the line, 9 frigates, 3 corvettes, and 7 sloops, which would form almost a fleet of themselves. If the Admiralty went on building at that rate, it would be impossible for them to obtain the quantity of well-seasoned timber that would be required. But as regards our present operations, we are putting vessels on the frames rather to season them than to launch them with the rapidity that we have lately done. My Lords, I know of no other point to which I need now advert. I have stated why we cannot give the information now asked for with respect to every gunboat, but only as to those of them that have been examined. But in the statement which will be produced the words "not examined" will be entered against those vessels which have not undergone inspection. One-half of the mortar-boats are built of iron. As to the wooden mortar-boats, we have not yet gone over the whole of them, and are not, therefore, able to state what is their condition.
  THE MARQUESS OF TOWNSHENDdeprecated the existing system, in conducting which no one appeared to be responsible. It was melancholy to think that men could be found who would, instead of driving copper bolts into the wood, put them into their pockets. If there was anything that could make a seaman tremble it would be a suspicion of the unseaworthy condition of his vessel, and that it was rotten and would not hold together. The inquiry should be gone into most thoroughly; and if the service was to be liable to these dreadful frauds it would be better that they should use the old trenails instead of copper bolts. As regarded unseasoned wood, they ought to have an adequate supply for our enormous navy, and if oak could not be had in sufficient quantities, supplies of teak—which was a good heavy wood—could be obtained. Something, however, must be done to prevent a recurrence of what had taken place, and somebody must be made responsible.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY AND TALBOTmade a few remarks, which were inaudible.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there

  1189
  was a Board of Construction in former years, but it did not exist now. The members of the Board of Admiralty used to take part in the construction of ships; but that system was not found at all to work well, and it was then determined to make the Surveyor responsible for giving advice in such matters. At present, when the Board thought more line-of-battle ships or other vessels were required, they sent to the Surveyor, who called in the practical men under him to prepare the lines; and then his advice, together with the plans, was submitted for the approval of the Board.
  Motion agreed to; Returns ordered.

ROAD THROUGH HYDE PARK.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF DUCIE presented a Petition praying that Measures may speedily be taken for establishing a Means of Communication between the Districts lying to the North and South of Hyde Park The noble Earl said that although the subject was of considerable importance, he felt he should be hardly justified in bringing it before their Lordships were it nut that unless the subject were laid before Parliament it would not receive the attention it deserved. The grievance of which the petitioners complained was, that the Park, from Park Lane on the east and Kensington Church on the west, lay like a barrier to any communication between the north and the south, except during the horns of daylight. It was not the first time that the question had been brought before Parliament, for in 1855 a Committee of the other House sat on Metropolitan communications, and reported favourably on the plan, placing it in the first class of Metropolitan communications which they recommended for adoption, Mr. Pennethorne, the architect, who gave evidence before the Committee, said that Hyde Park presented an impassable barrier between two important districts and enormous populations. And now, in view of the great increase that had taken place in the traffic on both sides of the Park, both north and south—in view of the establishment of the new Horticultural Museum, the Great Exhibition of 1862, and the daily increasing popularity of the South Kensington Museum—the improvement became still more imperative. The petitioners specially abstained from suggesting any particular plan, regarding that function as one properly belonging to the Governmental De-
  1190
  partment, which had charge of such matters. They were anxious, however, that, whatever was done, the sanctity of Rotten-row should be preserved, and that nothing should he done to interfere with that ride. Every plan that he had yet heard suggested included a tunnel under Rotten-row. It was, moreover, not desirable to make a public road in too close vicinity to Kensington Gardens.
  LORD EBURYthought something must be done soon to improve the communication throughout the Metropolis, or the transit of traffic would become impossible. He was a Member of the Committee to which the noble Earl had alluded on Metropolitan communications. Various plans were produced before them to make a communication from the north to the south of Hyde Park, which were perfectly feasible, without interfering with the road to which the noble Earl alluded. At the same time, he must say there was another communication quite as necessary through St. James's Park, so as to relieve the traffic by Charing Cross to Westminster Bridge. Lord Llanover, when at the head of the Board of Works, projected a road through the Park, which, if it had been adopted, would have obviated the difficulty. It might be carried into effect without interfering with the Gardens, and would greatly relieve the traffic, the extent of which it was almost impossible to exaggerate. Looking at the map, he must say the road through Hyde Park had become absolutely necessary; and he hoped the Board of Works would lose no time in carrying out the recommendation of the Committee of 1855.
  LORD LLANOVERsaid, that during the time he held the office of First Commissioner of Works, he necessarily gave great attention to the subject of the thoroughfares of the Metropolis, and he found that there was scarcely a main street that had a thoroughfare capable of allowing the constantly increasing traffic to pass without impediment. But though that inconvenience existed arid though it was most desirable that it should he obviated, still as Member for one of the Metropolitan boroughs, he had become aware of the great difficulties in the way of effecting any material improvement; and for this reason—the other House had declared that they would not grant money for Metropolitan improvements, and that any funds required for that purpose must be raised by means of local taxes levied on the Metropolis. Now, he thought, that would he a very fair prin-

  1191
  ciple if the Metropolis were on the same footing with the other large cities and towns of the kingdom. But the Metropolis was an exceptional case. In almost every other city in the empire there were some collateral advantages that accrued to the municipality of the particular city or borough; they had the power of raising rates by taxes on coal and other articles brought into their towns or ports. It was true that the same power existed in the Metropolis; but there was very small portion of it—the City—that alone had the power of levying these taxes, and having that power the civic authorities expended the large sums of money arising therefrom over the comparatively small area which constituted the City. Therefore, when any great improvement was to be made outside the City it was necessary to provide the funds by a local rate. There had been a great desire for many years to improve the southern end of Park Lane, but their Lordships would be surprised when he told thorn that to carry out that improvement—to take down the houses from Piccadilly to a house opposite Holderness House—would require nearly £100,000. Now, it was impossible to levy such a sum as this by local rates; and his opinion had long been, and still was, that when any reform of the Corporation of London took place it was absolutely necessary that the taxes now levied by the Corporation in the shape of coal and corn duties and other taxes should be expended for the benefit of the whole Metropolis, and not for the City alone. A Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament for the reform of the Corporation of Loudon, but he was not aware that it touched on the coal and corn dues levied by the Corporation. He hoped, however, that when it came up to their Lordships' House the suggestion he now made would not be forgotten by their Lordships. He was quite sure that if the large funds possessed by the Corporation—he did not speak of their private property, but of their power of taxation—were placed in the hands of some authority for the general benefit of the Metropolis and the public, the improvements becoming more urgently required from day to day might be speedily accomplished without any material addition to the local rates.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that if we had to wait until a new Board were constituted to administer the coal duties before we could have a communication from north to south through Hyde Park, he was afraid
  1192
  we should have to wait a very long time. But as he understood, the present question related not so much to Metropolitan communication generally as to the best mode of carrying out an improved communication through one of the Royal Parks. When certain improvements wore carried out in the neighbourhood of Kensington Palace, he thought the proposed improvement might have been effected had the road been made less of a private road, and with a little more expenditure of money.
  Petition to lie on the Table,

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY BILL.

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT.)
  Order for going into Committee (on Recommitment) read.
  LORD TEYNHAMimplored their Lordships not to proceed with this cruel Bill, especially as, in his opinion, the existing law was sufficient for all proper purposes. Their Lordships should wait, and see how far public and private efforts could succeed in putting down needless Sunday trading, before they extended the stringency of the Act now in force. He held in his hand a petition from a person residing in Brick-lane, St. Luke's, which stated that this Bill contained many anomalous and inconsistent provisions, which if carried into effect would operate with great hardship and oppression upon thousands of small shopkeepers, and was likely to cause great dissatisfaction. He would also call their Lordships' attention to some evidence which had been taken upon this subject before the Committee of their Lordships' House on Sunday Trading in 1850. A gentleman who had been examined stated that he was associated with some gentlemen who earnestly desired to get rid of the abuse of Sunday trading, but they found that they could not enforce the law of Charles II. because their hearts gave way in consequence of the amount of misery consequent upon the levying of fines. He recommended that they should not apply for an Act, nor try to bring the cases within the existing law, but that they should set about discouraging Sunday trading in other ways. Another gentleman connected with the Society stated that Bartholomew fair had been put down not by an Act of Parliament but by the Lord Mayor and other civic authorities discouraging it. The witness stated that by a report which he presented to the Corporation, he induced the Lord Mayor not to go in state to open the

  1193
  fair, and not to let ground for booths, wild-beast shows, and other exhibitions, and that when he (witness) went there in 1850 there were scarcely more persons congregated than on ordinary days. Sir Richard Mayne, the Commissioner of Police, who was also examined before their Lordships' Committee said that Sunday trading in the Metropolis was decreasing, and in some of the poorest districts, and this lie attributed to the increasing morality of the people. He also said that the working classes had associated themselves together for the purpose of inducing their employers to pay their wages on Friday, or at an earlier hour on Saturday, and that in some instances they had accomplished that object; and he thought it would Le better to postpone legislation until the success of these and similar efforts had been fully ascertained. The witness further added that there were many poor persons who did not know on Sunday morning what they would be able to get to eat on Sunday night, and that it would be manifestly hard upon them, in the event of their getting money for food, to prevent their purchasing it because it was Sunday. Looking to the great improvement which had taken place, it would be better, the same officer added, to leave the stricter observance of the day solely to the influence of public feeling, believing that compulsion was more likely to aggravate the evil. He (Lord Teynham), in conclusion, expressed his own conviction that if proper efforts were made a great deal of the unnecessary Sunday trading would cease, but that this result should be brought about by voluntary means, and not by the high hand of the law.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that on a former occasion the principle of the Bill was fully discussed, and upon a division, at the instance of the noble Lord, was adopted by a majority. Under these circumstances, he felt he ought to do no more on the present occasion than move that the House should resolve itself into Committee.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Penalties for selling, offering, or exposing for Sale).
  On the suggestion of Lord PORTMAN the clause was altered so as to render the offender liable to conviction "before a police magistrate or any two justices of the peace."
  LORD TEYNHAMobjected to the clause on several grounds. The noble and learned Lord appeared to have but an imperfect
  1194
  knowledge of his own Bill. The clause permitted the sale of fish, meat, fruit, and poultry on Sundays under certain restrictions; but it did not permit the sale of vegetables at all. Now, if the Bill omitted from its list of exceptions any article which was material for supplying the necessities of the people on Sunday the want of such article must be endured by them until Parliament met again. There were hundreds of thousands of horses and cows kept in an unnatural state in London, and those animals wanted great attention; but to sell any article of food necessary for these animals on a Sunday would be criminal under this Bill. Another objection was that the Bill was confined to the Metropolitan districts, the City of London, and the liberties thereof; whilst they had evidence that this objectionable trading was carried on in Liverpool, Birmingham, and other places. He believed that it was a sound principle of legislation that, as far as possible, they should legislate for the whole country, and not pass a law for this or that town, when the facts were exactly the same in other places. This objection was more particularly forcible when the matter in hand was connected with the law of God; for then it was essential that the people should not be told that it was wrong to buy vegetables in London on Sunday, but that it was not wrong to do the same thing in Liverpool or Birmingham. There was one further objection to the clause; and that was the fine was to be any sum not exceeding 20 s., nor less than 5s. He would remind their Lordships that in the Report to the other House of Parliament it appeared that out of four cases adjudicated on at Southampton it, was necessary in two of them to levy distress warrants to enforce 5s. penalties. The clause would bear upon the poorest of the poor in London, and in nine cases out of ten of fines it would be necessary to issue distress warrants to seize the humble goods of these people. On these grounds he would, with all his heart, say "not content" to this clause.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought the noble Lord had hardly dealt fairly with him, for he seemed to attribute to him a desire to oppress the poor trader. He (Lord Chelmsford) had endeavoured to explain to their Lordships when he moved the second reading that it was a Bill, not of restraint and oppression, but a Bill of liberty, enabling persons who were compelled to trade on Sunday contrary to their inclinations to have the opportunity of observing that day

  1195
  properly, by compelling their neighbours to refrain from trading on that day—a course which was no more than they ought to adopt without any compulsion of law. It had not escaped his mind that it might be wrong not to except vegetables; but the answer made to him was that if he did give way in reference to that exception the grocers would require a similar exception in their favour. The noble Lord had not experienced the difficulty that there was in dealing with the various interests to be affected by the Bill. The noble Lord complained that this Bill applied only to the Metropolis. But he could state that in all the great towns, with the exception of Birmingham, there was no Sunday trading to any extent, as the Act of Charles II. was found quite sufficient in other places to suppress it. Sunday trading therefore being mainly confined to the Metropolis, which thus offered a had example to the provincial cities, that was a reason why legislation should, at first at all events, be confined to the district where the evil was most rife and a remedy most demanded. He hoped no heat or animosity would be engendered by a Bill which he had introduced with no other view than to relieve the thousands of tradesmen, who had petitioned in its favour, and which would enable them to employ their Sundays in a way consonant with their wishes. If it were the pleasure of the Committee he should not have the least objection to except vegetables from the operation of the Act; but he had been informed that if he did so it would give rise to other claims for exemption.
  EARL GRANVILLEcould not understand why the Metropolis should be subjected to two different, and not always consistent laws on Sunday trading, while all the rest of the country was only under one law. He was also at a loss to understand how it happened that the Act of Charles II. was not sufficient to put down Sunday trading in London, while it was found quite sufficient in all the rest of England.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, a noble and learned Lord behind him had suggested a Clause to Repeal the Act of Charles II., so far as the Metropolis was concerned. With regard to Birmingham, he was happy to state, on the authority of a magistrate there, that the number of shops opened on Sunday in that town had been reduced from 400 or 500 shops to not more than forty. This was done under the provisions
  1196
  of Charles II.'s Act; but it was obvious that this Act could be more easily enforced in provincial towns than in large and populous towns like the Metropolis, where the traders defied the law.
  LORD TEYNHAMobserved that, considering the number of people who in London derived a livelihood from selling and hawking on Sundays, there would, in certain poor localities, be not a house, and hardly a room, in which there would not be a distress warrant for the recovery of penalties inflicted by this Act.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSwas at a loss to know how the same reformation could not be wrought in London, as there appeared to have been wrought in Birmingham, and which appeared to be due either to a strict enforcement of Charles II.'s Act, or to the force of public opinion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that public opinion had, no doubt, operated in certain provincial towns to check Sunday trading; but in London no public opinion on the subject existed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Penalties for delivering Meat, Fish, and Poultry).
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there was an inconsistency in this clause, when referred to the Clause of Exceptions. It appeared that a Christian could not buy meat after 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, while a Jew was allowed to buy it up to 10 o'clock. He wanted an explanation of the difference of this treatment between Jews and Christians.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the explanation was very simple. The Jews used only that meat that was killed by persons of their own persuasion. As those persons could not kill the meat on their Sabbath, and as the Jews who bought it lived, many of them, in quite a different part of the town from those who sold it, representations had been made to him, by most respectable persons of the Jewish persuasion, that if the time for buying the meat was restricted to 9 o'clock in the morning, it would be simply impossible for them to buy it at all. They had suggested that the time should be extended to 11 o'clock; but he thought that was too late; and, as a compromise, he proposed 10 o'clock.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it appeared, then, that more consideration was shown to the convenience of the rich Jew than to the poor Christian. The hour was extended to suit the Jew; but a working man who had but one room for all pur-

  1197
  poses, must either buy his meat on the Saturday night, and keep it all night in his one hot and crowded room, among the tools he worked with, and the rags he wore; or he must rise at an early hour on the Sunday morning, and buy it before 9 in the morning, or they must go without food for the day. Besides, it appeared that a gentleman was allowed to buy a newspaper up to 10 o'clock; why should a poor man be forced to buy his meat before 9? Surely a rich man could want his newspaper better than the poor man could want his dinner? He thought this was an unfortunate Bill; and the most unfortunate thing about it was, that it emanated from their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONthought that the maintenance of a difference in the hours would have the appearance of being harsh, and would be found inconvenient if the Bill should pass. He believed it would be better to fix the hour for all things at 10 o'clock.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, if their Lordships wore in favour of uniformity, he would rather fix the limit at 9 than 10, which he thought would be too near the hours of Morning Service.
  LORD GRANVILLEapproved of the general limitation to 10 o'clock.
  Amendment made; the word "ten" inserted instead of "nine."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provisions as to distinct and separate Offences).
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he objected to the amount of the penalties that might be inflicted under this and the following clause; such an accumulation of fines would ruin thousands of persons selling on a Sunday.
  LORD CHELMSFORDobserved, that the persons alluded to could prevent their ruin by abstaining from an infraction of the Act.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Provisions as to distinct and separate offences).
  LORD WODEHOUSEasked what was the object of putting down the street cries of oranges, &c. which were still permitted to be sold.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: The reason was, that there were a great many people in London who reverenced the Sabbath, and that in many parts of the town these cries were felt to be an intolerable nuisance.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he hoped he might be included in the number of those who respected the Sabbath; but what he
  1198
  wanted to know was, when they allowed the sale of these articles, why they prevented the cries?
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, perhaps, he might give the result of his fifteen years' experience as a clergyman in London on this subject. He could assure their Lordships that those cries were a great nuisance in the neighbourhood of churches; and he had often been obliged, during the administration of the Lord's Supper, to send out the officer to put a stop to the cries in his neighbourhood.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause inserted, providing that the term of imprisonment for the first offence, in case of the nonpayment of the fine, should not exceed one calendar month.
  Clause 6 (certain cases to which this Act does not apply),
  LORD WODEHOUSEsuggested that tobacco should be allowed to be sold on Sunday. A pipe of good tobacco was a wholesome refreshment to a poor man.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that tobacco was just one of those articles which a man might easily procure on Saturday.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYfeared there would be great difficulty in dealing with certain branches of Sunday trading. If they permitted newspapers, for instance, how were they to deal with periodicals?
  LORD CHELMSFORDdefended the exemption. It had been his desire to steer a middle course between those who thought that no Sunday trading should be allowed at all and those who objected to any interference with it.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsubmitted that the police should have greater powers to enforce the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the original Bill had given the police authority to seize articles exposed for sale; but, in conformity with the suggestions of noble Lords who thought that that would be a dangerous power, he had now much modified the measure. If those who wished to enforce the observance of Sunday (whom he believed to be a majority of the retail traders of the Metropolis) requested the police to lay an information, it would be their duty to do so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the clause as it stood would not prove objectionable. From the numerous petitions he had presented, he inferred that there were hundreds and hundreds of very respectable persons who were most anxious

  1199
  to keep the Lord's Day, but who found it impossible so long as rival tradesmen refused to close their shops.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Appropriation of Penalties),
  LORD CRANWORTHproposed the addition of words to repeal the penalties of the statute of Charles II., as far as regards all offences prohibited by the present Bill.
  After a few words from Lords WODE-HOUSE and BELPER,
  LORD CRANWORTHwithdrew the Amendment, stating his intention to bring it up on the Report, which was fixed for Tuesday next.
  LORD TEYNHAMgave notice that on the third reading he should take the sense of the House by moving an Amendment against the Bill.
  Other Amendments made.
  The Report to be received on Tuesday, the 22nd instant.

BANKRUPT LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
LORD CHELMSFORD LORD CHELMSFORD moved to leave out certain words in the clause empowering the Bankrupt Court in Scotland to recall sequestration under certain circumstances. The noble and learned Lord said he had no desire to shelter the fraudulent individuals against whom the Bill was directed, but in dealing with a subject like this they ought to be very cautious not to violate general principles of the law of the land. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) proposed to give the Bankrupt Court a discretionary power of recalling sequestration in cases where, after due inquiry, it appeared that the great bulk of the insolvent's liabilities were to traders in England and Ireland. The object of that provision was to oblige the debtor to come and render an account in the country where the majority of his creditors resided. The power was discretionary: but the bare fact of its being given in the Act would be taken as a direction to the Judge. Under those circumstances, it was desirable that the clause should not have a retrospective effect. He did not object to its prospective operation; but he was anxious that it should not apply to persons who—fraudulent though they might be—were only availing themselves of what was the existing law. He should move the omission of
1200
the words "has been or" which preceded the word shall; and this change would effect what he desired without in any way interfering with the prospective operation of the measure.
Amendment moved in page 1, line 9, to leave out ("has been or.")
THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment. He did not think that as it stood, it could cause any violation of those principles which he was as anxious to maintain as his noble and learned Friend or any other noble and learned Lord could be.
On Question, That the said Words stand Part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 7; Not-Contents 6: Majority 1.
Amendment negatived.

CONTENTS.

Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Granville, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Newcastle, D.

Belper, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Wodehouse, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exeter, M. [Teller.]

Dungannon, V.

Westmeath, M.

Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Redesdale, L.

Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow.

STATUTE CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

  OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.—THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he should oppose the third reading. The second clause dealt with the crime of murder, and he wished a proviso to be introduced into that clause that should meet the crime of wholesale murder arising out of the premeditated miscreancy of men who placed obstructions upon railways and thereby caused fearful loss of life. The 36th Clause provided that in cases where an individual was run over by a hackney carriage the driver should be subjected to the penalties of misdemeanour, but drivers of private carriages were exempted from that punishment. The Act gave no sufficient protection to the public against the fatal results of careless and reckless driving. In the last two years it appeared by

  1201
  the Returns that 134 persons had been killed, and 1,827 maimed and injured, in the Metropolis alone, by being knocked down and run over. The present state of the law was utterly ineffectual to repress the evil. Few persons could bring an action against the individual causing the injury; and there was no public prosecutor to put the law in motion. The deaths were generally found to be "accidental" by the coroners juries, but the word was quite conventional; it was ridiculous to suppose that all the 134 victims were killed by accident. What was required to repress such recklessness was a power of immediately arresting the offender and awarding an immediate and personal punishment, not a paltry flue of 40 s. In one of Moliere's plays, a doctor asked how a certain patient was, "He is dead," was the reply. "Impossible! He was not to die till Thursday." "Nevertheless, he died on Tuesday, after taking the remedy prescribed." To which the doctor returned. "Enough! I am satisfied. If the formalities of medicine were gone through, all was right." It appeared to him in this case, that if the formalities of law were observed, that was all that was looked for. It was the duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deal with this question, but it had not received his attention. In the case of persons poisoned, the body was exhumed, and the Home Secretary directed a post mortem examination: but in the case of these 134 deaths and 1827 injuries he had directed nothing to be done. Probably the Home Secretary was too much engaged on the Reform Bill or the paper duty to attend to a matter that so seriously affected the lives and properties of the public. Believing that such offences as he had described required to be treated with something more than a mere legal formality, he must withhold his assent from that portion of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONagreed that the offence, in reference to railways which had been alluded to by the noble Marquess should be repressed by the strong arm of the law; yet still he thought that it would be hardly possible to deal with that offence as with a case of murder. The Bill proposed the punishment of penal servitude for life, and he thought that would give sufficient protection to persons travelling by railway. As to injuries by running over persons in the street, the penalty might be two years' imprisonment, and that was a severe punishment.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH: What, for killing a man?
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON: But surely there was a difference between killing: a man by running over him and killing him by murder; as also there was a distinction between both these cases and that of putting obstructions upon a railway. It appeared to him that the Bill would meet very many cases which occurred. He did not think there was anything to justify the strong censure which had been passed upon the Home Secretary.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYobserved, that the Bill would deprive magistrates acting singly of some of the jurisdiction which they now exercised, at least in Ireland. The Court of Petty Sessions for most purposes, except in the cases specially provided for, was constituted by one magistrate, who might thus deal with cases of common assault, and award punishment. But by the 44th clause of this Bill two justices would be required to exercise summary jurisdiction in cases of common assault, or even to take informations for the purpose of sending offences for trial.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that these Bills for the consolidation of the criminal law of the country were presented in their present mature state as the result of the labours of successive Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, for nearly thirty years, and if they now became law a great object would be accomplished. The objections raised by the noble Marquess were those which he had replied to before. Such acts as the noble Marquess described, if done maliciously, with intent to kill, would still be murder, and if done negligently with fatal consequences they would be manslaughter; it was, therefore, unnecessary to define them in this Bill. In reply to the suggestions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty), he would say that the Members of the Commission had taken the greatest care to discriminate between those cases where one justice only was required and the case which required two. He believed it would be found that the limits of the administration of the law by justices were satisfactorily defined.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought that if a public prosecutor were appointed a good deal of mischief might be prevented.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  The other six Bills having for the object the consolidation of the statute criminal law were also severally read 3a, passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTEST AGAINST THE PASSING OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
Dissentient,—
1. Because by the 33rd Clause of the Bill it is provided that placing wood, stone, or other thing on a railway, with intent to endanger the safety of passengers, shall be punishable on conviction merely with penal servitude for life, and the refusal to admit on Motion words "that should death ensue it shall be adjudged to be murder," seems unreasonable. The plea of objection to this, that the law is sufficient, seems to mo to have no force, for, by the second clause of the Bill, it legislates for the crime of murder in these terms, "Whosoever shall be convicted of murder shall suffer death as a felon," which is a practical admission of its necessity in the 33rd clause. Thus the refusal to amend the 33rd Clause as suggested stands in the light of a delusion if not a snare; the more so as the Bill was introduced to the House as a compendium to consolidate and amend all existing provisions of offences against the person, and to embrace all desirable improvements. Thus the clause confuses what the Bill proposes to simplify. It appears to mo that the offence which is the subject-matter of the 33rd clause must also of necessity result in the murder, not of one person only, but of many.
2. Because, by the 36th Clause of the Bill, the penalty of a misdemeanour is to be incurred by the drivers of all public carriages who shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, maim or injure any person, while the rejection of the provision to extend the same to the driving of all carriages whatsoever is an unreasonable reserve, made on the plea that, by common law, sufficient redress may be had.
This appears to be a conclusion inapplicable, as redress for such like injury should not be confined to pecuniary compensation; but even for that there is no public officer, called a Public Prosecutor, to initiate such proceedings for poor, or needy, or ignorant persons aggrieved.
But the public wrong should be vindicated also, where death or injury is inflicted by wanton or furious driving. That it is not so the returns before the House of 134 persons killed, and 1,827 persons maimed during the last 26 months within the Metropolis, too plainly show. It appears to me to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, with the means of obtaining the information contained in these Returns, no amendment of the law has been proposed to Parliament to restrain and diminish the recurrence of such offences. The present provisions in the Metropolitan Police Act and the City Police Act not extending beyond the maximum of a pecuniary fine of 40 s.—40 s. fine for wanton and furious driving, which experience shows is impotent.
It appears to me that a provident Government would propose to legislate against the person of an offender inflicting personal injury on another,
1204
instead of making a frivolous amercement upon his purse, which can always be paid for him by another, even by a participator in the offence charged against him. WESTMEATH.
House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.