Lords Sitting of 16 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 2a Dublin Cattle Market; Education of Pauper Children; Retiring Pay, &c. (British Forces, India); Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act Amendment.

ITALY.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYrose to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Questions of which he had given him notice on a previous evening. His Questions related to certain recent extraordinary occurrences in Northern Italy. The recent liberation of prisoners in Naples might be regarded in either of two lights. It was either an indication that the Italian Government was desirous of maintaining the peace of Europe by the
626
observance of international obligations; or, n the other hand, it might be intended to have a bearing on the proceedings of Garibaldi and his friends, of which intelligence had been received within the last few days. L manifesto or proclamation, signed by Mazzini, had recently been published in Naples, the Italian text of which he held a his hand, in which Mazzini stated, that laving tried the experiment of an Italian monarchy under the House of Savoy, and laving found it a failure, he was determined to resume his old course of agitation. A letter recently published under he name of Garibaldi appeared rather to point to the direction which the projected expedition was intended to take; for it had been clandestinely circulated through he Venetian provinces, and it stated that 100,000 valiant men were at the gates, le wished therefore to know, Whether the noble Earl had received any information from Sir James Hudson on the subject; and whether he was prepared to lay the despatches containing it on the table of the louse. Also, whether he had received my report from our English Commissioners sent to examine into the state of the Neapolitan prisons; and, if so, whether he had any objection to lay it on the table?
EARL RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to produce any despatches of a public character which had been received from Sir James Hudson. With respect to what had occurred recently in Northern Italy, he must observe, that there was a Treat deal of obscurity in the reports regarding those events. Her Majesty's Government had not as yet received an official account of them. There was no doubt, however, that persons either authorized by Garibaldi, or using his name, had endeavoured to get up an expedition, whether intended for the Tyrol, or for Rome, or to cross the sea, he could not say; but certainly intended against a foreign and a friendly State. Those expeditions has been frustrated by the Italian Government, and certain persons connected with them had been arrested and sent to a fortress. It was stated that they had since been liberated, but he had received no information on the subject. No doubt he should soon receive an official account of the facts. The Italian Government, whether in answer to the representations of Her Majesty's Government, or to those of the Government of the Emperor of the French, had stated that they would use their best endeavours to prevent any such

627
expedition leaving their shores against any foreign Power. His noble Friend said, that a paper had been circulated by Garibaldi in Venetia promising the inhabitants the aid of 100,000 men. No doubt it was the expectation of the persons who got up this expedition that the Italian Government would be forced, willingly or unwillingly, to join in them, whether the expedition was intended to raise an insurrection in Hungary or the Danubian Provinces. He had not received any papers on the subject. No British Commissioner had been sent to inspect the prisons at Naples.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the proceedings referred to by his noble Friend near him wore contrary not only to the peace of Europe, but to the best interests of the kingdom of Italy. Those attacks, or pretended attacks, upon Austria, whether designed for the Adriatic or the Tyrol, could only be conceived and could only be attempted by persons profoundly ignorant of the interests of the kingdom of Italy. His belief was that General Garibaldi's name was often used without his consent or knowledge. At the same time he must say that, great as was his admiration for that distinguished person in his military capacity as a great partisan warrior, and admitting that he had performed great services as a partisan, he had not the same respect for him as a statesman. As for Mazzini, he had not the least respect for him either as a warrior or as a statesman. As a warrior, he had never exposed his person in any one way; and as a statesman, he was only engaged in conspiracies.

CANADA—EMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.—QUESTION.
LORD LYVEDENrose to ask the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, Whether he could give any information respecting a proceeding of an extraordinary nature which had recently occurred in the Canadian Legislature? That act was the rejection by the majority of that assembly of a Government measure for the embodiment of the Colonial Militia. Possibly the rejection of that Bill might be explained; but it appeared to him that this was a strange return for the promptness with which the mother country had sent out troops to Canada to support her interests at a time when they were seriously threatened. He wished to know whether the
628
noble Duke had received any despatches from the Governor General of Canada on the subject, and whether he was prepared to make any statement as to the causes which had produced this extraordinary act, an act that had caused a great sensation in this country.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord should ask for any information which I may possess on this important subject; but I am not in a position to give any further information than the noble Lord has gleaned from the newspapers, nor is it likely that it should be so, because your Lordships must see that the motives which have produced this result can only be matter of speculation and opinion, and could not well be the subject of a despatch from the Governor General, Lord Monck. I may, however, briefly recapitulate the facts in relation to this matter. It is well known to many of your Lordships that a Militia Bill passed through the Canadian Legislature seven or eight years ago; but owing to certain circumstances the militia force has only existed on paper, the measure not having been carried into effectual working. In consequence of the events of last winter, and of the earnest recommendations forwarded to Canada, a commission was appointed three or four months ago for the purpose of considering the whole of the militia arrangements of Canada with the view of amending them. That Commission consisted not only of Canadians but also of some British officers, who went over with the reinforcements in December, and the result was the introduction of a Bill, which was brought forward in the Legislature of Canada in the beginning of last month. The Attorney General, Mr. Cartier, moved the second reading of the Bill on the 20th of May, and a division was taken almost without discussion, which resulted in the rejection of the Bill by 61 to 54. The Ministers of the Governor General tendered their resignations on the following day, and they were accepted. The Governor General then sent for Mr. Sanfield Macdonald to form a Government, and he has succeeded in forming a new Administration. So far, I believe, the statements in the public prints are correct; but there is one incorrect statement. I have seen it stated in several papers that the result of this course was the dissolution of the existing Parliament. That is not so. Parliament has not been dissolved, so far as I have the

629
means of knowing, and I believe there is no intention on the part of the new Government to recommend the Governor General to resort to that step. The noble Lord says that this event has caused a painful feeling in this country. No doubt of it. And I believe the Canadian people are aware of the unfavourable impression which that act of the Legislature has produced in this country. I cannot distinctly state the reasons which led to this Vote, but I believe they were very mixed—twofold, at least. In the first place, there was an impression among many Members of the Canadian Legislature that the Militia Bill was not one which would be found to work well in that colony. They thought it had too much of the character of a conscription, and that the adoption of the Volunteer principle would be a more palatable and effective measure. I will not express my individual opinion, but to that feeling I believe has been superadded a personal feeling against the late Ministry. I believe that the Vote was regarded as a Vote of want of confidence in the late Government. But, speaking only as an Englishman, and as an ardent friend of Canada, I can but confess my deep regret, that if this was one of the motives which prompted the rejection of this Bill, such an inopportune occasion should have been chosen for manifesting it. I will not say whether such an opinion was justifiable or not; but after the events of last winter, and after the display of noble English feeling on the part of this country in at once sending out troops to Canada, I cannot help regarding this division as most inopportune and most unfortunate. At the same time I by no means despair of the disposition of the Government and Parliament of Canada to introduce and pass another Militia Bill as good and effective as that which has been rejected. Of this I am certain, that the Ministry and Parliament of Canada will not be acting in the spirit of the Canadian people if they do not pass such a Bill, for I am confident that both sections of Canadians—the French equally with the English population—arc most desirous that some measure should be passed before the coming winter for the effectual defence of Canada. So far as I am concerned I shall continue to give my earnest exhortation and advice to the Governor General and the people of Canada, both privately and officially, not to rest till some effective measure for the defence of Canada has been passed.

DUBLIN CATTLE MARKET BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF LEINSTER moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved as an Amendment that the second reading be postponed till that day three months. The Bill, he said, was a measure which, under the guise of a private Bill, dealt with great public interests and should be dealt with as a public Bill. It was proposed to establish another market in the east end of the city of Dublin, and to the site fixed on there was the strong objection that in order to roach it the cattle would have to be driven through the streets entirely across the city. The management of any market ought to be left in the hands of the Corporation, who were the proper parties to make regulations. There were many persons whose interests would be affected by the Bill, but who could not be heard before a Select Committee, and he thought that the best way would be that the whole subject should be inquired into by a Royal Commission in the same manner that a Royal Commission had inquired into the best mode of erecting markets for the metropolis. He had a petition, signed by 1,514 sellers in Dublin market, and fifteen other petitions, signed by 2,351 ratepayers of Dublin, against this Bill. He hoped such a strong expression of opinion on the part of those best acquainted with and most affected by this Bill would induce their Lordships to give their support to his proposal.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYtrusted their Lordships would not refuse the second reading, for to do so would render the inquiry into the subject by the other House of Parliament valueless. The Bill sought to remedy a great public evil and supply a great public want. The measure had been fully considered before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and entirely approved by them. The example of the inquiry by a Royal Commission for the metropolis was not analogous to the present case. In London the Committee of the House of Commons refused to name any particular site for the new markets, and suggested that a Royal Commission should be issued to make the necessary

  631
  inquiries. In the present case, however, the Select Committee had reported that the site proposed in the Bill was the hest that could be selected. The Corporation of Dublin acted like the dog in the manger in this matter, because they neither could nor would effect this necessary improvement themselves, nor allow any other persons to do it. He hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time. It would remedy a great abuse, and supply a large amount of required accommodation in the best possible manner.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid it was not their Lordships' practice to discuss private Bills on the second reading, and he thought they would not be disposed to depart from that course with regard to the present Bill from anything they had heard to-night. He did not mean to say that in no case should a Bill be opposed on that stage; but his noble Friend who moved the Amendment had stated nothing to take this Bill out of the usual rule. He trusted, therefore, the noble Earl who had opened the discussion would consent to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to go to a second reading.
  EARL GRANVILLE, with reference to a suggestion which had been made to refer this matter to a Royal Commission, observed that he was not prepared at once to adopt that course; but if the Bill were now read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and if that Committee recommended the issuing of a Royal Commission, he should then be prepared to accede to it.
  LORD CLONCURRYbelieved the Bill, if passed, would be most disastrous to the agricultural interests of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; Then the original Motion, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MERSEY, IRWELL, &c. PROTECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 4.
LORD PORTMANmoved the omission of the words "stones, brickbats," and to insert "the refuse of any brickyard," there being nothing in the evidence taken before the Select Committee to show that
632
any injury had resulted from the throwing if stones into the tributary streams of the Jersey and the Irwell.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobjected o the clause altogether, and wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the serious nature of the principle it involved. The clause proposed to alter the law by substituting a penal procedure for what, is far as it was the subject of law at all, lad hitherto been met only by a civil proceeding. This was a very serious change to make in an obscure clause in an obscure private Bill. The clause under consideration proposed to make it a penal thing to throw an obstruction into a stream, although that obstruction might be of a nature which would neither pollute the stream nor in the smallest degree interfere with the flow of the water down to the navigable river. In common reason the thing to be prohibited should be described to be something done in such a manner as to produce one or both of the two evils the existence of which it was the object of this clause to prevent. He trusted the clause would be so modified as to make it an offence only when the thing done was productive of injurious consequences.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the objection of the noble and learned Lord went to the entire Bill; but he was not quite accurate in stating that they were about to substitute a penal procedure for that which was, at the present moment, only the subject of a civil proceeding. Legislation had, in fact, been rendered absolutely necessary in the present case. It seemed there were a variety of tributary streams which poured their waters into the Mersey and the Irwell, and on those tributaries there where many hundreds of manufactories which had been in the habit of depositing near the adjacent streams, or throwing into them, certain refuse, to be carried in successive floods down to the navigable streams the Mersey and Irwell. The navigation had been very much impaired in consequence. In fact, the evil had increased to such an extent that in 1859 there were 27,000 tons of refuse sent down to the navigation; in 1860, there were 63,000 tons; and in 1861, 92,000 tons. There could be no doubt that any person who sustained a private injury might bring an action against the party to whom such injury was attributed; but the difficulty in the present case was to ascertain to whom the injury was to be

633
ascribed. Of course, supposing they could bring home to any individual the fact that he had impeded the public navigation, he would be liable to an indictment; but it was clear in this case that the mischief was acknowledged, and that no practical remedy existed. What therefore were they to do? The Bill merely proposed to give the parties the means of preventing the mischief which was acknowlegded, by making it a penal offence to throw materials into those streams which might be carried down to the navigation of the Mersey and Irwell. This was not the first time that such a provision had been introduced into a private Bill. Penal clauses, under similar circumstances, had been introduced into the Bolton Improvement Act of 1854, the Salford Improvement Bill, the River Navigation Act, and the Mersey Docks Act, 1858. He therefore apprehended their Lordships would not think there was anything in the objection of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdeclined to discuss the principle of the Bill, but supported the Amendment, the whole of the evidence showing that the only things complained of were cinders.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that what he contended for was simply that the act done and described in the Bill as constituting an offence should be regarded as an offence only in the event of it being attended with the pollution of the waters of any particular stream or an obstruction of its navigation.
THE EARL OF DERBYsupported the clause, maintaining that the penalties which it proposed to inflict were imposed by a number of provisions in existing Acts.
Clause amended, and agreed to.
Clause 9 struck out.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Report of the Amendments to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended [No. 105].

EDUCATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN BILL— [BILL No. 94.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it had been sent from the other House where it had received careful consideration. Its object was to enable boards of guardians to provide education for pauper children in
  634
  certain cases in which, as the law at present stood, they could not now do so. It was universally admitted that pauperism could not be checked until they nurtured the children in habits of self-reliance, independence, and morality, and that those qualities were only to be cultivated by a proper system of education, separate and apart from the workhouse system. He was not disposed to deny that in a considerable number of workhouses everything which could be done was done for the education of pauper children; but it was well known to all who took an interest in the question that a workhouse was a place in which the education of a child could only be carried out under most disadvantageous circumstances. By the first clause the guardians were empowered to send any poor child to certain certified schools, supported by private individuals, and to pay for their maintenance while there a sum not exceeding the average cost of a child in the union. No child, unless an orphan or deserted, could be sent to such a school without the consent of the parents; nor could it be kept at the school longer than the parents were willing. No child was to be sent to any school conducted on principles of a religious denomination to which the child did not belong. The noble Earl said, that if the measure was read a second time, he should propose a clause in Committee limiting the operation of the Bill to England. He recommended the measure to their Lordships as an important auxiliary to the Poor Law in a difficult part of its operation.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  After a short discussion, in which Lord LYTTELTON and the Earl of HARROWBY took part,
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he would not object to the second reading, but he did not think that the Bill would be attended with all the advantages expected from it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

HER MAJESTY'S ACCESSION.
THE EARL OF DERBYasked, whether it was proposed that the House should sit on Friday next, the anniversary of Her Majesty's accession?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had been informed by the officers of the

635
House that it was an invariable rule of their Lordships not to sit on that day.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL— [BILL No. 70.]

  THIRD READING PUT OFF.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNobjected to a measure which proposed to sanction an agreement that was not set forth. In Bills of this kind, involving large sums of money, the agreement should be included in a schedule.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the agreement with the new Company had been laid before Parliament, and had been some months before the House. The Bill was not for the purpose of giving validity to the entire of that agreement, but simply to sanction the transfer of the cable and other property from the old to the new Company, and the conversion of the £36,000 into annuities. It was a Bill to make the best of a bad bargain.
  LORD LYVEDENhoped the noble Duke would postpone the third reading, and consider in the mean time whether the agreement could not be introduced into the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbelieved that the agreement with the new Company was a sensible one, and the question of scheduling it was a mere matter of convenience.
  LORD REDESDALEremarked, that the transfer of the property was made at a certain price, and that price was not mentioned in the Bill, as he thought it ought to be.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was really a question of form. The bargain had been made, and the only point was whether it would be advisable that the agreement with the new Company should be scheduled. He did not think it was, but he was willing to postpone the third reading for a week or ten days to obtain further information.
  Third Reading put of to Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.