Lords Sitting of 26 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On River Shannon (Navigation and Drainage) The Marquess of Lansdowne added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Union Chargeability * (122); Partnership Amendment * (123); General Post Office (Additional Site)* (124); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment * (125); Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment * (126).
Second Reading—Parsonages* (119); Locomotives on Roads (108); Clerical Subscription (111); County Voters Registration* (116); County of Sussex * (114).
Select Committee—On Sewage Utilization * (80), appointed. (List of Committee.)
Referred to Select Committee—Locomotives on Roads (108.)
Report—War Department Tramway (Devon) * (74); Police Superannuation * (95); Pilotage Order Confirmation * (67).
Third Reading—Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* (68); India Office (Site and Approaches) * (69); Pheasants (Ireland) * (109); Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees * (96), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [28 Vict. c. 30]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000) [28 Vict. c. 29]; Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation [28 Vict. c. 26]; Isle of Man Disafforestation (Compensation) [28 Vict. c. 28]; Private Bill Costs [28 Vict. c. 27].

ST. TITUS CHURCH, LIVERPOOL.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY presented a petition from the inhabitants of St. Titus, Liverpool, praying their Lordships to ap-

  861
  point a Committee to examine into the causes wherefore the Church of St. Titus, Liverpool, continues closed, with the view to its immediate opening. The petitioners stated that the parish being a very large one a great want of church accommodation had been felt; and in the year 1863 a gentleman commenced collecting subscriptions, and the church was built, on the understanding that the seats were to be entirely free, and the patronage of the church vested in trustees. Subsequently a difference of opinion had arisen between the Bishop of the diocese and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the latter point, and the church still remained unconsecrated.
  THE BISHOP OF CHESTERbriefly vindicated his share in the matter. It was necessary that the consent of the patrons of the parish should be obtained to the vesting of the patronage of the new church in trustees. He had written to the patrons to procure that consent, but up to the present moment had received no answer, and according to his invariable rule he had declined to act in the matter. He believed that the trustees, however, might have carried out their object through the instrumentality of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were empowered by Act of Parliament to give notice to the patrons, and after a certain time to act. As the petition appeared to convey the impression that the building of new churches in the diocese of Chester did not receive encouragement from the quarter from which it might be expected, he might be permitted to say in justice to himself that since his appointment to the diocese he had consecrated seventy-eight new churches, and ten more were now in preparation for consecration. He mentioned these facts not out of personal vanity, but in justice to the zeal of the diocese over which he had the honour to preside.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERfelt it necessary to add only a very few words with regard to the proceeding of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whom on that occasion he represented. He could say that no unnecessary delay had occurred in the matter. In consequence of the existence of a local Act it had been found necessary to take the opinion of counsel as to the course which should be recommended. The Acts relating to the building of churches were of themselves sufficiently complicated in their provisions; but the difficulties were greatly increased when
  862
  they came in contact with local Acts. It was therefore necessary to proceed with the greatest care and caution. He had every reason to believe that no further avoidable delay would take place.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was daily receiving letters complaining of the complicated state of the Church Building Acts. The obstructions were, in fact, so great that many persons willing to increase the number of sacred edifices were deterred from doing so by the difficulties thrown in their way by the state of the law. He begged to suggest to the noble Earl who represented the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they should set to work and simplify the Acts relating to this subject.

IMPERIAL GAS BILL—SECOND READING.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD RAVENSWORTHhoped their Lordships would not consent to the second reading of this Bill. It had excited the greatest consternation in the whole neighbourhood, on which it would inflict both injury and injustice, without being productive of the slightest public convenience. The original capital of the Company was £1,200,000, and it was now sought to increase the capital to £2,100,000, with borrowing powers to the extent of £886,000, and a land acreage of 150 acres. Even with its existing powers, this was one of the largest gas companies in the world. His first objection to the Bill was that the proposed extension of these works would greatly add to the pollution of the atmosphere, and the consequent injury to health, which they already occasioned to a neighbourhood the population of which was rapidly increasing. The right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocese had lately pointed out that the important Training College of St. Marks, on which no less than £50,000 had been expended, was not 100 yards distant from these works, and that the noxious vapours emitted from them were very deleterious to the inmates of that institution. The air was poisoned, and the property—whole streets of houses and garden ground—was much injured. A person passing these works at night might imagine that there was some serious conflagration in the neighbourhood. Another objection which he had to urge to the measure was that

863
it would aggravate the evils of a most gigantic monopoly extending over a vast area, under which, the public had no remedy whatever, however impure and defective the quality of the gas supplied to them might be. Moreover, the works of the Company were situated at a distance of not more than 150 yards in a direct line from the Thames, into which much of their foul refuse found its way. On all these grounds he must protest against granting them the power to double their present works for which they now asked, and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be read the second time that day three months.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now") a and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Lord Ravensworth.)
LORD PORTMANsaid, it was a very unusual course to attempt to throw out a Bill of that kind on the second reading, and not allow it to undergo careful consideration in a Select Committee when the promoters might be able to offer an explanation of the charges made against them. The promoters of the measure had sought an interview with the right hon. Prelate (the Bishop of London) in order to clear up some misconceptions under which he appeared to labour in regard to that Bill, and to explain to him certain facts which he had incorrectly stated; but the right rev. Prelate had not complied with their request. In his opinion, however, when a Peer of Parliament made an inaccurate statement affecting a public company in a case like that, he ought not to refuse to hear their explanation. Instead of making a demand for 150 acres, which might have been enough to frighten the right rev. Prelate and all their Lordships, the entire space required by the Company only consisted of three plots of nine acres, fourteen acres, and thirteen acres respectively—in all thirty-six acres, instead of the 150 alleged the other night by the right rev. Prelate. The Company could not now legally discharge their refuse into the Thames, and that Bill would not give them any power to do so—they would still remain liable to the penalties inflicted by the existing law. As to their having a monopoly, not long ago Parliament decided that the metropolis should be divided into separate districts, which should be supplied by certain companies. The number of houses in the particular district assigned to that Company had so greatly increased
864
that they were absolutely compelled to enlarge their works in order to supply its wants. Therefore on public grounds he asked their Lordships not to refuse to read the Bill a second time. In Committee, however, the Bill might be thoroughly sifted and safeguards introduced, if found necessary, to protect private rights. If justice were not done after all, their Lordships, if they thought fit, might reject the Bill on the third reading.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that as the noble Lord seemed to impugn his conduct in not giving a hearing to the gentlemen representing the Company, he begged to state that in answer to their letter he wrote to them to say that he was ready to see them in presence of his legal secretary; and after that, having received another letter, in which they made certain statements similar to those now made by the noble Lord, he referred them a second time to his legal secretary, and he believed that an interview took place. It was difficult to ascertain in what proportions this nuisance was to be divided among the several parishes; but as to his statement of 150 acres he begged to point out to their Lordships that the ground they already occupied or asked to take amounted to fifty acres, and that there was a clause in the Bill which enabled them to acquire 100 additional acres. The parish in which this Company's works were situated in the east of London was an example of what might happen to Fulham or Chelsea if this Bill passed into law. There was a time when Bow Common was a pleasant place, but now there was no place which was more avoided than the Common of Bow by persons of sensitive organs. If Fulham and Chelsea were reduced to the condition of Bow Common, not only all the residents of those parishes, but all the inhabitants of the metropolis would have reason to complain. He was given to understand that there were various ways in which gas might be manufactured, and that one of these was at an increased cost of manufacture, but at a decrease of nuisance to the neighbourhood. It was an important public question whether the Companies should be allowed to manufacture gas in the mode most destructive to the health of the metropolis. They were told that this Company would not use its powers to their full extent, and that the law made it impossible that they could adulterate the Thames; but he had had experience of such

865
impossibilities. They consisted in this—that for a very small penalty the Company could violate the law, and in cases in which it was cheaper to pay the penalty and violate the law, the penalty was paid. He had formerly had the misfortune to live near a railway station, where the engines were required to burn coke instead of coal; he saw the law evaded, and the engines burning coal, and when complaints were made the Company laughed at them. He understood that Fulham and Chelsea would not derive any benefit from this increase in the manufacture of gas. The gas was intended for places at a distance. He admitted that for the public benefit there must be gas companies, but he maintained that the manufacture of it ought to he so regulated as not to become a public nuisance. To show the strength of these powerful gas companies, he had heard that the Thames Embankment had been stopped by one of them in consequence of its demands for compensation. If the noble Lord divided the House, he would vote for the rejection of the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEthought that the House should, in this case, follow the usual course and refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where all the clauses and details would undergo consideration. If the Select Committee failed to secure sufficient protection for the public—a thing that had not occurred within his experience—the Bill could still be rejected on the third reading.
EARL GREYsaid, that the Bill before the House involved consideration of great public importance which could scarcely be finally or satisfactorily decided upon by a Committee of five Members of their Lordships' House. The proposal came before the House, backed by a powerful company, whereas the opponents were private individuals who had no organization suited to bring their case effectively before the Committee. It was evident that the manufacture of gas in towns was in itself a nuisance, and it ought to be ascertained whether the manufacture of gas could not he carried on at a distance from the towns. In reference to such a Bill as the present, he thought that some public Department ought carefully to consider the whole subject, and place their conclusions before the Select Committee, without imposing on private individuals the burden of conducting a protracted opposition to the scheme of a powerful company. With respect to
866
the works of this kind, he regarded the Select Committees of both Houses as most unsatisfactory tribunals, and yet under the name of Private Bills questions of the greatest public importance were decided by those Committees. What was wanted was some kind of tribunal to decide upon Bills which, under the name of Private Bills, sought to authorize works of a public nature, and by which the public health was likely to be affected. In the case of gas companies and water companies competition was impracticable, and any attempt at competition always ended in some compromise at the expense of the public. It would, therefore, be sound policy to adopt the course followed in certain towns, and leave the supply of gas and water to some public body acting on the part of the inhabitants.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should be sorry if a different course was pursued in the present case than that which was usual with other Private Bills. The question was a difficult one, hut the case for the Company was that the works which they sought to erect were on a site on which they had carried on the manufacture of gas for thirty-five years. If they went to a new place they would only extend the nuisance to that district. There was no doubt but that improvements were taking place in the manufacture of gas, and others might be made, and that the entire subject could be regulated by a Public Act similar to that carried by Lord Derby for restraining the nuisance of alkali works. The Imperial Gas Company had three other establishments in the metropolis for the manufacture of gas, and the 100 acres sought under the Bill were not likely to be required at Chelsea or Fulham. At Fulham already they had nine acres on which gas was manufactured, and they had power to erect additional works on thirteen acres. As they could not prevent the Company from erecting works on the lands over which they had powers, it would be better if the residents in the district would go before the Committee and have such clauses inserted in the Bill as might be thought advisable for the protection of the district likely to be affected by it.
After some observations from Lord RAVENSWORTH and Lord LYTTELTON,
On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided;—Contents 43; Not-Contents 46: Majority 3:—Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2ª this Day Six Months.

CONTENTS.

Cambridge, D.

Belper, L.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bolton, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Cleveland, D.

Camoys, L.

Somerset, D.

Chelmsford, L.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Ailesbury, M.

Cranworth, L.

Belmore, E.

Ebury, L.

Caithness, E.

Foley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Chichester, E.

Lyveden, L.

De Grey, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Granville, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Grey, E.

Harrowby, E.

Portman, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Redesdale, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Rivers, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Spencer, E.

Stanhope, E.

Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

Eversley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Sydney, V.

Taunton, L. [Teller.]

Aveland, L,

Truro, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dublin, Archp.

Winchester, Bp.

Westmeath, M.

Castlemaine, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Amherst, E.

Bandon, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Cardigan, E.

Denman, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Digby, L.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

Dinevor, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Home, E,

Mayo, E.

Dusany, L.

Powis, E.

Feversham, L.

Romney, E,

Houghton, L.

Verulam, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Hawarden, V.

Polwarth, L.

Lifford, V.

Raglan, L.

Melville, V. [Teller.]

Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

Strathallan, V.

Rollo, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Sherborne, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Silchester L. (E. Longford.)

Chichester, Bp.

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanriearde.)

London, Bp.

Wentworth, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wynford, L.

Ripon, Bp.

LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL—(No. 108.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was to amend an Act passed in the 24th and 25th of the present reign for the purpose of restricting and regulating the use of locomotives on highways, by
  868
  striking out certain clauses and inserting fuller provisions. The traction engine was a very powerful machine, capable of drawing a great weight; but, at the same time, it was from its nature the cause of much alarm to horses and other animals. On this consideration the 24 & 25 Vict, gave to the Secretary of State power to prohibit or restrain, on the representation of the local authorities, the use of the engine in any locality where it might be attended with danger. The effect of this provision was that the Secretary of State had been appealed to so frequently to exercise this power that a valuable mode of traction was now almost entirely put a stop to. The present Bill attempted to provide a remedy for that state of things. It proposed, among other things, to repeal the 5th clause of the former Act, which gave to the Secretary of State the power which he had described; then the 9th clause, which provided that two persons should be always present with the locomotive; and the 11th, which enacted that the rate of speed should not be more than ten miles in the country and five miles in the town. By the present Bill it was proposed that, instead of two persons, three should be in charge of the engine, one of whom must always be sixty yards in advance, in order to warn the public, and stop the engine when it should be thought necessary. The driver was not to be permitted to sound his whistle for any purpose whatever, or to blow off his steam when the locomotive was on the road. He was also to take care that there should be plenty of space to enable vehicles to pass and to stop whenever signalled to do so by any person using a horse or carriage on the road. The engine was also to carry two efficient lights in front from sunset to sunrise. It was further enacted that a locomotive should not travel at a greater speed than four miles an hour on any turnpike road, or two miles an hour in any town; that no engine shall exceed 9 feet in width and 14 tons in weight. Instead of being placed under the control of the Secretary of State, those engines were in towns to be put under the charge of the local authorities; in the City of London, under that of the Court of Aldermen; and in the metropolis, under the Board of Works. He thought the magistrates in the country should have a corresponding power. If the Bill passed into law, it was to be read together with the former Act, and both were to constitute one Act.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that his noble Friend had stated very clearly the objects of the Bill, but he had passed over the objections to it. The Act which the present Bill proposed to consolidate and amend was in itself objectionable; but inasmuch as the present Bill proposed to remove some of the most valuable restrictions and safeguards with which the Act was guarded, the legislation proposed seemed of much more questionable expediency. In the original Act it was provided that the Secretary of State should have the power of prohibiting or restricting the use of those engines on common roads wherever they were found to be dangerous or inconvenient. That clause was distinctly proposed to be repealed by the Bill; but the House ought to pause before sanctioning so dangerous a proceeding. When they came to consider the precautions provided by the Bill the case did not seem to be much improved. The first was that three persons should accompany the engine, and that there should be a combination of arrangements by which the man in front should signal with his hand to warn those who were approaching, and also to indicate to the driver that he was to stop. The man was not to be more than sixty yards in front; but, under the terms of the provision, he might be not more than five or ten yards, and therefore quite unable to provide against danger; and if so, what became of the safeguard which was to be provided? There was an absolute diminution of safety. Then it was provided that the engine should give as much space as possible, so as to allow vehicles to pass. But inasmuch as those engines were 9 feet wide, it would be exceedingly difficult in the narrow roads which were to be found in so many parts of the country to find any available space for the passage of vehicles. It was forbidden that the drivers should blow off steam; but it was not necessary that the engines should consume their own smoke, and it was quite as dangerous that one of those monsters should puff its smoke in the face of a spirited horse as that the driver should let off the steam. And then the provision with respect to lights appeared only to augment the elements of danger. The precautions, in short, were too elaborate to be practicable, the penalty of £5 was too small, and it would be exceedingly diffi-
  870
  cult to prove a violation of the law. Under these circumstances, he should strongly recommend his noble Friend to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where it might be considered together with the Act now in force, and a measure might be the result which would be free from the objections which he had pointed out.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, his original inclination was to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; for, objectionable as the present Act might be, the Bill now before the House, by taking away his powers from the Secretary of State, was still more objectionable. Under all the circumstances, however, he thought it would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as it appeared that its objects and the nature of the provisions of the present Act were not very well understood by their Lordships. At the same time he was convinced that alterations like those proposed by the Bill were very much required. In the first place, the restriction of the hours of travelling to the hours between twelve o'clock at night and six in the morning rendered it almost impracticable to use these machines for agricultural purposes. For instance, it was exceedingly difficult to get the machines into the fields in the darkness of night. He had two machines of his own; but, as his farms laid five miles apart, if the restriction he had mentioned was enforced he should be obliged to abandon the use of these engines. If the Act regulating the travelling of locomotives was allowed to remain unaltered it was impossible that the farmers should bring them into general use. Therefore, while he approved the suggestion to send the Bill to a Select Committee, he also entertained a decided opinion that such a Bill as this was absolutely necessary.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDpointed out that this Bill was an instance of an evil which he had pointed out in other legislation. Clauses and parts of clauses were repealed without any intimation of their effect—other provisions were inserted referring to the provisions of former Acts; and the several Acts were directed to be read together. For instance, in the 5th clause it was provided that "the wheels of such locomotive be constructed according to the requirements of the said recited Act," so that the new Act could not be understood without reference to the former

  871
  Act, a great part of which was repealed. He could not understand why, in cases of this kind, the existing Acts should not be repealed altogether, and the enactments intended to be continued inserted in the new Bill, so that every Act should be complete in itself.
  THE EARL OF CAITHNESSwished, as one who had had experience in the management of locomotives on common roads, to say a few words. He had himself driven an engine from Inverness to John o'Groat's, a distance of 160 miles, without frightening a single horse. He had no doubt frightened many people; but any horse that had been alarmed had been so by the efforts made to get it out of the way so that it might not see the engine, which was thought to be a very formidable object. When a carter saw the engine coming the first thing he did was to seize hold of his horse's head and give it a tremendous shaking. To say that these engines could travel upon common roads free from the danger of frightening horses would not be correct; but if they were driven with proper care, and with proper regard to what might be met upon the road, he believed that they could pass along with perfect safety. He thought that the provision that there should be a man sixty yards in front of the engine was a good one; but still if the driver would do as he (the Earl of Caithn e) had done when he saw a horse ahead—shut off the steam—that would be all that was required. To show the importance of these engines he would mention that the cost of haulage was as ten to one in favour of engines as compared with horses. He was much more in favour of locomotives travelling by day than by night, for by night he thought that accidents were most likely to occur. He thought that power should be given to some authority to place certain restrictions upon the use of these engines; but still some of the restrictions which now existed tended to prevent farmers from making use of them. Mr. Howard, of Bedford, had informed him that he had driven locomotives on common roads for years without any accident; and any carelessness on the part of drivers could be guarded against by penalties. Another point to consider was, that one of these engines could draw forty tons within the space of the engine, while with horse power they would want a team of thirty or forty horses covering the space of a quarter of a mile. Sometimes railways ran fifty or sixty miles by the side of the
  872
  common road, and he never knew a case in which horses had been frightened by the engines, and surely locomotives travelling on common roads were not so dangerous as railway engines travelling on the railway at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour. He supported the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; for lie thought that if undue obstructions were thrown on the travelling of these engines on the roads the farmers would be compelled to abandon the use of them.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that in deference to the wishes of their Lordships he would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And on Monday, June 12, the Lords following were named of the Committee—

  D. Richmond.

  E. Romney.

  D. Sutherland.

  V. Melville.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Eversley.

  E. Caithness.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Hardwicke.

  L. Rossie.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  And on Tuesday, June 13, L. Harris added in the Place of D. Sutherland, E. De Grey in the Place of L. Stanley of Alderley, and E. Ducie, V. Strathallan, L. Calthorpe, and L. Wenlock added.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL.

  (NO. 111.)—SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, said, he would remind their Lordships that in consequence of the frequent discussions that had taken place on the subject of Clerical Subscription, Her Majesty's Government had thought it expedient to issue a Commission to inquire into the subject. The Commission was a very numerous one. It comprised many Members of their Lordships' House, four Archbishops, some other clergymen, and several laymen; and he might, he believed, say that the composition of that Commission inspired general confidence. Great attention was given to the subject, and he was happy to say that the conclusions to which the Commission came were the result of the unanimous opinion of the Members. The present Bill was founded on the recommendations of the Commission, and he hoped that it would meet with that reception at their Lordships' hands to which he believed if was fully entitled. It was the source ot much satisfaction to Her Majesty's Go-

  873
  vernment that the Bill had met with the concurrence of so many members of the Church of England. Although the Government did not think it necessary to consult Convocation upon the subject, he might say that the Convocation of York had addressed a memorial to the Queen, praying that legal measures might be taken for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, who apparently had not observed that the Question had been put and agreed to, rose to address the House; and His Grace was, by the indulgence of the House, allowed to be heard, and said, that he rose not to make any observations on the Bill, but having been Chairman of that Commission to which his noble Friend had referred, he was anxious to express his great satisfaction that the Government had brought forward a Bill so entirely in concurrence with the Report of that Commission. It certainly was a matter of congratulation, that considering the Commission was composed of persons representing every shade of opinion, political as well as religious, within the pale of the Church of England, their recommendations should have been unanimous. The Commission was appointed to consider and revise the various subscriptions and declarations made by the clergy consistently with the declared agreement made by the clergy in the Church and its formularies. That they had endeavoured by the Report to do. There was, no doubt, a great multiplicity of subscriptions and declarations, and it had been endeavoured to bring them all under one form. He could not imagine that their Lordships would find any difficulty in giving the Bill a second reading.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving that the Second Report from the Select Committee on the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod be considered, desired to direct their Lordships' attention to the present large amount of Public and Private business before Parliament. As yet only twelve Bills had received the Royal
  874
  Assent, and there were a great number of Bills coming up from the other House. The number of Private Bills in their Lordships' House was unusually great, and an extraordinary number would probably be sent up from the other House at the very end of the Session. As their Lordships had determined not to give a second reading to any Private Bill after the 29th of March, it was necessary that they should make some arrangement for the proper despatch of the business. As the gentleman who had been connected with this Department for thirty-two years was not now equal to the great amount of work which would devolve upon him, he hoped their Lordships would consent to his receiving the temporary assistance of some barrister at a remuneration not exceeding 200 guineas.
  Report considered, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.