Lords Sitting of 20 April 1866

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Bishop of Cashel.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland) (77).
Committee—East India Military, &c., Funds Transfer (75).
Report—Parliamentary Oaths Amendment (76).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (IRELAND) —LORD CHIEF JUSTICE LEFROY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to make a brief explanation of a personal matter connected with the observations which he had felt it necessary to make on the previous evening with reference to the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland and to the learned Chief Justice who presided over that tribunal. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Chelmsford) had reproached him for not having given notice of his intention to make the comments which he had made respecting that learned and venerable Judge. Now, the fact was that on last Tuesday night he had crossed the House and inquired of the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he was acquainted with any member of Lord Chief Justice Lefroy's family (one of whom now sat in the other House of Parliament), and suggested that the noble and learned Lord should communicate with that hon. Gentleman on the notice he had given, in order that the discussion might be fixed for any day which might be most convenient for the friends of the learned Judge. He did not, however, receive any intimation that a postponement was desired, and therefore he was not chargeable with having given no notice of the question to which he had last night felt it his duty to call their Lordships' attention. He might also say he had mentioned that he meant to bring the matter forward to the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that it was quite true that the noble Marquess had mentioned to him on Tuesday evening that he purposed bringing forward that subject; but he must confess that the whole matter had escaped from his recollection—and he begged pardon for that circumstance—until he read the noble Marquess' notice on the Votes on Thursday morning. Certainly, however, there was nothing in the terms of that notice which gave the slightest intimation that the noble Marquess would make the statement he had done in regard to the Lord Chief Justice of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench. The notice stated, among other things, that he would refer to "the state of the Court of Queen's Bench," which might have been taken to mean that he would allude to the ventilation of the court, or some similar matter.

  EAST INDIA MILITARY, &c., FUNDS TRANSFER BILL—(No. 75.)
  (Earl de Grey and Ripon.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Moved, That the House be now put into a Committee on the said Bill.—(Earl de Grey and Ripon.)
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he entirely approved the objects of the Bill, which was entirely in accordance with the spirit of the guarantee clause in the Act of Parliament, that the persons interested in the Military Funds of India should not suffer by the transfer of India to the Crown. Upon these grounds the present Bill was a matter of policy, because it must tend to the well-being of the social and moral condition of the army to tranquillize the minds of those who were interested in the administration of these Funds. He had no particular account of the Military Fund in Bombay. In Bengal it amounted to a very large sum. There was an unsettled account between the Government and the Fund of not less than £500,000. If the question of the exchange of India were decided in favour of the Fund, the Fund would be solvent; if otherwise, the condition of the Fund would be one of great difficulty. The Fund at Madras was decidedly solvent. He was informed that negotiations had taken place between the Directors of the Fund and the Indian Office, and that there was a disposition on the part of the Government of India to deal liberally with those interested in this Fund. It was the belief of the Government that under the Bill as it was originally laid upon the table, the Council of India would have ample power of dealing with this question. On looking at the Bill, however, he found that this would not be the case, and he had therefore prepared an Amendment enlarging the powers of the Council of India. To this Amendment he understood the noble Earl was prepared to accede. The Fund was one of the most complicated nature. It was understood by the administrators that honour, and not law, alone was to be their guide. They were, indeed, bound not to go to law, but to abide by the decision of the Court of Directors. The agents for these several Funds had, indeed, acted in the character of a friend—as the Lord Chancellor might act in the Court of Chancery in the interest of the widows and orphans who might come

  1753
  before the Court. Their position was thus very different from that of the Government. He thought it desirable in the first instance that the Government should make use of the existing machinery for administering the Funds, so that the claimants should not find any change in the mode of proceeding, and so that everything might be conducted in the same manner as hitherto, It must be understood that the applicants were either widows or orphans, who had often no friends to act for them, and these unfortunate persons would otherwise be compelled to employ agents of their own. He trusted that the noble Earl would adopt the existing machinery, at least for a time, until the Indian Office could form its own establishment, and until the clerks could learn the manner in which the Funds had been administered. The widows and orphans would thus find no change to their disadvantage. It was impossible in the face of what was going on not to apprehend that these Funds would be materially diminished at some future day.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl's Amendment, and merely rose to ask his noble Friend at what time he would lay before the public his scheme of compensation to Indian Officers.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was not in a position to give an answer to his noble Friend, but he hoped to be able to do so before long. The subject was now receiving his serious attention. With respect to the Bill, he was glad to find that it met with the approbation of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough). It was his desire and that of the Indian Council to deal with those who were interested in the Funds in the most liberal spirit, and he agreed with the noble Earl that it was not desirable to preclude the Council from giving greater advantages to the subscribers, if upon mature investigation it should be thought reasonable to do so. He therefore accepted the noble Earl's Amendment.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee; an Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to call Attention to the last Report
  1754
  of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom; and to ask how far Her Majesty's Ministers intend to Act upon the Recommendations contained in that Report; To ask also, Whether Negotiations have been opened with France to obtain reciprocal Advantages for the Fishermen of both Nations, as advised by the Commissioners; Further to inquire whether the Government proposed to amend during the present Session the Defects of the Irish Acts relating to Oyster-beds which recent Trials have made manifest. The noble Marquess said, the Report to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention was a very remarkable document, and well worthy the consideration of the House. The Commission was issued in 1863, and the Report had been only lately made, but it presented ample evidence of the zeal and assiduity with which the Commissioners had discharged their labours. The Report was in two volumes, consisted of 1,588 pages, most of them closely printed, and 61,000 questions had been put. He regretted to say that he could not agree in all the sweeping free trade recommendations of the Commissioners, although he was glad to find that those which related to the oyster fisheries of England and Ireland had been accepted by the Government, and he hoped they would be acted upon at once. With regard to oyster fisheries, the Commissioners state that—
  "The oyster fisheries in the bays and shallow waters along the coast have everywhere been represented to us as in a state of great depression, owing to the scarcity of oysters. In many places the oysters have within the last three years almost entirely disappeared. The valuable oyster fisheries off Jersey, which between the years 1855 and 1860 gave an annual return of from £30,000 to £40,000, have, during the last three years, produced from £3,000 to £4,000 a year only. In the estuary of the Thames the greatest scarcity prevails, and the price of the native oyster has move than trebled during the last four years."
  This was not merely a matter of £30,000 or £40,000, but it was one which involved a serious diminution of the food of the public; the price of oysters had trebled, and had really become quite beyond the means of the mass of the population. Their Lordships hardly knew to how great an extent fish was used on the tables of the people in this metropolis. In the Report a remarkable calculation was made which showed that very nearly as much fish was consumed in London as beef. That fact would probably astonish their Lordships, About 90,000

  1755
  tons of fish were brought yearly to the metropolis, of which there were some 80,000 tons of large fish, while whiting and small fish comprised the remainder. The Commissioners, while generally averse from legislation for free fisheries, recommended very strongly that a Bill (which, however, he did not think went far enough) should be passed upon this subject. They said—
  "While we do not consider it expedient to impose any general restrictions upon the fishing of inshore oyster or mussel beds, we strongly recommend that every legislative assistance be given to individuals or corporations who may desire to form private beds for oyster or mussel culture. In doing this it will be necessary to keep two objects in view. In the first place, to provide a means by which companies or individuals may easily acquire such a title to adequate portions of the sea bottom as may make it worth their while to expend capital in stocking and tending the fishery; in the second place, to see that in so doing pre-existing rights of fishery are not unduly interfered with, and especially that the property in the sea bottom so acquired does not extend so far as to confer a virtual monopoly of the whole productive area. We are disposed to think that the most convenient course would be to empower a public Board to grant lease's of the sea bottom after making proper inquiry into the circumstances of each case. Such power should only be exercised after proper notice to the public at the place proposed to be so dealt with, and with due consideration of the interests of the existing fishing population …. And it would be more satisfactory to the public of the place where such an appropriation might be contemplated, if proceedings were commenced before the Board, and an inquiry on the spot held by them, or by persons duly authorized by them."
  He should like to hear that a public Bill on the subject would be introduced very speedily, and he would suggest to the Government and to the Chairman of Committees that all Private Bills relating to oyster fisheries ought to be suspended until such a measure had been passed. There were now three or four Private Bills before Parliament affecting, he believed, the best oyster beds in the world, and the persons who had to defend their rights, and who wished to keep off those who were about to invade their grounds, would be put to great inconvenience and expense; while the Committees who were to adjudicate upon those rights could know nothing of what the public legislation on the question might soon be, and they might therefore insert regulations which might be found at variance with the general policy of the public laws. The consequence would be a contradiction and confusion which it was most desirable to avoid. It was
  1756
  a great hardship to the fishermen and poorer inhabitants who might be affected by the Private Bills to have to come before the Committees of Parliament when the matter might be regulated so much better by Public Bills. The greater part of the inquiries in connection with the subject ought to be conducted not in Committees of that House, but upon the spot where every means of obtaining information was at hand. A defect had been found in the Irish Fishery law which rendered some of the most important parts of it null and void. The matter to which he alluded had been brought to light on trials which had taken place in Sligo and Castlebar. It was there found that though the Board of Works had a right to grant licences, those licenses might be afterwards set aside unless the persons holding the licenses could prove that there was no public right—not at the time when the licenses were granted—but when the Act was passed. Of late years considerable sums had been invested in these speculations; but the business had been paralyzed in consequence of the decisions to which he referred, and nobody cared now to take any steps until the point in dispute was cleared up and the validity of the licenses fully established. Their Lordships who had looked at the Report must have been gratified at the general state of sea fisheries. It was, however, to him a matter of sincere regret to find that the evidence and statistics of the Irish sea fisheries laid before the Commission represented a very great falling off in the number of boats and men employed along the coast. A Return provided by the Irish Fishery Commissioners, and corrected by their last Report, showed that there were 19,883 vessels of all classes in 1845 (immediately before the famine), 15,932 in 1848 (immediately after the famine), and 9,300 in 1865: and that there were 93,073 men and boys employed in 1845, 70,011 in 1848, and 40,946 in 1865. The Return showed a diminution within the last twenty years of 10,583 boats and 52,127 men. While there had been this diminution in Ireland, in England and Scotland there had been a large increase every year. There was also a decrease in the number of vessels registered as in active employment in Ireland. In 1862 there were 2,338, and in 1865 there were only 805; and, of course, there was a similar falling off in the number of men employed. The trade of Ireland with foreign parts exhibited a similar decline. In 1862 1,105 vessels

  1757
  were entered inwards from foreign ports, and in 1864 only 924. It was too clear from these statements that there was a serious falling off in the trade of Ireland, and lie hoped the facts would arrest the attention of the Irish Government. It could be no matter of congratulation to Ireland or the United Kingdom that in twenty years there should be a diminution in sea-going men and boys to the number of 52,000. He hoped the Government, in dealing with the recommendations of the Commissioners, would establish a close time for oysters and prevent their being taken out of season. He hoped that Bills were in preparation, and that they would be produced early.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he was well acquainted with the oyster fisheries of Ireland, and was able to state that those fisheries which had been over-fished in order to stock new beds in the estuary of the Thames and elsewhere, had been greatly improved during the last two years by the lengthening of the close sea son, which the Fishing Commissioners had extended two months. After the famine, very many of the Irish fishing boats were allowed to go to decay; but of late the spirits and enterprize of the fishermen had somewhat revived; many new boats had been built, and these were of a superior description to those in use before.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that in Ireland there was a law for f regulating the close time; but there was none in England.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Government were fully sensible of the importance of the subject to which the noble Marquess had directed their attention. With regard to the recommendations of the Commissioners, it was impossible to give effect to more than a very few of them without coming to some understanding with the French Government respecting the alterations to be made in the existing Fisheries Convention with that Government, which would be in many respects affected by the changes which the Commissioners suggested. Negotiations had been entered into by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had already forwarded to the French Government a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, and called attention to the recommendations contained therein, Her Majesty's Government trusted that, when the French Government had considered the subject, the two Governments might be able to come to some conclusion
  1758
  with regard to the recommendations made He could not, of course, say how far the French Government might be disposed to assent to them, and could only say that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the oyster fisheries, which, no doubt, required considerable regulation, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners; the Bill was already in preparation, and he trusted that he would be able shortly to lay it before the House. No doubt some legislation was required upon the subject; but he believed the present deficiency in the supply of oysters was consequent upon a failure in the brood, the result of natural causes with which we were unacquainted, and which it was beyond the power of legislation to correct. Yet, by regulations, the present supply might perhaps be greatly increased.

  THE POOR LAW—STRAND UNION WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDsaid, he had addressed a communication to the President of the Poor Law Board, drawing his attention to the practice of Carpet-beating in the Strand Union Workhouse, and asking him to inquire into it, and had received a reply to the effect that immediate steps were to be taken to put a stop to it. But the practice still continued; it was an abominable nuisance; it filled the air with poisonous dust, the windows of the wards were compelled to be closed when ventilation was most needed, and the noise was distressing to those who were ill. Another and a more important Question was with reference to the number of cubic feet allowed in that workhouse to the unfortunate inmates, ft was hardly credible that the number of cubic feet in the infirm wards was only between 430 and 450. Even in the sick wards, where it was highly desirable that there should be sufficient space, there were only 780 feet; whereas the amount recommended by the Poor Law Board was upwards of 1,000 feet. In considering this matter it ought to be borne in mind that in the Strand Union-house only one-eighth of the number of inmates were ablebodied, the remainder being infirm. If it were not for the efforts made by the master and servants of the institution to make the inmates tolerably comfortable, things would be infinitely worse than they were. This workhouse

  1759
  furnished only one example of the miserable way in which the poor of the metropolis were treated. He trusted that the Poor Law Board would direct their attention to the improvement of the existing state of things. If necessary, further powers might be given to the Department in order to enable them to make proper arrangements for the poor. At all events, he trusted that attention would be at once given to the matter, and that prompt remedial measures would follow. The noble Marquess then asked Her Majesty's Government, What Explanation can be given for the Continuance of the Practice of Carpet-beating in the Strand Union Workhouse, notwithstanding the urgent Remonstrances made against it many Months since; whether any, and, if so, what Improvements have been made in the general Arrangements of the Casual Wards of that Workhouse respecting which Complaint was made at the time above-mentioned; and what Number of Cubic Feet of Air is apportioned to each Inmate of the ordinary wards of that Workhouse?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, he had received information from the Poor Law Board to the effect that the matter had been referred to the Workhouse Committee; who had stated, in reply, that no complaint had been made to the workhouse authorities either by the medical officer or any of the inmates. In reference to the second part of the Question, he might state that at the time referred to the Poor Law Board had not received any complaint on the subject of the casual wards. Since then, however, great improvements had been effected, and an extra ward added. The casual wards had also been put under the periodical inspection of the police, and three weeks ago all the arrangements appeared to be satisfactory. With regard to the number of cubic feet of air in the wards of the workhouse, he thought the noble Marquess had been misinformed as to the number of feet which the Poor Law Board deemed necessary. It was considered by them that 300 feet, and not 1,000 feet, as stated by the noble Marquess, was sufficient.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 76.)—(The Earl Russell.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that this Bill dealt with several statutes, partially repealing some and altogether repealing others, without any explanation of the provisions retained or repealed. This Bill had been undergoing alterations almost up to the present moment, and might perhaps be altered to a still greater extent before it became law. He begged to suggest that it might be worth while next Session to consider whether the portions of the statutes to be retained might not be consolidated with advantage. This Bill, he might remark, was a most important one; indeed, it was a corner-stone of our Parliamentary system.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he did not know that it would be necessary either now, or at any future time, to adopt such a course as the noble Earl had suggested.
  Report agreed to: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  DISEASED CATTLE—THE CATTLE DISEASES ACT,—QUESTIONS.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, in rising to ask the Lord President a Question respecting the arrangements made by the Privy Council for the experimental treatment of animals suffering from the cattle plague, said, that as the period for which the Cattle Diseases Act was passed had nearly expired, he thought it desirable that the public should be made acquainted with the result of its operation; and as some special circumstances had been brought under his notice, he had thought it right to put this Question to his noble Friend. Under the Act of Parliament passed this Session compulsory powers were given to slaughter all animals infected with the disease, and also animals which might have come in contact with them; and these powers had been delegated to the local authorities. The object was of course to put an end to the disease, or, in other words, to "stamp it out." The result had been that the disease was stamped out in certain districts, though at the cost of a considerable sacrifice of that description of property. The Act also gave power for the retention of cattle for experimental treatment—a most valuable power, no doubt, if properly exercised, with care that such animals were kept in proper places where the existence would not affect the cattle of other owners. It had recently been communicated to the magistrates of the Buckinghamshire Quar-

  1761
  ter Sessions, who had been exercising the powers for the compulsory slaughter of cattle, that without any notice to them certain cattle had been retained for treatment under very dangerous circumstances. It was stated, and stated correctly, that an Order in Council had been issued, which did not, however, appear in the Gazette, giving the power to retain animals for experimental treatment. And power was vested in the Privy Council, who had vested it in local authorities, who had again delegated it to certain individuals. It appeared to be the fact that ten animals were being treated in a yard from which the drainage ran into a neighbourhood where it was feared its effects might prove injurious. This yard was also in close proximity to a high road, and was not a place that would have been selected by the local authorities for the treatment of diseased animals. The people of the neigh-bourhood had no objection to experimental treatment when it seemed to offer a chance of saving animals; but they objected to the place in which such treatment had been applied to those ten animals. It would appear that those animals had been treated under the authority of the Royal Commissioners; and he, therefore, wished to ask the Lord President, What Arrangements have been made by the Privy Council for the experimental Treatment of Animals suffering from Cattle Plague, under the provisions of the Cattle Diseases Act; how many animals have been or now are under Treatment; and whether the Assent of the Local Authorities of the District had been obtained in such Cases, or any Communication made to them?
  EARL GRANVILLEhad not had an opportunity of communicating with the Royal Commissioners on the subject of the noble Duke's question. The Government had transferred the whole matter of such experiments to the Royal Commissioners, and had given them authority for the purpose of conducting their investigations. Very eminent men were on the Commission, and they had been conducting their inquiries with great assiduity. The Commissioners had thought it better not to communicate to the Government the results of particular experiments, but intended to reserve all for one Report, which, he believed, would be ready by the end of next mouth. That Report might make it necessary for the Government to order further experiments; but, at present, they thought it better to leave the matter in the hands
  1762
  of the Commissioners. Some applications had been made by individuals for permission to make experiments. Only two of those applications were of any importance. One was from Mr. Nicholls in Scotland; but the Privy Council did not think the case was one for exceptional powers, and they were confirmed in that opinion by the Secretary of the Aberdeen Association, which had shown such remarkable zeal in respect of the cattle disease, The other was from Baron Rothschild, and their Lordships were no doubt aware that Mr. Worms' treatment had been tried on animals belonging to that hon. Gentleman; but, from the information which had been received by the Privy Council, they were not led to believe that Mr. Worms' treatment was of a successful character. Unless the strongest grounds were laid for the application it would be impossible to give particular individuals a permission which was refused to the farmers generally. He would make inquiry of the Royal Commissioners on the subject of the case brought under their Lordships' notice by the noble Duke.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he desired to call the attention of their Lordships to an inconvenience under the Orders of the 24th of March. In them a most valuable provision was contained in Schedule C, by which no licence for the removal of cattle could be granted unless the owner of the cattle made a declaration that they had been on his farm for twenty eight days. There could be no objection to that; but the inconvenience arose in the case of calves, as the farmers had been in the habit of moving them at seven or eight days' old:—so that the Order now necessitated the killing of calves, as the farmers could not keep them. He should suggest that if any amended Orders were issued the point should be considered.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he understood the noble Duke who put the Question to say that in the case he referred to the Order had never appeared in the Gazette. Under the Act it was necessary it should be so published, otherwise it was valueless.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the observation of the noble Earl involved a legal point, but he did not think it was ever intended that a separate Order in Council should be made and published in the Gazette for each cow that had to be experimentally treated.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not suggest that, but the General Or-

  1763
  der affecting the retention of cattle for experimental treatment he understood had not been published. There was another point. He did not see in the Act any authority vested in the Privy Council to delegate to the Royal Commissioners or to any person their permissive power in respect to animals coming under the operation of the Act.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.