Lords Sitting of 24 April 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Cattle Assurance* (83); Local Government Supplemental* (84).
Second Reading—Qualification for Offices Abolition (41); Forsyth's Indemnity Public Offices (Site)* (67).
Select Committee Report—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* (85).
Report—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* (86).
Third Reading—Forsyth's Indemnity*; East India Military, &c, Funds Transfer* (75), and passed.

NAVY.
  HER MAJESTY'S SHIP "OCTAVIA."

    QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that seeing the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, he wished to put a Question to him arising out of the intelligence just received from India to the effect that Her Majesty's Ship Octavia, at Bombay, had 175 of her crew ill with small pox. He wished to know, What steps the Government took on board of Her Majesty's Ships for the purpose of guarding against the outbreak and spread of that disease?
    THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it was correct that intelligence had been received that 175 men of the crew of the Octavia had suffered small pox. Previous to 1864, general instructions were issued requiring every medical officer in the navy to take proper steps to prevent the outbreak of this disorder as far as possible; or if it should break out, to check its further progress. But in April, 1864, the Government issued a circular in which it was provided that in future no person should be entered for the service of the Royal Navy unless he had either been vaccinated or was willing to submit to that operation. It was also directed, that every man or boy in the service who had not had small pox, or had not been vaccinated, should be sent to hospital to have the operation performed, and that he should be vaccinated on board ship at the earliest opportunity. He believed that the outbreak had arisen in this particular ship from some Kroomen having been taken on board; but from the accounts which had been received, he was happy to find that most of the cases had been of a very mild character, owing probably to the fact that the men had been previously vaccinated.

  WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
    LORD REDESDALE,in moving that the House do resolve into a Committee on the said Bill, said, that the Bill proposed to extend the Works of the Company to St. John's, Hampstead, Willesden, and other places. The area of supply was therefore greatly extended, and might demand a great increase in the water taken from the Thames. The Company had, at present, power to take 20,000,000 gallons of water from the Thames daily; but they only took 8,000,000 gallons on the average. The wants of the various Companies which derived their supply from the river were every year increasing, and in summer time the quantity, taken from the river materially affected the flow of the stream. He thought that the Government and others interested ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject; and therefore, under the powers vested in him as Chairman of Committees, he decided that this was a Bill which ought to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. It was obvious that the supply of water in the Thames was by no means excessive, and it was desirable that new districts should look to new sources rather than the old ones.
    Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
    EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him that the Bill raised a question of great importance—a question of far greater extent than the effect of the mere Bill itself. London was daily increasing in size, and the whole system of municipal affairs for the government of the metropolis appeared to him to be utterly breaking down. The time had, he thought, come when Parliament ought to consider whether some better system could not be devised, and whether some better authority could not be appointed for the management of these local affairs. Both Gas and Water Bills were at present transferred from the proper municipal authority to joint-stock companies, which were very apt to abuse their powers, and to consider the interests of their shareholders rather than those of the public. This was a serious and growing evil, and the House had a right to expect from the Government some distinct

    1977
    statement of their views on this subject, Did the Government mean that the Legislature were to drift on as they were now doing, passing Private Bill after Private Bill, without result; or did they contemplate that, if not this year, still that next year some larger measure of municipal reform should be attempted? If so, would I it not be prudent to insert a clause in these Pills for the protection of the public, and with a respect to any claims for compensation which might hereafter be raised? He could not but think that the Government greatly neglected their duty if they failed to look to these questions of public interests, and to offer their advice to Parliament thereupon.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not very well answer the question of the noble Earl with regard to the great municipal reform of the metropolis. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that this was a very largo and important question. No doubt, there were great evils in the present state of things, and it was very desirable to have more united action in municipal affairs. It was, however, a very difficult question to deal with, and the Government would not be justified in bringing in a measure of the kind desired by his noble Friend without seeing their way very clearly. With regard to the Bill before their Lordships it laid down no very new principle, although the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had, no doubt, exercised a sound discretion in stating the circumstances. The Bill did little more than confirm the legality of certain Acts which were rather doubtful. It gave no authority to the company to take a single gallon more water from the Thames then they were at present entitled to take. He did not see why they should object to this Bill if it only confined powers to the company which they already possessed.
    LORD RAVENSWORTHwas understood to say that the district to which this Bill referred had been to a great extent drained of its natural supply of water by the effect of the main sewerage system.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he quite agreed with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) that this Bill involved a very large and important question. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had exercised his usual judgment and discretion in bringing the Bill before a Committee of the Whole House; but their Lordships could, he thought, hardly refuse to pass it. The
    1978
    Bill had been sanctioned by the Thames Conservancy, and had passed the House of Commons as an unopposed Bill. It gave the company no powers to take more water from the river than they had at present, although, as they extended their works over a largo area, it might be followed by a greater demand for a supply of water, and the cry might eventually come for another Act. The company were already empowered to take from the Thames 20,000,000 gallons n day for a population of 729,119 persons, but, on an average, they only took 8,000,000 gallons for a population of 283,000 persons. The supply was, therefore, more than double what they required for the increased population to be supplied under this Bill; and, by the present Act, the company were prevented from taking a single gallon more than 20,000,000 gallons per day. He believed the company had given up a large portion of their population, which now drew their supplies from other sources.
    LORD OVERSTONEsaid, be bad not understood his noble Friend (Earl Grey) to offer any opposition to the present Bill; but what he understood his noble Friend to do was this, to cull the attention of the Government to the grievances under which this great metropolis was now suffering owing to the want of control over water, gas, and other public companies. These grievances had now reached to a great height, and it was universally felt throughout the metropolis that something should be done to correct them. He had himself continually' heard observations in society to that effect, and he hoped that the serious attention of the Government and of Parliament would be directed to the subject.
    LORD TAUNTONsaid, the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) was quite justified in calling their Lordships' attention to the great inconvenience to the public which arose from the present want of government of this great metropolis. Her Majesty's Government, however, were not to blame, and the only chance which the public had of getting a proper system of management for the metropolis was by public opinion taking up the question, and insisting that justice should be done to the community. He recollected what took place only two years ago, when what was considered only a moderate and just measure for putting the police on a satisfactory footing was introduced. The corporation of the City of London went about can-

    1979
    vassing noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen; they got corporations in other parts of the country to come to their assistance. The result was that the public interests had no defenders, but everyone took a lively interest in what they were pleased to call the interests of the City of London. The consequence was that it was impossible to deal with the matter. There was no use, therefore, in discussing the abuses to which attention had been called until Parliament was prepared to look the matter in the face, and deal with it as the public interest required. His own attention had been specially called to to the subject from the fact that he had served on a Commission of Inquiry with other more distinguished men—the late Sir George Lewis and Mr. Justice Patteson—and no one could come to any other conclusion than that it was necessary to put the state of affairs on an entirely different footing. The way in which the affairs of this metropolis were managed was a scandal to the country. He believed there was no other instance in the world of a great city being managed as this was—there was no unity of action, everything was left to chance, and the consequence was that enormous sums of money were thrown away, while the safety and convenience of the public and proper sanitary arrangements were neglected.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill now before the House, which, no doubt, would be considered upon its merits; but there were one or two points which had been touched on in the discussion upon which he wished to say a few words. The argument of the noble and learned Lord, as he understood it, was that this particular company were authorized to take 12,000,000 gallons more a day from the Thames than they actually took. At present they took about 8,000,000 gallons a day, and they desired to be allowed to enlarge their area of supply. That seemed to be a perfectly reasonable request at first sight; but there wore two things which appeared very deserving of consideration. It should not be forgotten that while, on the one hand, the water companies had such a large supply of water at their disposal, the quantity of water which their customers daily consumed was continually increasing, that was to say, that the consumption of water per head was continually increasing. Some figures which he would quote would show
    1980
    that this was the ease. In 1850, only fifteen years ago, the total water supply taken from the Thames was 44,000,000 gallons daily, in 1856 it was 81,000,000 gallons, or nearly double; and, nine years later, in 1865, it was 108,000,000 gallons. That showed the great increase in the consumption, and how much allowance ought to be made for the growth of the population, Again, London itself was enormously increasing; it was increasing one-half in twenty years, and doubling itself in forty. But that was not all. The arguments made use of in the statement which had been circulated among their Lordships concluded with this rather singular view. It was stated that a Bill which had been recently introduced into Parliament would enable the Conservators of the Thames to improve the navigation, purify the river, regulate the supply of water, and therefore the limited quantity taken from the river would be of less consequence hereafter than it was at present. Prom that conclusion he must dissent, because they all knew that there was a diminution from year to year of the quantity of water in the Thames, and also in the rivers flowing into it. In the year 1852 the minimum quantity of water in the Thames is stated to have been 400,000,000 gallons in the course of the day; in 1865 it fell by nearly one-fourth, or to 300,000,000 gallons. With the double fact of the increase of demand out of all proportion to the enormous growth of population, and the yearly diminution of the amount in the volume of the river, it behoved Parliament to see how far they would allow companies to enlarge their supplies from the Thames without insisting that due precautions were taken.
    Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly; and Bill reported, without Amendment.

    QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL—(No. 41).
    (The Lord Houghton.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD HOUGHTON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to consent to give a second reading to this Bill, I do not think it would be either convenient or necessary that I should dwell on the sub-

    1981
    ject-matter of the measure. It has been frequently before your Lordships, and if by your decision to-night you render it un-necessary for me ever to bring again its familiar features before your notice, you will confer a benefit upon the country and upon yourselves. But to those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the Bill, I would merely say that its object is to relieve a very large number of persons from the obligation on accepting office of making a declaration of a similar nature to that which until this moment has been incumbent upon Members of both Houses of the Legislature. My Lords, on the abolition of the Tests and Corporations Acts a certain declaration was appointed to be taken by all persons holding municipal and civil offices, the effect of which was that they would not exercise any power, authority, or influence they might possess by virtue of their offices to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as by law established, or to disturb the Bishops or clergy of such Church in the possession of any rights or privileges to which such Bishops or clergy might by law be entitled. The fate of this Bill is much affected, I think, by the circumstance that a Bill altering entirely the oaths to be taken by Members of the Legislature was read a third time and passed by your Lordships yesterday. It is hardly necessary to impress upon your Lordships that the Bill now before the House is in a great degree the corollary of that which your Lordships have already passed. I am sure your Lordships would not consider it necessary or just to impose upon a largo body of men on their appointment to municipal offices declarations from which you have relieved the Members of both Houses of Parliament. In asking you to consent to the second reading of this Bill, I do not believe I am asking you to abandon any principle whatsoever. In allowing this measure to become law, your Lordships will not change any opinions or modify any views. It was impossible to have witnessed the manner in which the earnest and able exposition of principles by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Bath) was received the other night without feeling that while the House did respect and honour these principles, it considered that the time had come when it was inconvenient that they should be enforced by law, and that it was to other securities and processes we must look for the defence of our institutions. It is a
    1982
    question of a change of procedure, and not of a change of principle. I ask you therefore to consent to the abolition of these declarations us you have consented to the modification of those oaths that were deemed necessary when formerly resistance led to civil conflicts, and which are the less required when disputes are relegated to the domain of public opinion. It is no longer either an illegality or an offence to hold opinions adverse to the present constitution of Church and State. To the majority of your Lordships certainly, and I believe to the majority of the thinking people of the country, the moderate, reasonable, and decent connection between Church and State which now exists is acceptable and advantageous from both an ecclesiastical and a civil point of view, and there need be no apprehension of any unjust interference with the Church on the part of the State. At the same time there will remain many excellent persons, whose morality and religion we respect, who do think that a dissolution between Church and State would be advisable and advantageous. The value of these declarations is well illustrated by a Return laid before your Lordships last year. It showed that in Manchester alone something like 3,000 persons who had held office during the last few years had never taken them. What has been done to meet this difficulty? You are compelled every Session to pass a Bill of Indemnity, the object of which was to indemnify those persons who have not made the declarations from the penalties they have incurred. I shall be glad if one effect of your Lordships acceding to my proposal should be that this Indemnity Bill should be either abolished or considerably altered. The passing of the Indemnity Bill is not in accordance with our notion of justice, and fends to bring the law into disrespect, disassociating our ideas of the breach of the law from its necessary penalty. If you pass the second reading of this Bill I cannot help thinking it would be advisable to bring the obligation imposed upon persons accepting office into harmony with the obligation which is now about to be imposed upon the Members of the Legislature, and that mayors, aldermen, town councillors, ward assessors, revising assessors, town clerks, and clerks of the peace should be required to make and subscribe a declaration in the same terms as the Parliamentary oath. By this procedure you will place all persons taking such offices upon the

    1983
    same footing in regard to conscientious declarations as the Members of both Houses. A noble Duke below me (the Duke of Argyll) emphatically stated the other night how great a relief our Catholic fellow-subjects would feel the change of the Parliamentary oath. I would venture to hope that our Dissenting fellow-Christians will feel, if your Lordships pass this Bill, that the obligations we have hitherto imposed upon them have not been caused by any personal ill-will, but that they have sprung out of accidental and historic circumstances for which your Lordships are in no way responsible. What we aim at now is to establish, as far as we can, equality of opinion and freedom of judgment among all the inhabitants of the country; and I believe that, so far from impairing by such an act the security of our present institutions, we shall root them more firmly in the hearts of our people.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Houghton.)
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, when on former occasions I have objected to the passing of a measure similar to this now before your Lordships, it has not been on account of any value I attached to the operation of the Bill; but, as I have more than once stated, it was because I considered it an indication of an animus hostile to the Church of England, and a measure designed to weaken its position in the country, and that not on account of the special provisions of the Bill, but because it was always accompanied by other measures having a tendency more or less hostile to the Church. I quite agree with the noble Baron (Lord Houghton) that after we have relieved the Members of the Legislature from making these declarations, we cannot continue to impose them on municipal authorities and other officers. It is not, therefore, my intention to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill. I concur generally with the views the noble Lord has expressed, and that it would be desirable that a declaration corresponding to the Parliamentary oath should be taken by municipal authorities, but not by those in subordinate positions. I think that the noble Lord who has taken charge of this Bill will find it necessary to introduce some provisions in addition to those he has proposed, because this Bill only abolishes certain declarations required to be made under particular Acts. Inde-
    1984
    pendently of these, municipal authorities are now required to take the oath of allegiance and make the declaration of supremacy precisely in the form in which Members of the Legislature do. I do not know whether, in accordance with the forms of the House, the Bill is capable of being altered so as to do all that is required; if not, the noble Lord will do well to withdraw it; and then another Bill may be introduced in the other House of Parliament, which, as there is a perfect agreement of opinion on this matter between the two branches of the Legislature, may speedily become law. This is a matter which I leave entirely to his consideration. I also entirely concur with the noble Lord in the other point to which he has adverted. When you have so much simplified the oaths to be taken by Members of the Legislature and public functionaries as is now proposed, it is deserving of our serious consideration whether it would not be wise to do away with the annual passing of the Indemnity Bill. To continue passing it year after year would be practically throwing a slur on the oaths still required to be taken; and therefore I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of discontinuing the Indemnity Act this year. This Bill provides retrospective indemnity for all who have not taken the oath; and it is time to give up the pernicious and injurious practice of annually passing an Indemnity Act.
    LORD TAUNTONsaid, that there was a point to which he was anxious to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord Houghton). He apprehended, that the declarations were at present only taken by members of corporations in England, and not in Ireland or Scotland. Now, for his part, he saw no reason why an Irish mayor or a Scotch provost should not be called upon to make the declaration now proposed. He had always thought the old declaration most worthless as a defence of the Church of England, and he was glad to find that it was about to be abolished with the unanimous consent of the House.
    LORD ROMILLYsaid, that notwithstanding the recent alterations of the law, there was no uniformity in regard to the oaths taken by solicitors and attorneys upon their admission. Both in the Courts of Common Law and in the Court of Chancery Protestants took one oath, while Roman Catholics took another. It was highly desirable that the law should be uniform; and, in his opinion, it might be

    1985
    made so by a little alteration in the present Bill.
    LORD HOUGHTONexpressed his gratification at the spirit in which their Lordships had received his proposal. He thought, however, it would be desirable to consider seriously the advisability of placing negative and positive propositions in the same Act. He hoped that the Bill would be passed as it stood, and would suggest that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons, with the object of assimilating all declarations to the form now taken by Members of the Legislature.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government had much satisfaction in seeing the unanimous concurrence of the House on this question, which had always received the support of the Government. He agreed that it would be desirable to do away with the annual passing of an Indemnity Bill. He could not agree, however, with the noble Lord behind him (Lord Taunton) that it would be advisable to impose the declaration upon persons who were not now called upon to take the oath. There were some other points with regard to these oaths. The Act passed the other day referred to the subject of Parliamentary oaths only; whereas a Catholic was still obliged to take the old form of oath in order to qualify himself to hold the office I of magistrate. He thought the whole matter might be advantageously taken into consideration at the present moment, when there appeared to be so general a concurrence on the part of both Houses as to the liberal and sensible mode of dealing with the question.
    Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

    CONFERENCES.—RESOLUTION.
    On the Motion of The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, it was
    Resolved, That the Lords are willing to receive from the Commons, by Message, without a Conference, any Communication desiring the Concurrence of this House to any Address to Her Majesty, under the Provisions of the Act Fifteenth and Sixteenth Victoria, Chapter Fifty-seven, to which the Commons may have agreed, unless at any Time the Commons should desire to communicate the same at a Conference: And a Message sent to the Commons, to acquaint them therewith.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

    IRELAND—DAUNT'S ROCK-CORK HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, it would be recollected that some time ago a large Indian steamer had been wrecked on Daunt's Rock, at the entrance of Cork Harbour. Several influential parties suggested at the time that the rock should be blown up, but this had not been done. Subsequently, however, a buoy, with a bell attached to it, was placed on the rock, and an alteration was also made in the lighthouses on the other side of the harbour. Neither of these schemes had proved successful. He wished to call the attention of the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty to the circumstance that the wreck of the Inman steamer had been allowed to remain on the rock up to the present time. In June last a brig laden with sugar was wrecked upon that rock through coming in contact with the remains of the Inman steamer. The vessel was got off, but the valuable cargo was lost, and the owners were put to considerable expense before the brig was fit to go to sea again. He believed, too, that very lately a vessel connected with the Manx Fishing Company had sustained serious damage through coming in contact with the mast of the steamer. The difficulty in the case was that three separate Boards had jurisdiction in the matter, and the consequence was that it was not easy to get anything done at all. He thought the matter was of sufficient importance to deserve the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he therefore asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact of any other wreck having taken place on Daunt's Rock, at the entrance of Cork Harbour?
    THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that do official notice of any wreck on the rock had been received since March, 1864. He had seen the wreck of the Inman steamer himself some time ago, and he did not believe that it had since been removed. The Admiralty, he might remark, did not undertake to remove wrecks.
    THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, Daunt's Rock was beyond the three mile limit, and consequently the Cork Harbour Commissioners had no jurisdiction in the matter. His object in putting the Question was to bring the subject under the notice of Her Majesty's Government and of the Board of Trade, which was not at present represented in their Lordships' House.
    THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, that the Ballast Board of Dublin had placed buoys at the place referred to by the noble Earl. If the Board of Trade sanctioned a larger expenditure, something more might be done; but the fact was, that if those in charge of shipping only kept their eyes open, they were perfectly safe at that spot. As to the proposal to put a light vessel there, it was monstrous, as there was no holding ground.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.