Sitting of 13 February 1866

MINUTES.
Select Committee—On Standing Orders, Mr. Hastings Russell added; on Education appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Tests (University of Oxford); Parliamentary Oaths.
Ordered— Church Rates Abolition*; County Infirmaries (Ireland) *; Church Rates Commutation *; Tests (University of Oxford) *; Juries in Criminal Cases *; Parliamentary Oaths.
First Reading—Church Rates Abolition * [11]; County Infirmaries (Ireland) * [14]; Church Rates Commutation * [12]; Tests (University of Oxford) * [15]; Juries in Criminal Cases * [16]; Parliamentary Oaths * [13].

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.
MR. DOULTONasked the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, early this Session, a Bill having for its object the preservation of Commons and Open Spaces in and around the Metropolis?
MR. COWPERreplied, that it was his intention to propose a Bill on the subject. He had it in preparation, and he hoped that he should be able to introduce it very shortly.

THE BANK CHARTER ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends, during the present Session, to introduce an Amendment of the Bank Charter Act of 1844, enabling the Bank of England to increase its issues against securities, beyond the amount to which they were at present limited by that Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that considering the state and prospects of public business, he was more than doubtful whether it would be in the power of the Government, during the present Session, to make any proposal relating to the difficult subject of the issue of bank notes. As regarded the particular Question put by the hon. Member, if it implied that the Government might have an intention of enabling the Bank of England to resume the discretionary system which prevailed prior to the passing of the Act of 1844, he was bound not to limit his answer to the present Session; and he would, therefore, say that the Government would not be disposed to enable the Bank of England to resume that system either in the present Session or in any other.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTURING TOWNS.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, viewing the deplorable condition of the Children employed in many of the Trades in Sheffield and other towns, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for regulating the Employment and securing the Education of those Children.
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department intended to give notice on an early day of his intention to ask leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to some further recommendations, beyond those which had already formed the subject of legislation, made by the Commission on the employment of women and children.

THE SMOKE NUISANCE.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEELasked, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, a measure for the purpose of abating nuisances arising from the smoke

449
of chimneys in towns and country districts in the vicinity of towns similar to the Bill passed in 1853 for the Metropolis?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Act which applied to the metropolis had had a most beneficial effect, and it was desirable to extend it to the whole country. No Bill had been at present prepared with that object, but he felt the importance of the subject. He hoped it might be possible to extend the provisions of that Act.

CATTLE DISEASES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. TOLLEMACHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, when the House is in Committee on the Cattle Diseases Bill, he will consent to separate the compensation clauses from the other portions of the Bill, and to embody such clauses in a separate Bill? Cheshire would be greatly affected by the compensation clauses; but he had had no opportunity of consulting with any persons connected with that county respecting those clauses, as he had not yet received a copy of the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be impossible for him to accede to such a request. The payment of compensation for animals slaughtered, by order of the local authorities, and the power to cause such animals to be slaughtered, were essentially connected. The power to slaughter could not be given without a power to award compensation. At all events, he thought it would be better to postpone, to a future occasion, any consideration of the question of separating the Bill into two parts.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought it would be more convenient to leave all details as to the mode of raising the money for compensation, in order that they might be dealt with in a separate Bill.
MR. TOLLEMACHEasked, if he was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman definitively declined to accede to the request which he had just made?
SIR GEORGE GREYrepeated that he thought it would be impossible to separate those two provisions of the Bill.

ASH WEDNESDAY—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, it was ordered, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till tomorrow at Two of the clock"—(the morrow being Ash Wednesday.)
LEEDS BANKRUPTCY COURT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOWESasked the Attorney General, Whether any steps have been taken to prosecute the Reverend George Rogers Harding, Patrick Robert Welch, and the Hon. Richard Bethell, or any of them, for corrupt practices in obtaining, or attempting to obtain, a judicial appointment, as suggested by the Report of the Select Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court; and, if no such steps have yet been taken, what is the cause of the delay?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed by the last Parliament, and with the engagement which the Government gave at that time, criminal informations were filed last Michaelmas Term against Mr. Welch and the Hon. Richard Bethell, and they now stood on the list for trial at the present sittings; and as far as the Crown was concerned, they were ready to proceed to trial. As to the Rev. Mr. Harding, I think that the hon. Gentleman will feel that if the Crown had prosecuted him it would have thrown delay and difficulty in the way of a proper investigation of the matter; because Mr. Hording will be a most necessary witness, and it would indeed be impossible to proceed with the prosecution without his evidence.

JAMAICA.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he intends to bring on his measure for the Government of Jamaica on Thursday next? He suggested that neither the Jamaica Bill nor any other business ought to impede the progress of the Cattle Diseases Bill, and he trusted the Government would proceed with that Bill de die in diem.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the House in regard to this matter. It was certainly important that early provision should be made for the Government of the colony; but the Cattle Diseases Bill would have the precedence of other business on Thursday, and if the Bill relating to Jamaica should be called on at so late an hour that the House would be unwilling to hear his statement, he should not of course press it. He was, however, anxious that the Government of the colony should receive early legislation in that House.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, &c, said, that the Motion was, in fact, for the renewal of a Committee which sat during the whole of last Session, and which was engaged in the investigation of the two Questions stated. The scope of the inquiry proved to be so extended, and the evidence so voluminous, that the Committee were unable to conclude their labours and present their Report; and, under these circumstances, he contented himself by merely moving for the re-appointment of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, and the system under which the business of the office is conducted; and also into the best mode of extending the benefits of Government Inspection and the Parliamentary Grant to schools at present unassisted by the State."—(Sir John Pakington.)
  And on February 20 Select Committee nominated as follows:—
  Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. BRUCE, Viscount CRAN-BOURNE, Mr. BUXTON, Mr. HOWES, Mr. CLAY, MR. ADDERLEY, Mr. HENRY COWPER, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. MORRISON, and Mr. STIRLING:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

CATTLE PLAGUE (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD NAAS, in rising to move for "Copy of the Report of the Committee convened by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to consider the measures that might be adopted for arresting the progress of the Cattle Plague, in case of its appearance in Ireland," and to ask when the Bill promised by the Secretary of State will be laid upon the table, said, he hoped the great importance of the matter would excuse the few remarks he proposed to address to the House. Ireland was now placed in presence of one of the greatest dangers that ever menaced a country. The destructive effects of the cattle plague in England had been very great; but if, unfortunately, the plague should extend to Ireland, the misfortune would be fifty times as disastrous to that country. He could not help, therefore,
  452
  expressing his regret that the Government had not, on the first night of the Session, laid a Bill on this subject on the table of the House. The committee which was convened by the Lord Lieutenant agreed to certain specific resolutions, which proposed to deal with this disease, should it arise, in that country in a manner different from the mode in which it had been dealt with in this country. The Irish Government had adopted those recommendations, in so far as it was in its power to do so, by Order in Council. They had agreed that, in case an outbreak of the disease took place, the best thing to do would be to draw a cordon at once around the infected district, to adopt the most stringent measures against the ingress and the egress of cattle, and to enforce the compulsory slaughter of infected cattle. But here a difficulty arose, for the committee recommended that the compulsory slaughter of cattle should be accompanied by compensation up to two-thirds of the value of the animals destroyed. In this country he believed that one of the greatest misfortunes incidental to the cattle plague had been the unfortunate Order in Council which gave powers of compulsory slaughter without offering compensation. The system suggested by the committee which had now been for some weeks before the country, and had received very general approbation on all hands, would really be inoperative and come to nothing unless it were supplemented by sufficient compensation for slaughtered animals. Though, happily, the measures which had been taken had been, under Providence, the means of diverting this terrible disaster from the shores of Ireland, yet the country ran daily risk of an outbreak of the disease. It was liable to happen at any moment, and if such an outbreak should occur, the Government were without the power to carry out the measures which all in Ireland admitted to be necessary. Not a moment was to be lost in introducing and passing a Bill, and he believed that Government would find very little difficulty in the matter. A question might, perhaps, arise as to the mode in which the compensation was to be levied, but that would be easily settled. He hoped that, before another day elapsed, they might have an opportunity of seeing the measure of the Government, and that, if possible, it would be made law within a week. He must, however, warn the Government that they would make a mistake if they intrusted the enforce-

  453
  ment of their measures to local authorities, who could not carry out the system recommended by the committee. It must be carried out by Government officers alone, and its operations must be uniform throughout the country. No board of guardians, or magistrates in petty or quarter sessions, or committee of a grand jury, could carry out the system recommended with any chance or hope of success. He hoped, therefore, that a Bill embodying the recommendations of the committee would be introduced immediately by the Government, and that the Government would take on themselves the responsibility of carrying out all its provisions.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there was no objection to the production of the Report. The Government had been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant on the subject of the measures that it was desirable should be adopted in the event of the cattle plague appearing in Ireland, and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had been instructed to draw up a Bill founded on the report of the committee and on the views of the Lord Lieutenant. It was, however, quite necessary that the Bill should be seen by Lord Wodehouse and the Irish Government, and he could not therefore fix the day when it would be brought in; but it would be introduced on an early day. There was this difference between Ireland and this country, that in Ireland there was an army of police directly responsible to the central Government and not to the local authorities, and therefore that could be done in Ireland which there was no means of doing here.
  Motion agreed to: Return ordered.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

  RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE. BILL READ THE FIRST TIME.
  Acts read;—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the subject he was about to introduce was one which, like several others that had been adverted to that evening, had been frequently brought under the notice of the House. A considerable discussion had taken place on it only so recently as last Session. He did not propose, therefore, to trouble the House at any length, but should reserve a fuller statement of the objects of the Bill for the second reading, provided as he hoped that the House allowed him to bring it in. But he would state shortly
  454
  the purposes of the Bill. There were now two distinct oaths taken by Members of the House; one by Protestants and the other by Roman Catholics. The Protestant oath was framed in 1858, when an Act was passed consolidating the three oaths, which, previous to that period, were taken separately, of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. With regard to the part of the oath which relates to allegiance to the Crown, which was common to both Protestants and Roman Catholics, no one could refuse for a moment to admit that it was a very proper oath to be taken by every Member of the House. He did not think there was a Member of the House who would not take that oath willingly. But, with reference to the second part of the oath taken alike by Protestants and Roman Catholics—the oath of abjuration—he thought they would all agree that the time had come when it could and ought to be dispensed with. It was first required to be taken in the reign of William III., on the death of James H., and the assumption by the son of James II. of the title of King of England, when in fact a real danger menaced the Throne of this kingdom. Rather, however, than give his own opinion of this part of the oath, he would quote the words of a most eminent authority—Lord Lyndhurst—and which were spoken in 1858. He said—
  "The object of this oath had long ceased. The descendants of the Pretender had long been extinct. What, then, was the course which every man of common sense would consider ought, under those circumstances, to be pursued? Simply to repeal the oath framed for a particular purpose, and the utility of which was now at an end."
  The latter part of the oath taken by Protestants, embodying the negative part of the oath of supremacy in which the jurisdiction of the Pope, or of any other foreign prince in this country is denied, appeared to him to be entirely useless. He could not see the necessity of any Protestant Member of the House being called upon for a declaration that the Pope had no spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country. It was really an absurdity in the case of Protestant Members, none of whom can be suspected of holding such an opinion. As it respects, therefore, a Protestant Member, the oath of allegiance seems to be quite sufficient. As to the oath taken by Roman Catholics, the same reasons which he had given in the case of the Protestants, as to that part of it which required the abjuration of the Pretender,

  455
  applied equally to them. There were other portions of the Roman Catholic oath framed in 1829 as a security against any danger arising from the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, which formed the subject of a great deal of discussion last Session—into these he did not wish now to enter or to invite debate. He concurred at that time with the right hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Monsell), who introduced a Bill on that subject, that portions of the oath were needlessly offensive to Roman Catholics, and that there was not the slightest use in retaining them, and that other parts were ambiguous, and open to doubtful and complicating construction; and, therefore, he supported the proposal made by his right hon. Friend last Session for their omission from the oath. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) acquiesced in those omissions, so far as they embraced those words which were obviously offensive. I do not, therefore, anticipate any difference of opinion as to them. Other parts of the oath related to the settlement of property and the maintenance of the Established Church, and of the Protestant religion. With regard to these he had only to say that in his opinion no real security for the Established Church or the Protestant religion was given by their retention, and he thought that we ought not, needlessly, to place our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, as Members of the Legislature, on a footing different from that we ourselves occupy. As to the denial of the jurisdiction or authority of any foreign prince or prelate, Roman Catholics were, for obvious reasons, exempted from the denial of spiritual authority, and while it seemed absurd to require this denial only from those who have no concern in it, the necessity for denying civil or temporal authority is obviated by the oath of allegiance, and he (Sir George Grey) was not aware that any Roman Catholic would hold that the Pope exercised any civil or temporal jurisdiction within this country. In fact, the person who would assert this would fail in his allegiance, and might bring himself within the penalties of treason. The opinion which he (Sir George Grey) had expressed last Session was very generally concurred in—namely, that there should be one uniform oath for all. If there was one general oath, they might limit it to the first part of the oath taken without hesitation both by Protestants and Roman Catholics, which would be substan-
  456
  tially the oath of allegiance to the Crown. The Members professing the Jewish religion sat now in that House not by absolute right but by sufferance, the result of a compromise adopted to terminate a long struggle, but it was impossible not to see that that arrangement must be temporary. Those Gentlemen had sat there for some years, and it would be absurd to ask if any danger had arisen to the Crown, the Church, or the Constitution, from Jews sitting in that House. They had taken part, with credit to themselves, in the discussions in the House, and had performed their duty with integrity and ability. He (Sir George Grey) thought the time was come when the Members professing the Jewish religion should be admitted to all the privileges which were enjoyed by the Members of other religious denominations. By the adoption of the measure he proposed Members would be relieved from the necessity, on coming to the table after a general election, of ranging themselves in three divisions when taking the oaths. Let no man be asked any question as to his religion, but let him take his seat in the House if qualified to sit there, in the opinion of those who sent him there, on taking the oath of allegiance as a loyal subject of the Crown. The Bill which he proposed to introduce would be a short one, repealing the present oaths, and providing that the oath to be taken shall be as follows:—
  "I A. B., do swear that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and defend her to the utmost of my power against all attempts and conspiracies whatever that shall be made against her crown, power, and dignity."
  The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving—
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary oaths."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that considering the nature of the Bill which the right hon. Baronet had proposed, the tone of his speech was singularly smooth. He seemed to treat his proposal as though it dealt with matters of but slight importance—matters almost of indifference. No one who heard the right hon. Gentleman could, from his tone or his manner, have believed that he was proposing the disturbance of a great constitutional settlement. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not intend to take the sense of the House at present on the subject-matter of the intended Bill, though

  457
  divisions bad often been taken at the outset of proposals, which, as in the present case, would destroy a settlement that had been adopted, after a controversy upon this subject which had lasted eleven years. It was eight years since the Oaths Consolidation Act was passed, and Parliament was now asked, after so short an interval, to disturb the settlement then made with respect to Parliamentary oaths. He held in his hand a pamphlet which had been circulated among the Members of the House. It was entitled Brief Suggestions as to the Oaths taken by Members of Parliament and Others—Her Majesty's Subjects. The tone of the pamphlet was similar to that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The substance was much the same as that of the right hon. Baronet's speech. There was no author's name appended to the pamphlet, and it was printed for private circulation. He (Mr. Newdegate) almost came to the conclusion that it emanated from the right hon. Gentleman. If the pamphlet did not emanate from the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he had picked out such portions as he thought might be used in inducing Members of the House to accede to his proposal. He (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the attention of the House to the few observations he was about to offer on the subject of the Oaths Bill. It was quite true that the primary object of the oath taken by Members was to obtain from them a declaration of allegiance. No one had as yet been bold enough to propose the abolition of the oath of allegiance. The allegiance of Englishmen, however, was not simply the allegiance of subjects to an absolute Sovereign, but the allegiance of citizens to a Sovereign who was bound by certain conditions as to the administration and exercise of her power. The right hon. Gentleman asked, "Why not sweep away the oath of abjuration, now that the Pretender and his lineal descendants are no more?" But the right hon. Gentleman took care never to touch upon the fact that that oath limits the succession to the Crown to the descendants of the Princess Sophie of Hanover, being Protestants. Now, one condition of our allegiance is that the Sovereign shall be a Protestant. He might be told that that great advantage is secured by the Act of Settlement. But if it was thought necessary still to retain the declaration of allegiance, why was it now
  458
  sought to deprive the Protestant subjects of Her Majesty of the advantage enjoyed and the security conferred by the public recognition of the fact that the Sovereign must be a Protestant? Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the oath of supremacy, and proposed to sweep away the negative portions of it. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen were not aware of what was contained in those negative portions. The man who took the oath condemned and rejected the pretensions of any foreign Power whatsoever, by whomsoever pretended rightfully to exercise any authority, ecclesiastical or temporal, spiritual or civil, within these realms. That was no slight security to abandon. The concession of the right hon. Gentleman was no slight concession to propose. He would not detain the House by going into the provisions of the Roman Catholic oath which it was proposed to repeal, since that subject had been not long since debated. Let it suffice to remind the House that it contained declarations to be made on the part of Roman Catholics that they would not use the power or privileges to which they might become entitled by virtue of the functions or offices to which they were admitted for the disturbance of the rights of property or the rights of the Church of England within these realms. He would ask whether, at the present time, when the Fenian conspiracy was at work in Ireland, when they all rejoiced to see many Roman Catholics proving by their conduct that they abide by the declaration contained in their oath that they will not sanction the disturbance of the settlement of property—he would ask whether this was a fitting and appropriate opportunity for absolving them from this public recognition of the sanctity of property? Hon. Members should remember that their oaths included and recognized, not merely the sovereignty of the Queen, but the rights of the subject, the sanctity of property, and the rights and privileges of the Established Church. If there were Members of that House who would disturb these sacred portions of our law and constitution, were they men in whose favour the House would abrogate the provisions of those oaths which had been taken willingly, cordially, and ex animo by every Member of that House within the last ten days, and for so many years past? He might ask whether the attitude of the Papacy and its agents in this country at present was such as would

  459
  commend this proposal to the approbation of the House? Why, it was but last week that Dr. Manning preached a sermon at the Oratory hard by in laudation of St. Thomas, as they styled him. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; perhaps they did not know whom Dr. Manning meant by St. Thomas. Why, it was no other than Thomas A' Becket—an Archbishop of Canterbury who resisted the laws of this country, and who lost his life in consequence of his rebelling against the constitutions of Clarendon—constitutions passed 700 years ago by our Roman Catholic ancestors, to guard the freedom and independence of this country against the intrusion of a foreign jurisdiction—that of the Papaoy—laws passed for the very same object and purpose for which the negative declarations in the oath of supremacy were now retained, and against which, in the very sermon to which he had alluded, Dr. Manning protested, and urged all whom he could influence to rebel. He would not pursue the subject further. He would only say that the oaths—great part of which the Government now sought to destroy—represented a settlement established by Parliament only eight years ago, after a struggle of eleven years. Under existing circumstances, it was not becoming in Her Majesty's Ministers to propose to disturb that settlement; indeed, it was scarcely decent.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to more the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

SUPPLY.
Motion for Supply,—Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred:—Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CHURCH BATES ABOLITION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. BAINES.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]

COUNTY INFIRMARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Bill for the better regulation of County Infirmaries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART and Mr. O'REILLY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 14.]

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, Bill for the commutation of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEWDEGATE and Lord ROBERT MONTAGU.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

TESTS (UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD).
Acts read;—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain Tests in the University of Oxford.
Resolution reported.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. GRANT DUFF.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

JURIES IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to codify and amend the Law in relation to the keeping together and discharge of Juries on the trial of Criminal Cases, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Colonel FRENCH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]
House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath— The Lord Aveland. PUBLIC BILL—Second Heading—Sale of Land by Auction (2).
SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL.

  (NO. 2.) SECOND READING.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read the Second Time.—(The Lord St. Leonards.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that since the first reading he had looked through the Bill, which he thought would probably be a very useful measure. But his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had inserted clauses in it excepting sales ordered by the Court of Chancery from the operations of the measure. It was perfectly true that the precautions taken by the Court of Chancery with respect to sales carried on under its orders rendered such a Bill as that under consideration unnecessary; but, at the same time, no harm would result if the Court of Chancery sales were not excepted, and it was very possible that if the excepting clauses were allowed to remain an invidious construction might be placed upon the measure.
  LORD CHELMSFORDentirely approved the principle of the Bill, and concurred with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in recommending the omission of those clauses which excepted sales made by order of the Court of Chancery.
  LORD KINGSDOWNalso expressed approval of the Bill.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS, in replying to the objections taken to the measure, was understood to say that the Court of Chancery had machinery at its command to do all for its suitors that it was proposed by this Bill to do for the people at large, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to give to the Court of Chancery what it already had.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PRISONS ACT 1865.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, What Arrangements they nave made for
436
giving effect to the Prisons Act of last Session, by securing an adequate Inspection of the several County and Borough Prisons, said, that the Act to which he referred had placed much power in the hands of the local authorities. A Committee of the House, of which he had the honour of being appointed the Chairman, had given great consideration to the subject, with the view of securing, as far as possible, uniformity of action; and the Committee found that the Prison Inspectors, who had formerly numbered five, had for various reasons, which it would not be necessary for him to go into, been gradually reduced to two, so that the inspection of prisons had in reality become a mere formality. Even in the last Report of the Inspectors, he found that all the prisons in the kingdom had not been visited once in the year. He did not now rise for the purpose of asking an increase in the number of Inspectors, but he did desire to see some machinery established which would secure effectual communication with the local authorities, and by which a harmonious and uniform system would be adopted.
EARL RUSSELLwas understood to say that instructions had been given upon the subject by the Home Secretary.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought that the answer of the noble Earl was in reality no answer at all. The noble Earl did not say what was the nature of the instructions given by the Home Secretary; and he thought, therefore, that he should not be doing wrong in pressing the noble Earl for a little further information on a matter so important.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, he would furnish the noble Earl with further particulars as soon as he received some more information from the Home Office.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that under these circumstances, he would repeat his Question on Thursday.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEArose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Advisers are prepared to recommend to Parliament that an Indemnity be granted out of the Public Purse to all such Persons as have been compelled to slaughter any Beast or Beasts (not offered for Sale in any Market, Fair, or other Public Place where Animals are commonly exposed for Sale), by Order of an Inspector appointed by or under the Authority claimed

437
by the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to be contained in the Act of 1848, c. 107, which Act still continues in force? The noble Earl said that the Privy Council had issued instructions to their Inspectors to slaughter any diseased cattle they might find on the premises of the owners. Now, that Order purported to be founded on the Act of 1848; but it appeared that the operation of that Act applied only to cattle exposed at any public fair or market, and gave no authority to direct the slaughter of cattle on private premises, and there was, therefore, reason to suppose that the Privy Council had in that matter overstepped their powers. But if that were so, it was clear that those persons whoso cattle had been killed under the sanction of that Order had a peculiar claim on the Government for compensation, and he trusted that that claim would be recognized.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he was desirous of reminding the noble Earl, before he answered the Question which had just been put to him, that the issuing of the Order in Council giving power to Inspectors to kill any cattle they might think infected with the cattle plague, unaccompanied by any restrictions upon the cattle traffic, was the most successful—if he might use the term—method of spreading the disorder that could have been followed. The effect of that Order was that owners of cattle, knowing what fate was to befall them, and knowing that they should receive no compensation for any cattle which might be slaughtered under the Order, took the matter into their own hands and sold their infected cattle; and the result was, to use the words of Her Majesty's Commission, that the disease was sown broadcast over the country.
LORD POLWARTHwished to know, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to renew the Order in Council complained of, or whether it would cease when the new measure upon this subject came into operation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea), in putting the Question of which he has given notice, has clearly pointed out that which I am perfectly ready to admit—namely, that there are no distinct terms contained in the Act of 1848, authorizing the Council to make such an Order as that of the 25th of August; but I must ask leave of the House to state how the matter stood at that time. The object of the Act
438
of Parliament passed in 1848 was to prevent the spread of contagious or infectious diseases among sheep, cattle, or other animals, and the preamble of that Act was to this effect—
"Whereas a contagious or infectious disorder, known or described as the sheep-pox, or variola ovina, now prevails among the sheep in some parts of the United Kingdom, and it is necessary to take measures to prevent such disorder from spreading,"—[11 &c 12 Vict. c. 107.]
The Act then proceeds to give the Privy Council authority to make such orders and regulations as are necessary to give effect to its provisions. There is no doubt in the world that the preamble of this Act referred to sheep, and to sheep only; but, on the other hand, the clauses of the Act are not confined to sheep, but will bear a construction permitting the provisions to be applied to cattle. The question the Government had to determine was whether or not, if it were shown to them—as it was shown to their satisfaction—that no other Order would have any beneficial effect, they would be justified in issuing an Order calculated to give effect to the spirit of the Act, although, if strictly construed, that Act might not expressly give them the necessary powers. It must not be forgotten that remedial Acts are always to be liberally construed, and under the circumstances we felt it to be our duty to put a liberal construction upon this one. The matter had to be determined at once—there was no time for deliberation—and I do not hesitate to say that it was upon my advice that the Order was issued, as I thought it was fairly to be argued that such an Order came within the real meaning of the Act. There is, however, great doubt upon the subject; but if the Order does go beyond the strict letter of the law it may easily be met by compensating the parties who have suffered under it, although the injuries they have suffered in consequence of its issue must be very slight, as the infected cattle slaughtered under its regulations must have been of little or no practical value to their owners. Acting upon the opinion I had formed, I did not hesitate to advise the Government that they were bound to put a liberal construction upon the Act, as it would be useless to issue any Order that was not calculated to meet the requirements of the case.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble and learned Lord has placed two constructions upon the Order in Council. First of all, he

439
says that it is within the spirit of the Act; and then, that it goes beyond the strict letter of the law. Now, I cannot quite concur with the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord, that the Order in Council comes within even the spirit of the Act, because the law lays down distinctly what are the offences it creates, and in what manner they are punishable. On the other hand, it is quite true that although the preamble refers to sheep alone, the enactments refer to cattle generally. Now, what are the enactments contained in the Act?—
"That in case any sheep or lambs infected with or labouring tinder the said disorder, or any disorder of the like nature, be exposed or offered for sale, or be brought or attempted to be brought for the purpose of being so exposed or offered for sale, in any market, fair, or other open or public place where other animals are commonly exposed for gale, then, and in any such case it shall be lawful for any clerk, or inspector, or other officer of such fair or market, or for any constable or policeman, or for any other person authorized by the mayor, or by any two justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the place, or for any person authorized or appointed by Her Majesty in Council, to seize the same, and to report such seizure to the mayor or any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place; and it shall be lawful for such mayor or justice either to restore the same, or to cause the same, together with any pens, hurdles, troughs, litter, hay, straw, or other articles which he may judge likely to have been infected thereby, to be forthwith destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as he shall deem proper, or as may be directed in manner hereinafter provided; and any person bringing or attempting to bring any sheep, lambs, oxen, bulls, cows, calves, or other horned cattle into any such market, fair, or open or public place as aforesaid, knowing such sheep, lambs, or cattle to be infected with or labouring under either of such disorders as aforesaid, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay for each and every such offence a sum not exceeding £20."
Now, these are the whole of the offences contemplated by this Act. The fourth clause is as follows:—
"And for the more effectually preventing the spreading of contagious or infectious disease be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Lords and others of Her Majesty's Privy Council, or any two or more of them, from time to time, to make such orders and regulations as to them may seem necessary for the purpose of prohibiting or regulating the removal to or from such parts or places as they may designate in such order or orders, of sheep, cattle, horses, swine, or other animals, or of meat, skins, hides, horns, hoofs, or other parts of any animals, or of hay, straw, fodder, or other articles likely to propagate infection; and also for the purpose of purifying any yard, stable, outhouse, or other place, or any waggons, carts, carriages, or other vehicles; and also for the purpose of directing how any animals dying in a diseased state, or any animals, parts of animals, or other things seized under the provisions of this Act, are to be disposed of; and also for the purpose of
440
causing notices to be given of the appearance of any disorder among sheep, cattle, or other animals."
Then come the words on which the noble and learned Lord relies—"and to make any other orders or regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act,"—not for the purpose of giving effect to the "object" of the Act, but for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It enables the Lords of the Council, by Orders in Council, to issue any Orders that may be necessary for the purpose of enforcing its provisions. I would humbly submit to the noble and learned Lord that it is a most extraordinary stretch of the provisions of an Act of Parliament to use the powers which were given for the purpose of enforcing its provisions to enable you to make any order you may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to what you consider the object of the Act—namely, to provide against contagious diseases in cattle. The noble and learned Lord frankly admits that the object, though within the spirit and intention, did not come within the letter of the Act. Well, a number of farmers have had their cattle destroyed under the authority of the Government and by the direction of inspectors acting under their orders, but contrary to the law. Now I say that, under these circumstances, the persons so deprived of their property—I will not use harsh words—have a fair and legitimate claim for compensation, and for compensation not to be levied on their neighbours and themselves, but compensation from the Government on those persons acting under the authority of the Government, who, contrary to law, deprived them of their property. Any one of those persons whose cattle the inspectors destroyed has a perfect right to bring an action of damages against them. I do not complain of the Government for the steps they have taken—except in this case, they have rather fallen short of their duty; but I say that in a case where they have undoubtedly gone beyond what the law allowed, compensation to any person suffering from their wrong ought to come from the public funds, and not from their neighbours. Let me observe that until the Bill brought in yesterday no intimation was given in the slightest degree that any of these persons would receive compensation from the public or from any other source. I rather think it was intimated to them they need not

441
expect compensation from any source. But I would much rather look forward to the future than back to what has been rightly or wrongly done. I would much rather look forward to what can be done best at the present moment; and I think the Members of Her Majesty's Government will admit that in this House, and also in another place, no indisposition has been shown fairly to consider the questions brought before them. Certainly there has been no factious spirit—no disposition to create embarrassment to the Government. On the contrary, all parties have been desirous of pushing forward the remedy proposed as fast as possible. But, if I am rightly informed—and I have no means of information other than those which all the public have—the measure proposed is one of a very intricate and complicated character. There is another Bill—a rival Bill—brought forward by an independent country Gentleman, and which is also of a somewhat complicated character. But there are certain general provisions with regard to which all parties seem agreed, and there are, on the other hand, a variety of minute details on which the greatest possible difference of opinion prevails. Now, I would offer a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. The emergency is pressing, and must terminate towards the end of next month; it is, therefore, essentially necessary that the measure should be brought into operation with the least possible delay, I would suggest whether it is not practicable, instead of proceeding through all the details of the Bill, and through all its stages in both Houses, open as it is to discussion in various complicated provisions, to introduce simultaneously in both Houses Resolutions embodying those points on which there is no difference of opinion. Take, for example, the power to prohibit fairs and markets; the power to prohibit the moving of stock between this period and the 25th of March; the power in certain circumstances to slaughter diseased animals, or infected animals—the word "infected," I believe, has been interpreted elsewhere to mean animals brought into contact with diseased animals, and are, therefore, supposed to be infected with disease, it may be quite right to take absolute power to slaughter them. Pass Resolutions prohibiting the transit of cattle on roads and railways, except fat cattle for immediate consumption; give power to slaughter infected animals, and where they are slaughtered under the direction of in-
442
spectors authorized by the Government, declare that the owners shall be entitled to compensation. These three or four simple Resolutions might be passed by the two Houses together, leaving out of consideration for the present all the details of the Bill. In my mind, nothing is more doubtful than the provisions as to compensation; but I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should propose a Resolution merely affirming that owners of cattle slaughtered under these circumstances should be entitled to compensation; and then pass another Resolution, authorizing Government to pass Orders in Council for giving effect to these Resolutions, such Orders in Council being of no validity after the 25th of March. If Her Majesty's Government will take that course you may have an effective measure in three days. I am quite certain, that with every desire to forward the Bill, there is very great doubt whether a Bill of such complicated provisions can pass the two Houses in less than three weeks. Well, but these three weeks are of the utmost value, and if you could anticipate that by ten days, or even a week, by proceeding by way of Resolutions rather than by Bill, when the object is to meet a temporary emergency, which will last only from this time to the 25th of March, you will remove the greatest possible difficulties, you will save the country an enormous sum of money, and take the best means in your power of putting an early stop to this most formidable plague. Of course, it rests with Her Majesty's Government to adopt it or not. I only suggest that arrangement. As far as I am concerned, if they are disposed to take that course, I shall not be too strict in criticizing the terms of the Resolutions they may bring forward, the great aim and object being to give the Government the requisite powers of promptly, expeditiously, and, I hope, successfully, dealing with this great calamity.
EARL GREY: I hope the Government will be very cautious before they adopt the suggestion which has just been thrown out. It seems to me a very dangerous principle to establish, even under the pressure of such an emergency as now exists, to legislate by Resolutions. I think nothing is more important than that Parliament should adhere to the ordinary practice of legislating on graver matters itself, and there are many points connected with the proposed Resolutions which obviously and clearly exceed the powers of the law. The reason

443
why the Bill is brought forward is that they find there are powers necessary which the existing Act does not enable the Government to exercise by Order in Council. For instance, one of the great faults of the present system is that there is no power of stopping animals on the road. In my own county parties openly defy the law. [The EARL of DERBY: Why don't you take that power?] It seems to me that it would be better that Her Majesty's Government on the one side, and independent Members of the two Houses on the other, should show an earnest desire to come to an agreement as to what ought to be done. I cannot help thinking that by proper communications between some of the leading agriculturists on the one hand, and Her Majesty's Government on the other, the principle of the arrangement to be made might he agreed upon; and, that having been done, the case being one which does not admit of delay or long discussion, the Government might be allowed to pass their Bill as rapidly as the forms of the Houses would allow, Parliament taking it very much on their judgment and responsibility. I am quite prepared to take that course. I do not think it would be impossible that the decision of Parliament should be pronounced on some of the great leading questions—for instance, on the point mentioned the other evening, whether cattle should go to the butcher or the butcher should go to the cattle. Guided by the opinion pronounced by Parliament, I do not see why the Government should not pass a Bill, such as they have laid on the table, modified, if need be, according to the expressed opinion of the two Houses, the details being taken pretty much as a matter of confidence in the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he thought the Government ought to be careful before adopting the course suggested by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). A great deal might depend on the details of the arrangements to be adopted. One point to which farmers and owners of stock attached importance was the question of slaughtering cattle, and another point of importance was in whose hands the power to slaughter cattle should be placed. He had no hesitation to say generally that it would not be satisfactory to the country that that power should be in the hands of the present inspectors. With regard to the movement of cattle, he believed that that might be safely prohibited until the end of this month; but in many parts of the country,
444
particularly in the West of England, it could not be prevented after the end of the month, without certain relaxations. The question then arose, in whose hands should the power of granting these relaxations be placed? It was not merely necessary to pass general Resolutions expressing the opinion of Parliament on the more important matters; but every minute detail should be considered if they desired to pass a measure giving satisfaction to all parties affected by it. He would suggest whether it might not be possible, while the Commons were passing the Bill through their House, for their Lordships to appoint a Select Committee to consider the subject, so that they might be ready without loss of time to recommend alterations in the measure when it should come before them.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think it necessary, after the explanation given by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, to detain your Lordships on the question of law. It appears to me that the Act of 1848 being for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease among sheep in the first place, but its provision being made applicable to cattle also, the regulation which the Privy Council made came, in fact, within its scope. The order given for slaughtering diseased cattle was necessary to prevent the spread of disease; and within the last fortnight various resolutions have been passed in different parts of the country, recommending the slaughter of such cattle as the one thing needful. A good deal of objection was at first made to the slaughter of these cattle, but after a time, opinion settled down generally as to the measures which ought to be taken. The special question which the noble Earl opposite has raised, as to whether public funds should be employed to pay the compensation—
THE EARL OF DERBY: Only in respect to those cases where cattle have been slaughtered by inspectors without sufficient authority by Act of Parliament.
EARL RUSSELL: If the inspectors have done anything illegal, no doubt there would be a legal remedy against them. Of course, the Government would not allow the inspectors to bear the loss. But I do not admit, what my noble Friend takes for granted, that the order given by the inspectors for the slaughter of these cattle was beyond the authority of the Act of Parliament. In fact what these inspectors did was to de-

445
stroy a nuisance which would have resulted from allowing these cattle to go through the country, and so spread the disease. As the diseased cattle were actually doing mischief and evil they constituted a nuisance. There is an enactment by which certain officers in the City of London are empowered to destroy all unwholesome fish in the fish market, and as these cattle, being diseased, would have spread the infection throughout the country, it was quite right that they should be slaughtered. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has made an important suggestion to the effect that certain Resolutions should be passed by both Houses, and that the Government should be empowered to carry out those Resolutions by Order in Council; but I agree with the noble Earl who spoke from the cross-bench (Earl Grey), that it would be very dangerous to take that course. The very same question as has been raised to-night might be raised with regard to the authority of those Resolutions; because it would be impossible in those Resolutions to provide for all the minute details which would be necessary. It would be better to accept another suggestion, that all matters most urgent should be taken out of the Bill of the Government, and passed in the ordinary way. If Resolutions were good for the purpose, I do not see why the same Resolutions should not be put in a Bill which should be brought in and passed in the usual way, I quite agree with the noble Earl in thinking that, without distinction of party, your Lordships will concur in any measure necessary for preventing the spread of the cattle disease; and I hope that the House will pass it soon, as time is of the utmost importance.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that with regard to the legal part of the question he must say that after reading the Act of 1848 he was more and more puzzled, and he must ask for some further explanation on one or two points. The Act, as his noble Friend stated, referred in the first instance to disease among sheep, and, in the second place, to disease among cattle; and these two subjects appeared to be jumbled together in the most extraordinary and confused manner. By the first clause power was given to justices of the peace to slaughter any sheep or lambs; so that their Lordships would perceive that the power of slaughtering simply related to sheep and lambs; but, by the Order in
446
Council which they were now discussing power was taken not to slaughter sheep or lambs, but cattle as well. Now, he wanted to know how it happened that the Order in Council took a power which did not appear in the Act. These Orders in Council ought not to be called Orders in Council at all, for they were not the Orders of the Queen in Council, but of certain Lords of the Privy Council. The Queen in Council had power to exercise a certain authority, but any authority which the Lords of Council exercised must be derived from some Act of Parliament. The fourth clause of the Act of 1848, which was the only clause which dealt with this matter, gave the Lords of the Privy Council power from time to time to make certain regulations and orders; but it seemed that the Lords of the Privy Council had transferred these powers to local authorities, though nothing could be more distinct that the legal maxim, delegatus non potest delegare. He should be very glad to receive some explanation from the Government on the points to which he referred.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government had acted in the course which they pursued in accordance with the best legal advice—that of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Orders in Council were, under the operation of the Act of Parliament, prescribed to be passed some in one way, some in another, and there could not be the slightest doubt that those to which the remarks of the noble Earl pointed had been passed in conformity with the law. [The EARL of DERBY: The Lord Chancellor says not.] He appealed to the noble and learned Lord whether that was not the case; but, be that as it might, if the noble Earl who had raised these legal questions would give notice that he would again bring them forward, he should be prepared to give him a distinct answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must protest against the assertion that he had admitted that the course that had been taken in reference to the Order in Council was illegal. What he had admitted was that the Government found themselves in great difficulty owing to the loose manner in which the Act was worded. The preamble referred only to sheep; but in the body of the Act there were general words, which included cattle as well. He had also stated that the Act was of a remedial character, and that therefore it must be construed with a view to promoting the object intended to be effected by it. With

447
respect to the observation of the nobleEarl, delegatus non potest delegare, this point had not escaped the notice of the Attorney General. The Law Officers came to the conclusion that there had been no delegation. The acts authorized to be done were authorized by the Council:—what the justices were to do was to say whether the Orders were applicable to particular districts. He had not the clause before him, and could not therefore analyse or scan its provisions, but if the noble Earl looked at the wording he would see that this was so.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsuggested, that the only way of settling the question satisfactorily would be to bring an action either against the Government or their inspectors, for the slaughter of cattle in some particular instance.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should like to know what amount of damages would be obtained under the circumstances.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.