Sitting of 30 July 1866

MINUTES.
— NEW MEMBER SWORN — Hon. George William Barrington for Eye.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Master and Servant [No. 449]; Metropolitan Local Government, &c. [No. 452].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Expiring Laws Continuance.*
First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [255].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2)* [251]; Ecclesiastical Commission* [252] [Lords]; Prisons* [250].
Committee — Public Health (re-comm.) [202]; Reformatory Schools (re-comm.)* [184]; Industrial Schools (re-comm.)* [185] [R.P.]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)* [174]; New Zealand* [225]; Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries)* [240]; Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment* [235]; Naval Discipline (re-comm.)* [231]; Dockyard Extensions* [246]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment, &c.* [106].
Report—Public Health (re-comm.) [253]; Reformatory Schools (re-comm.) [184]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)* [174]; New Zealand* [225]; Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries)* [240]; Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment* [235]; Naval Discipline (re-comm.)* [231]; Dockyard Extensions* [246]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment, &c.* [106].
Considered as amended—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [229]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [234]; Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances* [220]; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* [243].
Third Reading — Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [228]; Poor Law Amendment* [221]; New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government* [244] [Lords]; Public Libraries Act Amendment* [44], and passed.
Withdrawn—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) [244]; Traffic Regulation (Metropolis* [227]; Prisons (Ireland)* [207]; Poor Relief (Ireland) Law Amendment * [153]; Hares and Rabbits (Scotland)* [210]; Cattle Diseases Prevention Act (1866) Amendment * [200].

ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.—QUESTION.
MAJOR JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any measures have been agreed on with the Treasury with the view of increasing the retiring allowances for the Ordnance Corps, and thus render them more efficient?
GENERAL PEELsaid, in reply, that no measures had as yet been agreed upon with the Treasury with reference to the proposed addition to the annual retiring allowances of the Royal Artillery and Engineers. The proposition from the Treasury was of such a nature as to necessitate further correspondence with the Horse Guards.

IRELAND—RESIGNATION OF MR. NAPIER.—QUESTION.
MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the appoint-

1659
ment of Mr. Blackburne as Lord Chancellor of Ireland is merely provisional, and if Mr. Napier has actually been appointed the Lord Justice of Appeal?
LORD NAAS: Sir, I think the best answer which I can give to the question of the hon. Member will be, if the House will permit me, by reading a letter which Mr. Napier addressed on Saturday to Lord Derby. The letter is as follows:—
"1, Whitehall Gardens, July 28, 1866. "My dear Lord Derby,—When you were pleased to offer me the office of Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland, I was conscious of my partial defect of hearing, but not having experienced any difficulty from that defect when I presided as Lord Chancellor in the Court of Appeal, and having been assured by those on whom I could implicitly rely that it had not since increased, I accepted the offer which you made to me. I find, however, that an impression has been created in the public mind that the defect in question exists to an extent which might interfere with the satisfactory discharge of my judicial duties. I believe the impression to be mistaken. Competent and disinterested friends who have had the best opportunity of judging are of this opinion. But when I consider how important it is that the administration of justice should be above all possible exception, and how desirable it is that the nomination to so high an office should not be open to a moment's cavil, I think I best fulfil the duty which I owe to the public, to your Lordship, and to myself, by withdrawing my acceptance of the office. Believe me to be, my dear Lord Derby, most sincerely yours, JOSEPH NAPIER.
"Earl of Derby, K. G., &c."
I think, Sir, I may be allowed to say that I feel sure the House and the public will give Mr. Napier every credit for the honourable and distinguished manner in which he has behaved on this trying occasion. He has made a very great sacrifice—a sacrifice which few public men in his position were ever called upon to make. I believe the House fully appreciates the motives which actuated him, and feels with me that that sacrifice is made from a pure regard to the interests of the public.
MR. MAGUIREwished to ask the noble Lord, whether he had received a similar letter from Lord Chancellor Blackburne?
[No answer was given to this question.]

IRELAND—LAND TENURE.—QUESTION.
MR. REARDENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a like Bill for the Tenure and Improvement of Land in Ireland to that which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government in 1852, and which contained a clause granting compensation
1660
for retrospective as well as future durable improvements?
LORD NAAS: Sir, I have only to say what I already stated the other day in the debate on the withdrawal of the Tenure of Land (Ireland) Bill, that the question will occupy the most serious consideration of the Government during the recess; and if the Government can see its way to introduce a Bill which would have the effect in their opinion of giving to tenants in Ireland compensation for bonâ fide improvements they would introduce such a measure. With regard to the Bill of 1852, I must express my individual opinion that I doubt whether any Bill of that description would now receive the assent of any party in this House.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, before the railings of the Park are re-placed in Park Lane, it will be taken into consideration whether it would be desirable to take advantage of the present opportunity for widening any part of Park Lane; and whether he has observed the very defective quality of the brickwork supporting the railing, and if care will be taken that the new railing shall be of an improved and stronger construction?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I answer both the questions put by the hon. Gentleman in the affirmative.

BOARD OF TRADE—METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, On what footing the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade is to be placed for the future; how far the Recommendations contained in the Report of the three scientific Meteorologists to whom the subject was referred are to be carried out; and whether the Storm Signals are to be continued in the manner the late Admiral Fitzroy used them?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have to state, Sir, that after the death of Admiral Fitzroy a committee was appointed, consisting of gentlemen nominated by the Royal Society, a gentleman from the Hydrographic Department of the Board of Admiralty, and one of the Secretaries of the Board of Trade, to consider the position of the Meteorological Department. The result of their deliberations was that

1661
they presented a long Report, which has been laid before the House. I found when I came to the Board of Trade that no step had been taken upon it. The effect of the Report is that a recommendation was made that the Meteorological Department, wherever placed, should continue the scientific inquiries which were originally contemplated when it was first appointed, but which to a considerable extent had been suspended or not prosecuted with so much industry as they might be, in order that more might be done in the way of predicting the weather and giving notice of probable storms. The recommendations of the committee were that the scientific inquiries should be prosecuted more vigorously than hitherto, and that the Royal Society, or some similar body, should undertake the greater portion of that part of the business, the Board of Trade or the Admiralty undertaking those portions which were simply Executive. With regard to the predictions of the weather, considerable doubt has been thrown upon the utility of the old system, and the recommendation was that storms should still be predicted, but that no attempt should be made to predict the directions from which they would come. But this would involve an alteration in the whole department and a great deal of expense. It would be further necessary to communicate with the Royal Society and the Board of Admiralty on the subject of the recommendation, and also to take into consideration the question of expense. The matter, however, will be considered as soon as possible; but it is impossible to state at present what decision will be arrived at.

ARMY—PURDAY'S EXPANDING BULLET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Purday's Expanding Bullet?
  GENERAL PEEL: My attention, Sir, has been privately drawn to Mr. Purday's expanding bullet. The subject has been referred to the Ordnance Committee, and I received a letter from Mr. Purday this morning offering to give every assistance that he could.

  ARMY—PRUSSIAN CARTRIDGE POUCHES.—QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State
  1662
  for War, Whether the attention of the War Department has been drawn to the fact that every Prussian soldier carries two cartridge pouches fastened to his waist-belt in front, and is thus enabled to fire with greater rapidity in action; whether the War Department has had under its consideration the pattern of light ammunition waggons attached to battalions of Prussian riflemen on service; and whether, on the issue of breech-loading rifles, there is any intention of introducing into our service cartridge pouches and light ammunition waggons of a similar kind to those now in use in the Prussian army?
  GENERAL PEEL: Sir, I have received reports from the military attaché on the subject of the two cartridge pouches carried in front by the Prussian soldiers, and I hope to receive further details on the subject, and also as to the amount of ammunition they are able to discharge in the course of an action, as to which there have been very different accounts. I am not aware that the pattern of the ammunition waggon of the Prussian army has been received. The question is an important one, and will be fully considered.

  MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS—QUESTION.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return as to Municipal Boroughs (England and Wales) ordered by the House on the 23rd March will be presented?
  MR. WALPOLEreplied, that several of the Returns had not yet come in. As soon as they had all been made they would be presented.

  ELECTORAL RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, When the Electoral Return, ordered by the House on the 6th June, will be presented?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, one-half of the information had not come in. The Return would be presented as soon as the whole of the information had been received. He proposed that they should be all delivered in a complete form during the recess.

ARMY—THE LANCASTER RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it be

  1663
  true that the Lancaster smooth oval-bore rifle (as supplied to the Royal Engineers) when converted to the Snider breechloader, with the Boxer cartridge, had given much better shooting than either the Enfield or five-grooved rifles?
  GENERAL PEEL,in reply, said, it was quite true. He believed that the Lancaster rifle, both before and after conversion, had shot better than the Enfield or five-grooved rifle. It was his intention to order that the Lancaster smooth oval-bore rifle should be converted into breechloaders.

REGULATION OF THEATRES AND PLACES OF AMUSEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ERNEST BRUCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, early next Session, to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Theatres and places of Public Entertainment in accordance with the Report of a Committee of this House on Theatrical Licences and Regulations?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, this is a subject which must undergo considerable investigation during the recess. I cannot say whether any Bill will be brought in in accordance with the Report of the Committee; but a Bill will certainly be prepared on the subject.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If his attention has been called to the statement that the Cattle Plague has lately been spreading in one or two counties; that in the West of England a flock of 450 sheep have been slaughtered by order of the Local Committee; that thirty-eight head of cattle were slaughtered by order of Professor Simonds; that in Staffordshire a fresh outbreak is reported, and forty-four animals slaughtered as a precautionary measure; and whether he has observed that great doubt is thrown on the origin of the disease, and on the beneficial effect obtained, or to be expected, from attempts to stamp it out at a great sacrifice of property?
  MR. CORRY: There has, Sir, been
  1664
  unfortunately a fresh outbreak of the cattle disease, affecting sheep also on two contiguous farms in Somersetshire. Previous to the report of Professor Simonds, who had been sent down to inquire into the subject, forty-seven cattle and 171 sheep had either been slaughtered or had died. After the receipt of his report the local authorities had properly ordered the whole of the remaining stock on the two farms to be slaughtered. I am happy to say that in general the disease, so far from spreading, is on the decrease, and that during the last week the number of attacks in England and Wales was the smallest recorded since the first Returns. No information has been received of any fresh outbreak of the disease in Staffordshire to any considerable extent. With regard to the last part of the Question of the hon. Baronet, doubts might exist as to the origin of the disease; but from whatever cause it originated there is not the slightest doubt, in the opinion of the most competent authorities, that the disease is communicable in the highest degree from sick to healthy animals.

  INDIA—BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Upon what grounds the sum of about £52,000 has been deducted from the Banda and Kirwee Prize Fund as compensation for loss of revenue alleged to have been sustained by the Indian Government in the Banda Collectorate?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, in reply, that it appeared from the communication from the Secretary to the Government, North-West Provinces, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, No. 438, dated Nynee Tal, 4th of November, 1862, that in July, 1858, Mr. Mayne, who was the Civil Officer who accompanied the army of re-occupation in the Banda district, took the sum of 981,578 rupees from the money appropriated by Major General Whitlock's column to recover the amount of land revenue supposed to have been collected from our subjects by the Raos of Kirwee. It appeared, however, from the account rendered by the collector of Banda, that of that amount 523,253 4 6 rupees only were credited to collections so made by Narain Rao, the balance being credited to the Prize Fund.

BRITISH MINISTER AT FRANKFORT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether instructions have been sent to the British Minister at Frankfort to follow the steps of the Representatives of other States accredited to the German Confederation, who left Frankfort and established themselves in the city of Augsburg? He also wished to ask what are the intentions of the Government with regard to continuing a British Minister at the seat of the Diet?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that instructions were sent on the 20th June by my predecessor to Sir Alexander Malet. Those instructions were that he was to follow the Diet to any place where it would hold its sittings within the limits of the German Confederation. Those instructions were repeated by me on the 12th July. Sir Alexander Malet followed the Diet to Augsburg on the 16th, When Austria seceded from the Confederation he asked leave to return to Frankfort. In reply to the second Question, as the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the continuance of the British Minister at the German Confederation, my answer is that in the present state of affairs we must look upon the Germanic Confederation as having practically ceased to exist. The answer, therefore, is obvious.

  TRAFFIC REGULATION METROPOLIS BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Traffic Regulation Metropolis Bill?
  MR. WALPOLE,in reply, said, as the Bill in question required more consideration than could be given to it at the end of the Session, he proposed to move that the Order of the Day with respect to it be discharged.

  SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to bring in his Bill for the further suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland at such a
  1666
  time as would afford the Irish Members an opportunity of a full discussion upon it?
  LORD NAAS: I propose, Sir, to ask leave to introduce the Bill referred to tomorrow night, and to place it on the paper for a second reading as the first Order of the Day at the Thursday evening sitting.

MR. BRIGHT AND THE REFORM LEAGUE.—ADJOURNMENT.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I ask permission to make an explanation of a personal nature, and in order to facilitate my doing so I shall conclude with a Motion. I have seen attacks made upon me in the organ of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and as these attacks have been copied and widely circulated I think it is incumbent on me to notice them. I regret that I have been previously unable to do so, having been prevented from attending the House both on Thursday and Friday evenings. The charge made against me was that I stated in this House, when it was not the fact, that the letter of the hon. Member for Birmingham inciting the collection of the mobs in the Royal Park was written subsequently to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the statement of the right hon. Baronet the late Home Secretary. Now it appears that in making that statement I was wrong. [Cheers from the Opposition.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite who have given that cheer will not again cheer in the interest of the hon. Member for Birmingham when they hear the entire of my statement. It is perfectly true that the letter was dated on the 19th of July, and that the debate took place on the 19th. The writing of the letter, therefore, preceded the discussion; but it is equally true that the publication of that letter did not take place until Monday, the 23rd of July, and it was sent for publication on the 22nd of July. Therefore, when the hon. Member sent his letter for publication in the morning papers of the 23rd of July, he must have perused the debate that had taken place in this House on the 19th of July. The mistake which I made was, I should have used the word "published" instead of the word "written." With that exception my statement was perfectly accurate. This, then, presented only another feature showing the want of frankness with which the hon. Member for Bir-

  1667
  mingham has behaved throughout these painful discussions. The charge of misstatement, and in one case of falsehood, which has been brought against me will not prevent me from expressing the opinion which I still hold, that the letter of the hon. Gentleman was a most pernicious letter. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. HADFIELDrose to order. He asked whether it was fair of the hon. Gentleman to attack an hon. Member thus in his absence.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Honiton to rise for the purpose of making a personal explanation. The distinction between that and making a charge against others was very great. But when any charge was to be made against a newspaper, the rule of the House was that the objectionable paragraph should be read at the table, and then the Member complaining should proceed to make a Motion. The hon. Gentleman rose to make a personal explanation, and he must confine himself within the limits of his explanation.
  Ma. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I bow, of course, to your authority, Sir, although I have been grossly attacked. I maintain that I have virtually stated the exact truth; and the charge of misstatement may be applied to the hon. Member for Birmingham and not to me. [Cries of "Move, move!"] I move that the House do adjourn.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he begged to second the Motion for adjournment, considering that the hon. Member for Honiton had only added aggravation to his original charge—the aggravation being as unfounded as was the original charge. The hon. Member had stated that night that although the hon. Member for Birmingham wrote the letter on the 19th instant, which, as had been admitted, was before the speeches referred to were delivered—the hon. Member for Honiton had stated another gross inaccuracy, by saying that the hon. Member for Birmingham sent the letter to the newspapers on the 22nd. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I said it appeared so.] And the letter appeared on the 23rd. His belief was that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham never sent the letter for publication. It was addressed to a private individual, and that individual probably sent it to the newspapers. It was not because any of them addressed a letter to an individual and he forwarded it to the newspapers for publication some
  1668
  days afterwards, that the original writer was to be called to account for the other's publishing it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Will the House permit me—["Order, order!"]
  MR. HADFIELDcalled the attention of the House to the fact that these statements were made in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham was the last man in Great Britain and Ireland to shrink from responsibility in consequence of any letter he had ever written or any act he had ever committed. This course of proceeding was not in accordance with the usual practice of the House or with English feeling.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he took advantage of the Motion before the House to inform the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he should move an Amendment to the further extension of the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland on the second reading on the proposed extension Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hunt.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HUNTmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcomplained of the practice of asking the House to read important Bills a second time before they were printed, and in the hands of hon. Members.
  MR. HUNTagreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes that it was most desirable that Bills should not be read a second time before they were printed and in the hands of Members, and it was his wish that copies of this Bill should be in the office that morning. On inquiry he was informed that it had not been the practice to have printed copies of the Appropriation Bill ready before the day for going into Committee on the Bill. He thought it was objectionable, and he requested that for the future copies should be ready before the second reading. In consequence of that the printers were im-

  1669
  mediately communicated with, and he had now a copy of the Bill in his hand, and any hon. Gentleman could get one at the Paper Office. He hoped the Bill would be allowed now to be read a second time.
  Bill read a second time and committed for To-morrow.

  FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 244.]
  (Mr. Dodson, General Peel, Mr. Hunt.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he had not the advantage of a seat in that House when this Bill was read a second time, and he believed that down to that time no explanation had been given by the late Secretary of State for War as to the precise state of the fortifications or of the alterations that had been introduced into them. A very strong opinion prevailed as to the inutility of these forts and the great waste of money that had been lavished on their erection. Of late the whole thing had undergone a considerable change, because one of the five forts had been struck off the list, and for one of the others they had not yet been able to find a foundation. None of the vessels recommended as floating defences had been constructed, although, according to the Report made five years ago, these constituted the most material parts of the harbour defences. It would further appear that they were embarked in a design for the erection of fortifications (without even a gun to place in them), which were to be armour-plated, the cost of which was never contemplated when the original Estimate was made. The original Estimate was for £11,000,000, but if they were to properly carry it out according to the improved science which had since developed itself, the cost would not be £11,000,000 only, but much nearer £30,000,000. It appeared to him to be very much like throwing good money after bad. In consequence of the lateness of the Session, and the short time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had been in office, he could hardly expect him in fairness to give the required explanation; but he wished he could have seen the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in
  1670
  his place to have asked him for an explanation upon the subject. He did not mean to object to go into Committee on the Bill. He was aware it was useless for him to divide the House. He had divided the House time out of number in the former Parliament on this question of fortifications, but he got no support, and he should not now attempt it. He thought, however, that before a large sum of money was granted some explanations should be given as to the precise state of the fortifications, and what was the ultimate design of the Government with respect to them.
  GENERAL PEELcould not, from having only recently accepted office, give a precise account of the present state of the fortifications. Parliament having already sanctioned the raising of sufficient money to carry on, until next Session, the works named in the schedule of the Bill before the House, there would have been no necessity for bringing in this Bill were it not that he wished to call the attention of the House, and to obtain its approval, to a new work, estimated to cost £50,000, which had not yet been sanctioned. He could not, of course, give his approval to the application of money to a work which had not been included in the schedules of previous Acts. The £50,000 he referred to was for providing and fixing iron shields and generally re-modelling the river batteries at Tilbury Fort and the fort on the opposite shore at Gravesend. The Defence Commission had recommended in their original Report that these works should be re-modelled, but no steps had as yet been taken to carry them into effect. Meanwhile, as the new batteries in progress below Gravesend could not be finished for about two years, owing to its having been necessary to give time for their foundations to settle, it was necessary that the works at Tilbury Fort and the Fort opposite to it should no longer be delayed, for at present the Thames is defenceless against the attack of an ironclad ship. He originally proposed to move for power to raise £350,000, of which £300,000 was for the purpose of providing iron shields, turrets, and turntables for some of the sea batteries at the places named in the schedule; but the Estimates for these services were not sufficiently completed to enable him to state with accuracy the total amount that would be required for this purpose, and he had not yet considered what works, if any, of those mentioned in previous Acts could be dispensed

  1671
  with, in order that the total expenditure should be as little as possible in excess of the amount already brought before Parliament.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received the information given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with great surprise, and in the first place I must correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham and other hon. Members labour. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stated here that the Estimate for fortifications amounted to £11,000,000. [Mr. OSBORNE: Originally.] That is not the case. The Estimate was for £11,000,000 for the whole plan of fortifications designed and promulgated by the Defence Commissioners; but Her Majesty's Government of that date never assented to that plan. He did not mean to say that they came to a conclusion unfavourable to it, but a great portion of the plan was postponed, and they did not ask from Parliament any assent, expressed or implied, to any such project as that now before the House. The amount of the Estimate for which Lord Palmerston's Government asked the House was a trifle over £5,000,000. As matters went on there happened in regard to the works what happened in regard to most civil works and all military works — the Estimate grew considerably, and it came to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. The number and nature of the works to which the assent of Parliament had been given was never altered, and in successive years, as it became necessary, fresh sums of money had to be asked for from Parliament for executing these works, and no others. I mention this because the financial basis of the plan is altogether peculiar and exceptional. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Northcote) objected at the time, and with great force, to the scheme of constructing fortifications on loans. I joined with him in that opinion, but I concurred in it because, at the time the scheme was approved of, we were suffering from a very heavy war expenditure which rendered it totally impossible for us to meet the charge by taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not, I think, seen the importance of the proposal he makes. When I first saw that he was coming down to so small a sum as £50,000, I was somewhat puzzled, because it appeared to me that in all likelihood he would find that
  1672
  out of the sums authorized to be raised there was a sufficient margin for meeting that moderate sum. I now understand from him that this £50,000 is required and intended for the commencement of altogether new works. [General PEEL: It was recommended by the Defence Commission.] I must confess that, so far as I am concerned, I object to a question of this kind being raised in the last week of the Session in this manner—by letting in a small piece here and another there, involving an expenditure in new works of £50,000 to-day and £100,000 to-morrow. That, in my opinion, will be a most serious error on the part of the House. These charges, in my opinion, should be made in the Estimates at the commencement of the Session, or at a time when the House is able to give its best attention to the subject.
  GENERAL PEEL: I have reduced the Estimates to meet this additional charge.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has reduced the Estimates, but he does not appear to be sufficiently alive to this principle, that in 1860, under most peculiar circumstances, and when the public mind was fraught with alarm, a proposal was made not only for a large extension of fortifications, but that the expenses should be defrayed by loan; and I think that the peculiar circumstances of the period justified that it should be defrayed in that peculiar manner. But I confess that I know of no reason why in a period of financial ease, and with an annual surplus, if new works are needed, that we should resort further to the expedient of loans. If new works are requisite, I want to know why they are not to be put in the annual Estimates. I have not had an opportunity of communicating with the noble Marquess the late Secretary for War; and I have no knowledge that this was mentioned to the late Cabinet, or there being any intention on his part to make this proposal to Parliament at this period of the Session. Unless my right hon. Friend opposite is prepared to state that it was, I must assume that it was not the intention of the noble Marquess to do so. On general grounds it is most inexpedient that such works should be proposed at such a period of the Session, although my right hon. Friend might know that the expense would be confined within moderate bounds. I am jealous of establishing a precedent in this respect. The practice was to bring these matters before the House at the commence-

  1673
  ment of the Session, when the House was fresh, and able to give full attention to subjects which are so important and so difficult to carry out, and that practice ought not to be departed from, especially in the construction of works the cost of which has to be defrayed in this exceptional manner, except it can be justified by circumstances out of the general line, and they certainly do not now exist. Originally, the Estimate for these fortifications was £5,000,000; now it stood at £7,000,000. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has made provision for this sum of £50,000 by reducing the Estimates; but what security is there that that sum will not be returned to the Estimates, and that professional men will not, before the conclusion of the works, show that some further outlay is absolutely necessary? I submit to the House and to Her Majesty's Government that this is a disclosure entirely new, and I do not think that any hon. Member was aware of what was intended to be done by this Bill before he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I had no idea or expectation that a proposition would have been made in the last week of the Session to ask the House to sanction any new military defences, and still less that we should be asked to give our sanction to such a large undertaking under the peculiar financial conditions attending the same. Lord Palmerston, I think, partook of my convictions, that Parliament would not consent to an enlargement of the plan of fortifications. It is really such a departure from all the ordinary principles of peace expenditure as to be only justified in a state of war, or as a matter of expediency; and I hope my right hon. Friend will take into his consideration the circumstances under which provision was made for this expenditure in 1860. I shall accede with great reluctance at this period of the Session to the proposal for £50,000 to be expended for new works, because I dislike treating by way of Supplementary Estimates anything that can be included in the next year's Estimates. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to state that the matter is urgent, and that he cannot on the part of the Government be a party to its postponement until next year, I will not take on myself the responsibility of resisting the proposal; but I entreat him and the House not to attempt to commit the House to an expression of opinion in favour of new
  1674
  works on the principle of providing for fortifications in a time of peace and surplus by way of loan. I have no wish to do anything which might savour of obstructing public business, but should my suggestion not be approved of by the Government, I must reserve to myself the right of taking such a course as I might deem advisable at a further stage of the Bill.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that what the right hon. Gentleman objected to might be struck out in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the works were done by way of Supplementary Estimate it would then go in the natural course into the Appropriation Act, and it would not then be an irregular Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to remind the House that Her Majesty's present Government is not responsible for defraying the expense of a system of fortifications by a loan, and that several Members who sit on the Ministerial Benches, on this side of the House, very much disapproved of the plan at the time. I quite agree that it should be the last resource for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire is not quite correct in the objection he has raised against our making an application of this kind so late in the Session. I find by reference that Lord Palmerston himself so late as the 23rd July, 1860, made a most important application to this House with reference to fortifications and works. [Mr. GLADSTONE: It was known all the Session.] The House must also be aware that so far as money is concerned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has it in his possession, and that all he wished to do was, acting on the recommendation of the Defence Commission, to bring the matter under the attention of the House. If the House is prepared to say—and I am not inclined to dispute it—that the present course is an objectionable one, that it is too late in the Session to propose it, we will not press it. I wish, however, the House to clearly understand that the proposition is one in accordance with the authority of the Defence Commission, and that it is not brought forward later in the Session than the great scheme of Lord Palmerston was brought forward. We are not asking for any fresh Vote, my right hon. Friend being in possession of the funds necessary for the work.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to make his annual protest against the expenditure of public money for these fortifications. He

  1675
  was an advocate for maintaining and properly securing our dockyards, but he considered the works in progress quite unnecessary. Many of the forts were, in his opinion, quite unnecessay, and if the whole army of England were to man the works which it was proposed to erect, they would not be sufficient for the purpose, some of which were thirty miles in length: £5,150,000 had been already expended, as he considered, uselessly. The real defence of England was the strong hands and stout hearts of the people, not bricks and mortar. He trusted that many of the proposed works would be abandoned.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANwas very glad to hear the course which the Government had resolved to pursue; for if they had done otherwise he should have felt bound to oppose the Vote. If he had had the honour of a seat in the House when the scheme of fortification was proposed, he should have voted with the minority against it. He thought that this great scheme of fortification was a mistake, and that we had committed ourselves to a great plan when scientific men were divided in opinion as to what was the best mode of fortification. At Plymouth they were facing large works there with polished granite, which many believed was the worst possible material with which they could attempt to construct fortifications. The Secretary for War had said that the forts were to be faced with iron; but the Americans gave us their experience, that the fortification which gave the Federals the most trouble was Fort Moultrie, in Charleston Harbour. It was originally stone, and the garrison suffered severely, whilst the stone remained; but as soon as the stone was knocked to pieces and became almost dust, then the enemy's shot had little effect upon it, and they were never able to take it. He thought there was great folly in expending £8,000,000 for that which in ten or fifteen years would probably become valueless. There was, at all events, no pressing necessity for the money now asked, and he was glad that the proposal was to be withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the present proposal was to modify that of 1860, and to render it consistent with the state of knowledge of the present period. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Vivian) could hardly object to the present proposition, unless he objected to all fortifications. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had formerly opposed all fortification, and especially the con-
  1676
  struction of the Spithead forts. He (Mr. Newdegate) had supported Lord Palmerston in the proposal to erect those forts, and the repulse of the Spanish attack upon the port of Lima had amply justified his vote in favour of the forts at Spithead. The experience of the American and other wars taught us much, and the Spanish fleet in America had recently had marked experience of the power of land fortifications against ships. What more powerful corroboration could they have of the soundness of Lord Palmerston's opinion than this proof of the strength of the forts against the Spanish fleet? This experience should not be thrown away, and agreeing with the Government in the views which had induced them to avail themselves of recent experience, he thought that it was not unreasonable that the House should be asked for this money. He did not see what useful result could ensue from postponement, considering the experience of other countries in reference to this subject.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the question seemed to be whether the time had not arrived when the further sums which were wanted should be taken by annual Vote, instead of the expense being thrown on posterity. He considered the original plan of fortifications wild and extravagant, and nothing contributed so much to enable the Government to carry out this particular plan than the mode of taking the Vote out of the ordinary course of Supply and leaving to our successors to pay the terminable annuities. He thought that the time had arrived when the Votes for the money required should be taken in the ordinary course. He wished it to be understood that he did not wish to prejudge the case of this particular fort; he only said let the Vote for the money be introduced in Committee of Supply, and then ample consideration would be given to any plan for fortifying our dockyards and rivers.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHconcurred in the opinion that the time had come when we should close our capital account, and put the charge upon the annual revenue. He said this with more freedom because he had supported the proposition of Lord Palmerston under the pressure of the occasion, and in consideration that the money would not immediately come out of the pockets of the people. But the principle adopted upon an emergency of that kind ought certainly to have a limit.

  1677
  He was very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not oppose the proposition to reserve this question for consideration in the Estimates for next year.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the feeling of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters had never been very strongly in favour of the course that had been taken by Gentlemen sitting opposite, of providing for this particular class of expenditure by means of terminable annuities. Indeed, at the time it was first proposed many of them objected to it. At present, however, the practice had gone on so long that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War thought that the only course he had to pursue was to proceed upon the same principle that the House had sanctioned for several years, and therefore, believing that the works in question were absolutely necessary, he had thought it desirable to call the immediate attention of the House to the subject by bringing in the Bill in order that they might discuss the question. The right hon. Gentleman wished at the same time to strike out of the scheme already sanctioned the part authorizing the construction of a central arsenal, and he had done so by means of a clause inserted in the Bill before them. The Government, however, now thought that after the opinions which had been expressed in the House upon the subject it would be better to withdraw the Bill for the present, and to proceed next year in the ordinary and convenient form of presenting an Estimate for these works, so that the House would have a fair opportunity of discussing the necessity for them. Her Majesty's Government concurred in the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had passed upon the system of bringing in Supplemental Estimates.
  MR. HORSMANthought the House did not fully remember the circumstances under which the Resolution of 1860 was taken to construct these works by means of a loan. There were then two questions before the House—first, the question as to building the fortifications, and next, whether the expenditure for them should be defrayed by means of a loan. But there was another more important question, and that was the limited time that was allowed to finish the works. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had said that at the time that Resolution was agreed to the country was in a state of alarm, virtually
  1678
  in a state of war; that was the state to which they had come. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say "war."] The question, which was very much before the House during that Session, was the defenceless state of the country, and over and over again it was urged upon the Government that the coast was improperly defended, and the consequence was that a report was laid before them suggesting that certain fortifications should be constructed, and hon. Members had then a full opportunity of discussing the question. There was an Estimate originally of £11,000,000 for the expenditure; but, at the same time, there was an estimate given to them as to the amount to be spent in each year, and the time required for completing each fort, some of which were to take five years, some ten, and some fifteen years. And then it was that the Resolution was brought forward that, considering the large amount to be spent in three years or the work would be useless, it was impossible to pay the money within that period out of the taxation, and therefore that it was necessary to pay for it by a loan or to give up the idea of paying for it at all. This principle was not intended to be adopted with the money to be raised for future years; and its adoption then only arose from the state of alarm which they were in, and of the necessity of proceeding as rapidly as possible. It had escaped his recollection that any objection to this course was then urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, though he did recollect that there were objections by the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), and others, who objected to fortifications altogether.
  MR. WATKINthought that the House was much indebted to the Government for giving way to the feeling expressed in regard to this Vote. Since Lord Palmerston brought forward the proposition in 1860 they had the experience of the American war, and there had also been the experiment of fronting the forts at Cronstadt with iron. In America, earthworks, which were the cheapest fortifications that could be made, had withstood the whole power of the North, and that they could be constructed in a few months. He had himself gone over the earthworks at Richmond, and he found that fortifications which extended twenty miles had been constructed in less than a year, and he believed he was in compass when he said that the whole cost had not exceeded £500,000. This was, of course, without the harbour fortifi-

  1679
  cations. Many of these enormous earthworks stood repeated attacks, and these cheap fortifications, which could be rapidly constructed, were the strongest obstacle the Northern forces had. He suggested that there should be another Commission to consider the question.
  MR. KINGLAKEthought the hon. Gentleman mistaken in assuming that forts were so useless as he supposed. They were wanted for the purpose of enabling the few to act against the many. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the great result derived by the Americans from earthworks, but the Americans were acting with large armies, and it was precisely for the purpose of dispensing with large armies that forts were required. Another hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that forts were of little value against ships. [Captain VIVIAN: I never said that; I alluded to granite forts.] His own impression was—and certainly, the experience of the Russian war supported it—that granite forts with casemates were invulnerable against attacks by ships. This, at all events, was the result of the bombardment of Sebastopol.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that the experiment which had been carried on at Shoeburyness and elsewhere had proved that granite forts were utterly useless against heavy guns. A mixed system of granite fortifications faced with iron was much better; but forts made altogether of iron were well-nigh invulnerable. He thought that the question should be further examined before they went to the enormous expense contemplated.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Bruce, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Sir George Grey.)
  [BILL 202.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 23 (Addition to Definition of Nuisance.)
  MR. COWENmoved to insert after "workplace" the words "not being a smelting-house."
  MR. POWELLobjected to leaving out smelting-houses from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it never was the in-
  1680
  tention of the Government to interfere with smelting-houses. Parliament had legislated against alkali works and coke works, but had declined to interfere with the manufacture of copper. It had proceeded on the wise and cautious policy of only legislating against smoke and noxious vapours, when it was established beyond doubt that effectual means existed for suppressing them. It had been shown that these means existed in the case of the vapour from alkali works and coke, but it had not been proved to be the case with respect to copper. When such a case was made out it would be desirable to adopt the same legislation for copper works. At the same time, the Amendment was not necessary, because it was never intended that the clause should interfere with copper works.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it should be remembered that, though this clause provided against the emission of smoke from furnaces, no attempt was made in the Bill to prevent the emission of chemical vapours from arsenic works and other manufactories of that nature, which was infinitely more injurious to public health than smoke. He held in his hand a treatise, the author of which, a scientific man, clearly demonstrated that smoke, so far from being injurious, destroyed the elements of contagion and infection that existed in the air. It was within the recollection of the House that when the cholera visited England, Birmingham, the most smoky of towns, was almost entirely free from the disease.
  MR. ADDERLEYconsidered that the freedom of Birmingham from cholera on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member arose, not from its smoke, but from the fact of its high and healthy situation. In Bilston and other parts of the black country where there was no lack of smoke the ravages of cholera were more extensive than in any other part of the country.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that though the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets might be right in saying that the Bill did not provide for every evil, yet it would remedy a great many that now existed. The measure had not the scope which many hon. Members desired, but he thought the country owed a debt of gratitude to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) for having taken up and dealt with the subject. It was a most difficult one to deal with, and if the Bill succeeded in its operation great good

  1681
  would be done. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) that Birmingham escaped the cholera, not because of its smoke, but because of its situation, and of its drainage. He trusted that the Bill would pass this Session, and that every effort would be made at both sides of the House to secure that result.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (On Complaint of neglect of Duty of Nuisance Authority in abating Nuisances, Justices may enforce such Duty) struck out.
  Clause 28 (Power to cause Premises to be cleansed, lime-washed, or otherwise disinfected.)
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEthought the word "infection" which occurs in this clause ought to be defined. The medical officer, before surveying a house which was supposed to be infected, was recommended by the Committee of Privy Council to have on a particular dress, consisting of "strong water-tight boots, reaching to the knees, and greased all over, a waterproof coat closely buttoned up to the neck and at the wrists, and the head covered with a cap which takes the hair well in." He hoped the medical officer would be clothed in this safety dress before he embarked in the dreadful danger of visiting these nuisances, especially as he had to report to the nuisance authority; or, going into these pest-houses, he would himself come out pestiferous. It was the more necessary that there should be a definition of "infection," from the visitation of cholera with which we were threatened. He had formerly asked a question on this subject, and referred to the fact that the Emperor of the French had been visiting the cholera hospitals in Paris. There was also the experiment mentioned in the newspapers of a young student named Jerard, who, to show that cholera was not infectious, took the perspiration off the forehead of a dying man, and the fur off his tongue, and put them in his own mouth. It was announced that the Emperor of the French had for the second time visited the cholera patients in the hospitals at Amiens. A. Commission which inquired into the ravages of the yellow fever at Bermuda reported that it was not infectious; and he could give a long list of similar conclusions respecting diseases that were supposed to be infectious.
  1682
  The Appendix to the Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, whom he could not acquit of sometimes creating unnecessary alarm, contained the satisfactory intelligence that for twenty-eight years there had not been a case of smallpox among the attendants at the Small-pox Hospital, although outside its doors some one had taken the disease. It was true that the attendants were vaccinated, but was vaccination held to be a preventive? By no means, and Dr. Jenner knew it; and even some whom he vaccinated had been attacked with small-pox. In conclusion, he moved that the clause be postponed.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet would admit that any disease was infectious; but the public generally were satisfied that infection existed in many cases, and if there were only one or two disorders that were infectious, a sufficient case was made out for the retention of the clause.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it had been pointed out to him that while a local authority had power to compel a landlord to fumigate and limewash a house, it had no power to make him close it for a short time, although on public grounds that might be desirable.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHILDERSproposed to substitute for the words "the nuisance authority may" the words "it shall be the duty of the nuisance authority to" (cleanse and disinfect).
  MR. WALPOLEaccepted the Amendment, having intended to propose one similar to it.
  MR. AYRTONobjected that this Amendment would place a community at the entire mercy of "any legally qualified medical practitioner," on whose certificate the cleansing was to take place. It was a most monstrous proposition to invest "any legally qualified medical practitioner" with such domineering functions.
  MR. BRUCEreplied that the words "if it appear to the nuisance authority" (that cleansing would prevent infection) invested that authority with discretion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Nuisance Authorities may provide Carriages for Conveyance of infected Persons.)
  MR. BRUCEpointed out that in some

  1683
  places—as, for instance, towns having a hospital—carriages were not required. He preferred, therefore, that the clause should remain permissive.
  MR. MELLERmoved an Amendment to the effect that the clause should not apply to carriages licensed by the Commissioners of Police in London, or by the local authorities in the country.
  MR. ADDERLEYappealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. POWELLmoved to add the words, "Provided such carriage shall be disinfected."
  MR. HENLEYremarked that the House ought to be informed what disinfecting meant. The particular process to be used ought to be specified in the Act.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that there were several modes of effective disinfection well known to medical men and at hospitals.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that might be, but would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House what the method was?
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEpointed out that there were great doubts as to what was the most efficacious system of disinfection. A work recently published on the subject stated that one of the methods employed made matters worse than they were before. He thought it was desirable that the particular process to be made use of should be specified in the Act.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that was a matter which might safely be determined by the authorities.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Removal of Persons sick of infectious Disorders, and without proper Lodging, in any District.)
  MR. AYRTONremarked that it enacted that any Justice of the Peace might order any person to be attended to, lodged, and maintained at the expense and without the consent of the local authority. This was to be done in the case of any person who was unprovided with proper lodging and accommodation. Now, according to the law of the land, such a person would have to be maintained and taken care of by the Board of Guardians, and the cost of maintenance would be imposed upon the whole union rated for the relief of the poor. On what principle, then, was it that power was to be given to a Justice of the Peace to order a person to be maintained at the expense of the local authority without the
  1684
  consent of such authority, which, he might remark, was not necessarily the body chargeable with the maintenance of the poor.
  MR. WALPOLEthought that the objection of the hon. Gentleman would be met by the provision of Clause 35.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the object of the clause was to provide for the case of a vagrant who came into a town, was lodged in a low lodging-house, and then was seized with typhus fever or small-pox. In such a case the great object would be to get the man to the hospital as quickly as possible, and the power was therefore intrusted to the medical officer and the Justice of the Peace who were at hand. If application were made to the Board of Guardians, who sat perhaps once a week, the whole object would be frustrated.
  MR. AYRTONthought the matter should be placed in the hands of the relieving officer, and that the infected person should be sent to the parish infirmary. The expenses should be defrayed out of the poor rates.
  MR. SELWYNdid not think the clause was well drawn, but it was plain that its object was to provide for a different class from paupers. In this case a man was to be removed against his will for the sake of the public good.
  MR. HENLEYagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the clause was badly drawn; and he doubted whether under it a Justice of the Peace could send a patient to any hospital except one provided by himself.
  MR. AYRTONobjected to the novel regulation that persons were to be dragged from their houses against their will by an order of justices which might be granted behind their back.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEremarked that the clause did not apply to persons occupying a house, but to persons living in common lodging houses.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Places for the reception of dead bodies may be provided at the public expense.)
  In the absence of Mr. WALPOLE,
  MR. ADDERLEYmoved the insertion of words giving authority for burials by the relieving officer.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Lodging-houses.)
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he thought the clause ought to be made to apply to houses the rooms of which were let as separate tenements. He had one in his eye. It was a house of five rooms, each room being occupied by a family. He moved to insert the words, "fixing the number of persons who may occupy a house or part of a house in lodgings, or occupied by members of more than one family."
  MR. BRUCEagreed to the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, when they remembered the number of houses in London and other large towns which were let in lodgings, he thought the power given by this clause was a very large power, and there ought to be some restrictions on it. He moved to insert the words, "in the day time," so that the officers to be appointed under this Bill might not have the power of "rampaging" these houses at any time of night.
  COLONEL SYKESthought the Amendment would make the clause comparatively inoperative. It was only at night that this overcrowding took place. He had once visited a place in London where he had found twenty two human beings and one dead body in a room twelve feet square. It was surprising that people would tolerate such a state of things, which the very beasts of the fields would not submit to.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that out of fifty cases of typhus reported by an inspector at Newcastle only one had occurred in a common lodging-house, which could be visited night and day. Notwithstanding the praiseworthy energy which was shown in carrying out the law, the inspectors found themselves helpless for want of a power such as this clause would give them.
  MR. COWENexpressed the opinion that the Bill had been well drawn, and would meet especially the case of Newcastle most effectually.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Power to provide Hospitals.)
  MR. WALPOLEmoved that that portion relative to the sanction of the Poor Law Board to any proceedings of the nuisance authority be left out.
  MR. HENLEYpointed out that it had got into a very unfortunate position. The House had deliberately taken the matter out of the hands of the guardians, and put it into the hands of the Sewers authorities,
  1686
  who could not possibly know anything about it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 36 (Penalty on any Person, with infectious Disorder, exposing himself, or on any Person in charge of such Sufferer causing such Exposure.)
  MR. HENLEYrequested the right hon. Gentleman to state how people were to avoid spreading infection.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEtook the opportunity of reminding his right hon. Friend of the statement of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, to the effect that medical men were constantly conveying scarlet fever to their own children. If the thing could be avoided at all, they, being medical men, must be held to have been guilty of committing such an enormity wilfully. But, as if that were not enough, these people were to be taken before the magistrates, to infect them.
  MR. BRUCEobserved, that there was no doubt of the truth of the remark of the hon. Baronet; and even when medical men had changed their clothes and washed themselves after visiting a patient afflicted with an infectious disease, they had been the means of conveying that disease to others. He presumed, however, that no man suffering from scarlet fever would dangerously expose himself.
  COLONEL SYKESsuggested that the words "without proper precautions" should be omitted, leaving the clause to run—"Any person suffering from any dangerous infectious disease who shall wilfully expose himself."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that that would prevent any such person from being removed to an hospital, or from going from home for a change of air.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEasked what the country practitioner was to do? He would have to take a whole wardrobe about the country with him.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37 (Penalty on Persons letting Houses in which infected Persons have been lodging.)
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSmoved to substitute for "inn" the words "a house licensed for the sale of exeiseable liquors."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that the Amendment would exclude "temperance hotels." He

  1687
  believed the word "inn" would include beerhouses.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. GRAVESmoved a clause relating to cases of cellar occupation, which had been declared illegal both by general and local Acts; but, inasmuch as the penalty prescribed was a money one, the occupier by reason of his poverty was entirely beyond the law. The result was that the Act was totally inoperative. This clause would empower the nuisance authority, where there had been two convictions within three months, to permanently close the cellars.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedules and the Preambles agreed to.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSexpressed the hope that a Consolidation Bill would be prepared during the recess.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that this Bill had been brought in with a view to the ultimate consolidation of the law on the subject, and he purposed introducing a Consolidation Bill next year.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Sir George Grey.)
  [BILL 184.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Commitment of Offenders to, and their Status at, a Certified Reformatory School.
  Clause 14 (Power of Parent to change School.)
  In the absence of Mr. O'REILLY,
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to add "godfather or godmother" to those— parent, step-parent, guardian, or nearest adult relative—who might apply to have an offender removed from a reformatory school that was not, to one that was, conducted according to his religious persuasion.
  MR. ADDERLEYappealed to the noble Lord to state on what principle the Amendment was based?
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDthought the right hon. Gentleman ought to explain the omission of those who stood next to the parents of a child.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the point had been raised on the Poor Law
  1688
  Bill, and the power vested in the Poor Law Guardians, who, however, had nothing to do with reformatory schools. No one ever heard of a Church of England godparent interfering in such a case; Dissenters baptised without sponsors; and, therefore, this was a claim on the part of Roman Catholic godfathers and godmothers. Of these there was no recognized registry, and therefore the priest would declare whom he liked to be godparents. Nothing was better known than that the ministers of no sect, that no class of persons, were so unscrupulous in proselytism as the Roman priesthood. The proposal was a plea for liberality where it was not necessary, and it was part of an organized system of Roman Catholic aggression. It was a singular fact that the Members of that House appeared to be very much behind the intelligence of the world at large upon this subject. This continued Ultramontane system of aggression was felt, and the necessity for resisting it was recognized by the Justices of the Peace and by the Poor Law Guardians of this country. It was perfectly understood in Italy, in Germany, and in France, not to mention other European countries. The agency by which these social aggressions were carried on in this country were well known. One of the principal of these was the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which advertised its proceedings in bazaars, and other means for the collection of money. All this was done under the plea of charity, but charity was only a plea. This was perfectly understood in Paris—nay, it had been avowed by the members of this Ultramontane society themselves. In a very remarkable work published by M. Cayla, about three years ago in Paris, the passage, of which he would read a taanslation, occurs. After describing this Society of St. Vincent de Paul as a revival of formulary societies, all under the direction of the Jesuits, but under different names, and showing that M. Ozanan, who was called the founder of the society in France, was merely the reviver of this society, M. Cayla writes—
  "Yes! Charity is to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul what the instruction of youth is and ever has been to the disciples of Loyola, a sure means, efficacious, latent, mysterious, but incessantly working for the advantage of Ultramontanism. Frederick Ozanan had at least the merit of frankness the day on which he said to the Florence Conference (of the society, in 1853), 'Charity is the pretext, Catholicism is the aim).' Let us make no mistake. Such a monopoly of charity may become a formidable power, particularly with the avowed aim of causing the idea of the tempo-

  1689
  ral power (of the Papacy) to triumph; that is to say, Jesuitism, for there is an abuse of language in these words that ought to be observed."
  The power of this Society of St. Vincent de Paul became so great in France, and so dangerous to the Government, that, when M. de Persigny was Minister of the Interior, he had issued a decree for the suppression of this society; but the decree seemed not to have been permanently effective. To show that this society was and had for some time been operative in this country as in others, he (Mr. Newdegate) must refer to another French author, M. Habenech, who, in 1861, had published a work entitled Les Jesuites, in which he refers to this Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which he calls a sect. It now remains to ascertain to what number of persons this sect amounts; but our knowledge on this point is defective. A member of the society informed me that in France they amounted to 40,000 active and affiliated members: this amount we know to be below the fact. We have only one statistic which we can make use of, which is their receipts, and which, in 1859, amounted to 4,736,241 francs. If we take the numbers given in this statistic, they have as chief seats for Government, or direction, belonging to the Conferences, in France, 831; Belgium, 301; Germany, 98; Sardinian States, 67; British Isles, 27; Spain, 179; Ireland, 42; Low Countries, 75; Scotland, 11; Italy (States of the Church), 26; Algeria, Colonies, United States, Parma, Modena, Malta, Tuscany, 51—total, 1,708. This Ultramontane agency had largely increased since 1861 in this country, as was notorious to every person who chose not to shut his eyes to what appeared in the newspapers—especially the Roman Catholic newspapers—and it was as the representatives of this agency that the Roman Catholic Members of that House were seeking opportunities for its aggression upon and proselytism within the reformatory schools through the intervention of that House. The claims of alleged Roman Catholic godfathers and godmothers would lead to endless disputes, and, as Roman Catholics had reformatories of their own to which children of their faith could be sent, he objected to the Amendment as calculated unnecessarily to introduce discord and confusion in Protestant reformatories.
  MR. MONSELLthought the Committee would be very glad to get rid of these religious discussions. The hon. Gentleman
  1690
  had spoken of an organized system of aggression; the only question which they ought to consider was whether there ought not to be some organized system of defence. It was notorious that a number of Roman Catholic children in the metropolis were being brought up in the Protestant religion contrary to the wishes of their parents, and all that was asked was that this should be remedied. God forbid that any attempt should be made to interfere with the religion of Protestant children. He did not believe that any Member of the House, except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, would say that a system of proselytizing children was legitimate on whatever side it was attempted. If the hon. Gentleman wished to proselytize in this way, let him get up boldly and say so; but, if not, he surely could not object to so reasonable a proposal.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENthought it did not matter much whether the words proposed were inserted or not, as in any case application might be made to the Secretary of State, who would judge whether the transfer should or should not be made. He was inclined to think that the words should be inserted, but did not think they ought to raise a religious discussion on the subject.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that if this Bill merely applied to England, he might not object so much to the Amendment; but, as the Bill also applied to Scotland, he wished to point out how the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would injuriously affect the interests of the poor in Scotland. Persons unconnected with any church, or who had never joined any church in Scotland, went to the Roman Catholic priest in that country to have their children baptized. If the children did not belong to a particular denomination they could not be baptized according to the Protestant faith, but the Roman Catholics thought they were conferring a benefit by baptizing the child. The consequence of this was that in many large towns there were a very large number of children baptized according to the Roman Catholic faith, merely because their parents did not belong to any particular Protestant denomination; and if these words were inserted the result would be all the nominal godfather's and godmother's of the children might claim them as being Roman Catholics, merely because of their having been baptized by the Roman Catholic priest. This

  1691
  would act injuriously to the interests of the poor people, who did not belong to any particular Protestant denomination in Scotland, and whose children had consequently to be baptized by the Roman Catholic priest, and therefore he trusted that the words would be either refused altogether, or the operation of them would not be extended to Scotland.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERremarked that it was altogether a mistake to suppose that the names of godfathers and godmothers of Catholic children were not entered in the register of baptisms. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had asserted that priests would themselves assume to be godfathers and godmothers.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexplained that he had only said they would claim to be godfathers.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that assertion was quite as absurd as the other. There was no such thing as a priest standing as godfather to children in his own parish, the whole question was whether this clause were to be carried into effect or not. As to talking of the guardians of these children, you might as well talk of their bankers. With regard to the children referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, if their godfathers and godmothers were not Catholics, they would of course not require them to be sent to Roman Catholic reformatories.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcould not help thinking that rather more was made of the expected operation of the clause than it really deserved. The Committee should remember that the 12th clause, which had been passed, provided that the authorities should endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which each juvenile offender belonged, and so far as possible, selection should be made of a school to which to send the child, which was conducted in accordance with the faith of the religious denomination to which the child belonged. The authorities, however, in the absence of any guide, might make some mistake; and the object of this clause was to rectify any such error, by enabling the parents or guardians of the child to come forward for that purpose. He would move two Amendments to the clause which he hoped would carry out the desired object and meet the views of the Committee generally. He moved, in place of the words "parent, step-parent, or nearest adult relatives," contained in the clause, the insertion of the words "parent, step-
  1692
  parent, or guardian; or if there be no parent, step-parent, or guardian, then the god-parent, or the nearest adult relative." The next Amendment would be, having allowed those persons to go before the Justices to show to what denomination the child belonged, to give power to the Justices that they "shall, upon proof of such offender's religious persuasion, comply with the request so made." He believed those Amendments would solve the difficulty and make the clause quite fair.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he should not hesitate to support the Amendments proposed by the Attorney General. He regretted that the subject of godfathers and godmothers had been introduced into the discussion. They were not to be found in the Irish Reformatory Act. As the clause had been drawn up by the late Home Secretary, with the approval of the Under Secretary, in order to meet the claims of the Roman Catholics, he thought there could be no reason for altering it. He was as desirous as any man that justice should be done to the Roman Catholics; but he did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel was required to protect Roman Catholic children from contamination. ["No, no!"] [Mr. MONSELL: I never said that.] He had taken down the right hon. Gentleman's words, and he understood them to be, "The object we have in view is not to interfere with Protestant feeling, but to protect the Catholic children from contamination." [Mr. MONSELL: No; from proselytism.] He would at once accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the word he had used. He did not, however, think, that the Amendment was required to protect those children from contamination. ["Oh, oh!"] He begged pardon—from proselytism. The hon. Member for Dundalk had ridiculed the idea of casting any suspicion on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Now, he did not himself know anything of the constitution of that society, but seeing that it had been condemned by the Catholic Government of France, he thought the hon. Member was not justified in saying there was no ground for caution in respect of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. No one would object to the suggestion of the Attorney General; but he thought the Amendment of the noble Lord was not called for.
  MR. ADDERLEYobserved, that in the

  1693
  framing of the Bill there was a desire to introduce as little innovation as possible in the law as it now stood. At this period of the Session it would be impossible to make such innovations, especially on religious points, in respect of which the House of Commons was so sensitive. He thought the proposition of the Attorney General would meet with general approbation; but he trusted that hon. Members would refrain from attempts to alter the law.
  MR. CANDLISHthought it safer to adhere to the clause as it stood.
  MR. HENLEYhoped the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel would be withdrawn. He was extremely sorry it had been proposed. The object of the clause was to enable magistrates to transfer from a reformatory not in connection with his religion to one in connection with the religion to which he belonged any child who, in the first instance, might have been sent to a reformatory of the former class. He thought any magistrate would act on the clause as a matter of course.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was not the suggestion of the Attorney General, but the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, and the question was should that Amendment be withdrawn.
  MR. BRUCEsuggested that as in the Roman Catholic Church the names of the godfathers and godmothers were registered with the names of the child and its parents, the testimony of the former as to the child's religion would be the most valuable that could be given next to that of the parents.
  MR. KINNAIRDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he forgot that there was such a country as Scotland, where among the great mass of the people there were no godfathers nor godmothers.
  MR. BRUCEreplied that as in Scotland the Roman Catholics were 7 per cent of the population, while in England they were only 3 per cent, there was more reason for some such provision as he had advocated in the former country than there was in the latter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had spoken as if the discussion were due to him (Mr. Newdegate); but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it had been raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel and those of other Roman Catholic Members. There
  1694
  was a new phase of opinion to which these hon. Gentlemen were attempting to give effect in that House, and this was that if on such occasions as the present a Protestant Member ventured to oppose a proposition coming from a Roman Catholic Member, his opposition was treated as an unfortunate instance of Protestant irritability. Every such opposition was to be cried down by some hon. Gentlemen who called themselves Liberal as an insult offered to Roman Catholics. This was a new phase of Parliamentary proceeding. The Roman Catholics were represented as being the most sensitive persons in the world. Well, they were if they had not their own way; but their religion was known to be the most intolerate in the world. He would cite an instance of an attempt at Roman Catholic proselytism which had appeared before the Law Courts not more than some months ago. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read from a summary of the proceedings, which could be authenticated—
  "Mrs. Pettindreigh is the wife of a solicitor's clerk, the mother of a family, and a Protestant. In the month of June, 1861, Mrs. and Mr. Pettindreigh hired the apartments of a Mrs. Kennedy, then occupying No. 50, Carlton Street, Kentish Town, London, and it is important to our narrative that Mrs. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic. There was kindness and apparently friendship between Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Pettindreigh. It was Mrs. Pettindreigh's habit to send her children to the Sunday school. Mrs. Kennedy, without consulting the parents of the children and without their knowledge, took the children to the Fortess Terrace Dominican Chapel, and a girl of four years of age was rebaptized by the priest."
  The Committee may hence understand how the Roman Catholic priests manage these baptisms. Now, in the case of this child Pettindreigh, no doubt some sort of sponsors were employed. Were such the persons whom the Committee intend to decide the religion of the child if sent to a reformatory or industrial school?
  "Such was Mrs. Kennedy's zeal for the faith, and such her disregard of parental rights. When Mrs. Pettindreigh made the discovery she was naturally indignant. From that hour Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Tigar, also a Roman Catholic, began a system of persecution which they continued for years. Mrs. Pettindreigh was openly charged with almost every moral and some criminal offences; her name was introduced into obscene songs, and these were sung opposite her door. Her children were subjected to every possible kind of indignity, and, in the presence of the mother, one of these women 'opened the little boy's mouth, spat in it, and called it a bastard.' The mother was constantly met in the street with terms of reproach,

  1695
  opprobrium, and insult, and on one occasion violently assaulted. Mr. Pettindreigh's attempts to obtain protection from police magistrates were unsuccessful. A. series of libels were concocted and written, one of these by a Mr. Charles Morris, which appeared in the columns of a morning newspaper. The matter in due form was brought before the Guildhall Police Court, when Mr. Morris, through his solicitor, admitted the falsehood of his statements, and made the very extraordinary defence 'that he (Morris) had acted entirely on his moral and religious principles, and that he believed he was doing a good action.' The apology and retractation were accepted, and the case ended. The libel by Mr. Morris was a trifle compared with the anonymous libels addressed to the landlords of the various lodgings occupied by the Pettindreighs. One of these libellous letters was the subject of a civil action tried before Mr. Justice Smith in the Court of Common Pleas on June the 30th of last year. This was the case of Pettindreigh v. Tigar. The jury could not agree, the dissentient juror being, it is alleged, a Roman Catholic. On the second trial, the case, by consent, was deferred, and Mr. Alfred Wills was appointed arbitrator. The evidence was voluminous and conclusive against the defendant. At the close of a three days' trial Mrs. Kennedy came forward and avowed herself the author of the libel. The results were, as we stated last week, an award in favour of Mrs. Tigar, and the subsequent conviction at the Old Bailey of her coadjutor, Mrs. Kennedy. The Pettindreighs were subject to persecution of an extraordinary and malignant kind, extending over nearly five years. The facts of this remarkable case have been deposed to on oath, and the witnesses subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination."
  He (Mr. Newdegate) adduced this case for the benefit of those hon. Members who treated lightly the statement that most unscrupulous proselytism was extensively carried on in this country by the Roman Catholic priesthood and their agents; and for the particulars he referred them to the evidence taken when the subject was brought before the courts in the several trials to which the persecution of Mrs. Pettindreigh and her children had occasioned. The facts were illustrative of a system against which the people expected to be guarded by law. An organization existed in this country, that of St. Vincent de Paul, which had proved very troublesome in the adjoining country of France in political matters, and its evil influence was spreading to a considerable extent. According to the statistics laid before the French Government, there were in the British Isles twenty-seven Conferences in the year 1861, but since then they had greatly increased both in this country and on the Continent. Under these circumstances, the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel would be very prejudicial to the
  1696
  reformatory schools, and he felt it his duty to oppose it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 8, after the word "guardian," to insert the words "or if there be no parent, stepparent, or guardian, then the god-parent." —(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. M'LARENobjected to the insertion of the words "godfather or godmother," because the god-parents would precede the nearest relatives. Besides, the clause stated that on the application of the godfather not that the magistrate might comply with the request, but that he should do so.
  MR. KNATCFIBULL - HUGESSENsaid, it would be the duty of the magistrate to act impartially, and determine, according to the evidence brought before him, whether he should accede to the application of the god-parent.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought that no harm would come of them because they were guarded by the words "upon proof of such father's religious persuasion."
  MR. NEWDEGATEwisked to know whether the statement of the god-parents as to the religion of a child were to be received as coming from a guardian.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the clause empowered the magistrate to send the child to the school connected with the religion of the child's nearest relative, in the event of an application to that effect being made to the parent or next relative of the child.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked, whether it would not be much better to adhere to the original wording of the clause? He quite agreed with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire, and preferred it to that of the Attorney General.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEdefended the principle of securing the child from being brought up in any religion but that of its parents or next of kin.
  SIR ROBERT PEELdenied being actuated by illiberal feelings in defending the clause as framed by the Attorney General.
  MR. SYNANreminded the right hon. Baronet that he had himself introduced the words "godfather and godmother" into the Reformatory Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 49: Majority 34.
  MR. HENLEYmoved the omission from the clause of the words "or justices or magistrates having a like jurisdiction," on the ground that it would be very inconvenient to give magistrates who had taken no previous part in the matter power to interfere.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONremarked that the Bill provided that on discovering the religious persuasion of a child in a reformatory they should have him sent to a reformatory for children of his own religion. But they could not have one magistrate pronouncing judgment and another reversing it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the whole object of the clause was to correct a mistake. A boy might be sent to a wrong school because the magistrate had not evidence before him that was clear. It appeared that mistakes had been made, and he knew that many mistakes had been made, and the object was to give time to find out the truth.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was most important that the Committee should know who had charge of the Bill. The question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets demanded attention, but he could look to no one in particular from whom to expect an answer. Much difference of opinion seemed to exist on the Treasury Bench with respect to the Bill; he had expected, from what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, that he would have voted in the same lobby as himself; indeed, the Chairman would be justified in calling his right hon. Friend to the table and questioning him as to whether he had not voted in the wrong lobby by mistake. Under the circumstances, he thought it desirable that the Government should have time to consider the Bill with a view to decide whether they would adopt it or not, and he therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERdefended the clause, and urged that this was a very innocent clause, and that the words objected to were merely to make plain what went before, and gave justices power to amend any mistake that might have been made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the right hon. Baronet would not press his Motion for reporting
  1698
  Progress. This was a very important measure, and he himself did not grudge any time that had been spent upon its consideration. The right hon. Baronet was under an unintentional error in supposing that there was any difference of opinion on that (the Treasury) Bench upon this point. It was one upon which they had made up their minds.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that after the appeal made to him he would not press his Motion. The House, however, had a right to know who really had charge of the Bill.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he regarded the Bill as one of great value, and he had therefore adopted it, with certain alterations. It was in perfect harmony with the legislation adopted two or three days ago with respect to workhouses.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it had been found by experience that fourteen days was too short a period for the correction of any mistakes that might have been made, and it was desirable in the interests of all parties, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, that a little further time for consideration should be allowed. He proposed, therefore, in line 23, to leave out the word "fourteen" and insert "thirty."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 15 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Parents liable to Contribute towards the Maintenance of their Children while detained in Reformatories.)
  MR. POWELLmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to keep the law in its existing state. If the clause were agreed to in its present form, it would be impossible to fix the parent or guardian of the child with a weekly charge without going a most circuitous route. He proposed to keep the law in its present form on this subject, retaining a power to the magistrate at the time the child was sentenced to decide what sum, if any, was to be paid for the maintenance of the child during the period it was in the reformatory.
  MR. AYRTONthought the clause an oppressive one, and that it would be pregnant with very great evil. They had no right to call upon poor people to pay for the maintenance of their children in a reformatory, when no law existed for people

  1699
  in other grades of society to pay for their children while in prison for committing a crime.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, it was the principle of all the Reformatory Acts that the parents or guardians should contribute to the support of their children. If nothing had to be paid towards the maintenance of these children, it would be an incentive on the part of the parents to neglect their children in order to get them into an establishment where they would be kept free of cost to them.
  MR. POWELLwould not press his Amendment after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Adderley), but he regretted that any changes in the law should be made which would lead to unnecessary expense.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDproposed an Amendment to the effect that the names of the children should be recorded in a book kept for the purpose.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Railway Companies' Securities* (240).
Second Reading—Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment* (226); Thames Navigation* (214), and referred to Select Committee; Fees (Public Departments)* (233); Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment* (235); County Assessments (221).
Committee—New Forest Poor Relief* (203); Rochdale Vicarage* (241); Straits Settlements* (242); Courts of Justice* (218); Inland Revenue* (229); Colonial Branch Mints* (227).
Report—New Forest Poor Relief* (203); Courts of Justice* (218); Inland Revenue* (229); Colonial Branch Mints* (227); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries* (243).
Third Reading—Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (193), Order discharged; British Columbia* (213); Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)* (203); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (179); Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order* (217); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (226); Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (165).
Royal Assent—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment [29 & 30 Vict. c. 53]; Revising Barristers' Qualifications [29 & 30 Vict. c. 54]; Postmaster General [29 & 30 Vict. c. 55]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 56]; Charitable Trusts Deeds Enrolment [28 & 30 Vict. c. 57].

THE PRAYER AGAINST THE CATTLE PESTILENCE AND CHOLERA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EBURY,who had given notice to move for Returns relating to Queen Anne's Bounty, observed that, as he found very similar information had been furnished to the other House of Parliament, he should
  1654
  not press his Motion. He would take that opportunity, however, of putting a question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government with respect to the prayer drawn up last year by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and read in every church, praying for Divine intervention for the repression of the cattle disease, and beseeching Divine protection against the threatened visitation of cholera. Appropriate as the prayer was at the time of its composition, he thought that circumstances had occurred which would render desirable its reconstruction—the cattle plague had been nearly stamped out, while the cholera, which was ravaging other countries at that time, was now fatally prevalent here. He wished, therefore, to know, Whether there was any intention of substituting a fresh form of petition, invoking Divine aid and assistance under present calamities and visitations?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he admitted that the language of the prayer was not at the present time so applicable as it was at the time when it was composed. He believed, however, that the introduction and continued use of the prayer in our churches had given considerable satisfaction throughout the country. In reply to the question which the noble Lord had put to him, he had to state that he was not aware that at present any intention had been formed of altering the prayer at present in use; but he had no doubt the subject would receive attention from the most rev. Primate and other heads of the Church. The murrain was by no means stamped out, as it prevailed to a large extent among sheep; but, as respected cholera, the language of the prayer was hardly appropriate, for since cholera had broken out in this country the petition against its visitation was scarcely reconcilable with fact.

  CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL—(No. 193).
  (The Lord Redesdale).

  THIRD READING.
  Moved, "That the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill be discharged."—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the Bill being dropped. It was generally agreed to be a very useful measure; and although objections had been raised by the right rev. Bench to the Bill as first introduced, the required alterations had been made in the present Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEregretted to be compelled to withdraw the Bill, but on such a subject he held that it was desirable there should be a general concurrence of opinion. As that could not be secured, he deemed it best, under all the circumstances of the case, to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that no reason having been given for the withdrawal of the Bill, he should feel it his duty to divide the House against the Motion.
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 28; Not-Contents 19: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Arcbp.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Chelmsford,L.(L. Chancellor.)

  Powis, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Limerick, &c., Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  London, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Derby, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Devon, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Raglan, L.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Sondes, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Southampton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Normanby, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Romney, E.

  Russell, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Cranworth, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative; Order of the Day for the Third Reading discharged accordingly.

  ROCHDALE VICARAGE BILL—(No. 241.)
  (The Earl of Chichester.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 12 (Application of the surplus of the annual Proceeds.)
  THE EARL OF POWIS moved an Amend-
  1656
  ment empowering the Commissioners, after they had carried out the other objects of the Bill, to provide, with the concurrence of the Bishop of the diocese, additional curates to celebrate Divine service in the town of Rochdale.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERobjected to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was prepared to support the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid, he could not, in behalf of those with whom he acted, consent to the Amendment proposed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 241).

  COUNTY ASSESSMENTS BILL—(No. 221.)
  (The Earl of Devon.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 81 gave power to the Justices in Quarter Sessions to appoint a committee to arrange the bases of the county rate. The 25 & 26 Vict. called the Union Assessment Committee Act, constituted in each union a committee for the purpose of settling the basis of the assessment for Poor Law purposes. A question had arisen as to whether the latter Act did not deprive the committee of the Justices of the powers given to them by the former one. This Bill declared that nothing in the Union Assessment Committee Act should apply to any assessment made in pursuance of the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 81.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Devon.)
  LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his approval of the object of the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEobserved, that the Union Assessment Act was passed for the purpose of securing a uniform rating throughout the county; but the present Bill would in effect create two rates, that for the county being different from the parish rate. The Union Assessment Act was not, perhaps, perfect, and it might be very desirable that something should be done to amend it; but be thought the remedy now proposed was far from satisfac-

  1657
  tory. It seemed to have been introduced because certain county committees had surmised that their power had been taken away from them by the Act he had referred to, and to promote the interests of the surveyors. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he was as anxious as any of their Lordships to secure uniform rating, and he would like to see a Bill introduced to effect this object; but that was not likely to be done for some time to come, and until then it was desirable that the Amendment the present Bill proposed should be made.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, that it appeared, from the doubts prevailing as to the Acts now in force, that something should be done, and he would therefore give his support to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he understood the Bill would rectify the inequality which had been introduced into the union by the county rate. If that were so, the Bill would effect a very important improvement.
  On Question, that ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  THAMES NAVIGATION BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order); the Order of the Day for Consideration of Standing Orders Nos. 37 & 38., in order to their being dispensed with, discharged; Bill committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  List of the Committee—E. Leven and Melville, E. Lucan, L. Foley, L. Raglan, L. Lyveden, (Chairman).
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.