Sitting of 6 March 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Kerry, v. The Right hon. Henry Arthur Herbert, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Candlish, esquire, for Sunderland.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [March 5] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS— Resolution [March 5] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister*; Clerks to Justices; Capital Punishments within Prisons; Legitimacy Declaration, &c*; Superannuations (Officers Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards)*; Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment*; Mutiny.*
First Reading —Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* [50]; Legitimacy Declaration, &c* [51]; Superannuations (Officers Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards)* [52]; Clerks to Justices [53]; Capital Punishments within Prisons [54]; Mutiny.*
Committee— Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772)*; Prince Alfred's Annuity (re-comm) [48].
Report — Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772)*; Prince Alfred's Annuity (re-comm.) [48].
Third Reading —Qualification for Offices Abolition* [1], and passed.

MID-LONDON RAILWAY BILL—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HARVEY LEWIS,in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated that powers were sought by it to provide suitable accommodation for such of the working classes as should be displaced by the formation of the proposed railway. The line would run from the north-west to the north-east of London, and would afford accommodation to a populous district at present without immediate railway communication. It would also connect the London and North-Western Railway with the London, Chatham, and Dover line.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Harvey Lewis.)
  EARL GROSVENOR,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he was neither directly or indirectly connected with any metropolitan railway, nor did he mean to discuss on the present occasion the question whether the Bill was or was not necessary for the public convenience. The point he wished to raise was, whether a scheme so gigantic, and affecting the interests of so many

  1593
  thousands of people, was one which ought to be decided by a Committee of that House, or be submitted to the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses, such as that which sat in 1864 on the subject of the railway schemes affecting the Metropolis. That Committee recommended, among other things, the prosecution of the scheme known as "the Inner Circle," but before that scheme was completed, or indeed well begun, and therefore before its advantages could be tested, it was proposed by the Bill to run a line through a large portion of the same district, for the Mid-London Railway, if constructed, would pass from Notting Hill, along Kensington Gardens, between Hyde Park Corner and Paddington, and so on between Oxford Street and Grosvenor Square, till it joined the London, Chatham, and Dover near Farringdon Street. Now, on the Joint Committee which he had just mentioned sat the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and his noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn, and he should like to have their opinion—an opinion to which he was sure the House would attach great weight—as to whether there would be such a breach of the policy recommended by the Committee in sanctioning the Bill under discussion, as to justify its being thrown out on the second reading. He regretted that the President of the Board of Trade seemed already to have come to a decision on the matter, inasmuch as he had stated, in answer to a question which had been put to him a few evenings before, that he saw no reason for departing in reference to it from the usual course of legislation, and he wished simply to add that if the right hon. Gentleman would assure him that, under the exceptional circumstances of the case, he would consent to send the Bill before such a Joint Committee as that of 1864 he should not object to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Earl Grosvenor.)
  LORD STANLEYsaid, it was quite true that he had acted as Chairman of the Committee to which his noble Friend alluded. He therefore had naturally looked into the question at issue, although he had no interest whatsoever in the proposed
  1594
  line. He concurred, he might add, with the proposition which had been laid down a few nights before by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, that it was not desirable as a general rule to have discussion on the second reading of Private Bills, which had better be left for the more searching investigation of a Committee upstairs. That was a rule which his experience as a Member of the House of Commons taught him to regard as admitting of exceptions; and the present case was, so far as he could see, one of an exceptional character in several respects. His noble Friend had referred to a line known as "the Metropolitan Inner Circle," which received two years ago the sanction of Parliament. That line was not yet completed. He saw Mr. Fowler, the engineer, a few days before, and was informed by him that it would probably be opened in eighteen or twenty months; not taking into account that portion of it which would run along the Thames Embankment. When it was opened it would pass through a large part of the district intended to be accommodated by means of the Bill before the House. It was impossible, therefore, he contended, until the Inner Circle scheme was fairly at work to know how much traffic would remain for the Mid-London, and what the necessity was which existed for its construction. But then it would be asked, what had the question of traffic to do with the providing of additional railway accommodation if companies were willing to supply it? The force of that he was ready to admit in the case in which the House had to deal with small provincial towns or rural districts, in which the inconveniences of making a new line were comparatively insignificant. But the case was widely different in a great city like London, where the displacement of population and the disturbance of traffic caused by the construction of a railway for two or three miles through the very heart of it were matters of considerable moment, although these inconveniences must, of course, be endured whenever the real necessity for such a line could be established. He was not opposed to the creation of all new lines through London, but he thought the House ought not to sanction a new line unless it was a work of real and urgent necessity. There were objections to the proposed line in points of detail, such as that it interfered with Kensington Gardens and Lincoln's Inn Fields, and did not connect itself with the existing Metropolitan line, but he

  1595
  freely admitted that those were matters which might fairly be considered by a Committee upstairs, and the only reason why he opposed the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee was this—that as long as the works of the Inner Circle were incomplete, and that line was not opened, the Committee would not be able to decide that which was the real question—namely, whether the traffic could not be safely provided for without opening a new line, which would cause an enormous interference with various localities.
  MR. ROEBUCKthought that the noble Lord had missed the real question before the House. The points on which he had placed his finger were just the points for the consideration of a Committee upstairs. The real question was whether the House should take an exceptional course and throw out the Bill on the second reading. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment stated that the provision made by the Joint Committee of both Houses was contravened by the present Bill, and therefore it was desirable that the House should learn from the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) whether such contravention had taken place, justifying the rejection of the Bill on the second reading.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN,in answer to the appeal just made to him, stated that his opinion very much accorded with that of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). He and the noble Lord were members of the Joint Committee which, after the consideration of much evidence, came to the conclusion that a system of two Circles would, on the whole, afford the best means of railway accommodation to all classes in the metropolis; that certain Bills not in accordance with that system should be rejected; and that only the lines which carried out that general view should be submitted to a Committee, over which the noble Lord very good-naturedly undertook to preside, and which came to the resolution already mentioned. He thought it would be a pity, after all the consideration given to the matter, that the general view then adopted should now be upset, and another system of railways established in its place. The main recommendation of the plan of two Circles was that it would distribute the traffic among the different localities better than a system of two straight lines, and he would regret to see that plan interfered with.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the
  1596
  House to consider whether the line by the Thames Embankment or the Metropolitan Railway could afford the smallest accommodation to the mass of population along Holborn, Oxford Street, and down the Bayswater Road. If not, this proposed line would form no interference with the scheme laid down by the Joint Committee. It was to go under and not over Oxford Street, and interfered with Kensington Gardens only by running outside of them. With Lincoln's Inn Fields it only interfered for the purpose of passing through one of the worst districts in London; and it passed through Holborn for the purpose of getting rid of Middle Row, which, to the reproach of the Metropolitan Board, had so long been allowed to remain an impediment in the thoroughfare, and of throwing that part open for the benefit of the public. It was proposed to do all this in a manner the least interfering with the public convenience, and the promoters came before Parliament with more liberal clauses than had ever been proposed to meet objections on the ground of the displacement of the poorer classes. They ought not, therefore, to be prevented from laying the merits of their scheme before a Select Committee. He did not agree with the noble Lord who thought that the Select Committee would not possess all the necessary materials for forming a just decision; for that body might have before them the Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses, and the opponents of the measure would be sure to urge every possible objection against the proposed line.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the Bill expressly proceeded on the principles laid down by the Joint Committee of 1864 and the Lords' Committee of 1863, which were mainly to the effect that companies seeking lines through London should connect by underground communication the great through lines of the country. The promoters of the present Bill had observed those conditions, and proposed by an underground railway to connect the London and North-Western Railway with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.
  MR. DODSONhoped the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of this Bill would not give the House the trouble of dividing upon it. He should be sorry to express any opinion that the Bill was unnecessary, or that it was any interference with the scheme recommended by the Select Committee of 1864; but he thought that to deal with the Bill this year would be

  1597
  premature. The Inner Circle of railway was in process of construction. Before very long it would be more complete, and then they would be in a better condition to pronounce an opinion on a Bill of this nature. Without, therefore, expressing any opinion, he thought it would be well to defer the consideration of the Bill.
  Question, "That the words 'upon this day six months' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

LONDON (CITY) CORPORATION GAS BILL—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Sir, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I am about to take what I am afraid some hon. Members of the House will consider to be a great liberty. I am going to ask them to proceed to the consideration of this Bill with their minds free and unbiased by the influences which have been endeavoured to be brought to bear upon them by the various letters and circulars, the button-holdings, the ear-wiggings, and the various other methods by which parties interested in Private Bills endeavour to influence the minds of Members. I will ask hon. Members to do that which their Chaplain every day expresses the devout wish they may be able to do—namely, that they will" lay aside private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, "and proceed to the consideration of this Bill, as a Bill which intimately affects the interests, the comforts, and the well-being of 3,000,000 of people. Now, Sir, my own position in reference to this matter is not a very enviable one, because I have on the one hand the corporation of the City of London, representing by the process of annual election a great civic community, requesting me to bring in this Bill, and to move its second reading, and, on the other hand, I have amongst my constituents a vast number of gentlemen interested in gas companies, whose interests I am bound not to disregard. But, Sir, I am not one of those persons who neglect a duty, and I have, indeed, considered it a part of my duty to wade through the whole of the letters and publications that have been sent to me upon this subject. I have
  1598
  read every one of them. I have read the whole of the gas companies accounts; I have also made myself master, so far as I am able, of the Gas Clauses Act of 1847, and the Metropolis Gas Act of 1860, and having done so, I have come to the conclusion that the question of the gas supply of the City of London, and not of the City alone, but of the whole metropolis, is one eminently deserving investigation at the hands of the House. Now, Sir, amongst the number of Gas Bills before the House in the present Session, the Bill of the City of London especially comprehends in its preamble the various points at issue between the consumers and the suppliers of gas, and presents a favourable opportunity for bringing this question under the notice of the House; and it is because I wish that the question may be fairly settled, that the interests, not only of the consumers of gas in the City of London, but those of the whole metropolis, should be considered, that I have placed upon the Paper a notice of a Motion that I shall make, in the event of this Bill obtaining a second reading. I have no desire to occupy the time of the House by going into a long history of gas legislation. It may be sufficient for me to say, that so far as the City of London is concerned, it was supplied until a recent period by two companies, the Chartered Company and the City of London Gas Light and Coke Company; and, in the year 1823, the City was, to use that singular word, "districted," upon the representation of Sir William Congreve. At that time the price of gas was 15s. per 1,000 feet, and the price of lighting the public lamps was five guineas each per annum. In the course of years some reduction in the price of gas was effected. By 1844 it had been reduced to 7s. per 1,000 feet, and to four guineas per lamp to the public. A further reduction was attempted shortly after; but about 1847 public attention was much excited upon the subject. The corporation of London taking part, as they always had done, and properly so, in aiding the inhabitants of the City, endeavoured to procure the establishment of a separate company to enter into competition for the supply of gas in the City with the two companies which I have named. They, of course, met with vast opposition, and for two years the company, which now goes by the name of the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company, failed in obtaining its Bill; but in the year 1851 the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company entered

  1599
  into an agreement with the City, by which they bound themselves, under covenant, that in the event of the Act being obtained, they would come into an arrangement by which the price of gas should never be more than 4s. per 1,000 feet; that it should be reduced to 3s. 6d., and subsequently to 3s., in the event of their sale of gas being sufficiently large to enable them to pay to the shareholders a dividend of 10 per cent. Parliament gave its sanction to that Bill, and the consequence was immediately manifest. The price of gas was reduced to 4s. per 1,000 feet, and the price of the public lamps, which was originally at five guineas, was reduced to £2 9s. 6d. But at a later period, about 1857, the public discontent in the metropolis generally about the supply of gas and the price of gas became very great, the gas companies at that time having come to an understanding among themselves about districting the metropolitan area, which, in point of fact, would enable them to supply gas on their own terms. In the years 1858 and 1859, Committees of this House investigated the question, and, as the result, the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, was passed, by which, and by the Gas Clauses Act of 1847, the whole question of the gas supply, manufacture, and sale, is now regulated. The City was advised by its law officers that the measures contemplated by the promoters of that Bill would not affect them. They, therefore, took no part whatever in the agitation; but after the Bill had become law, they found upon an appeal to a court of law that they were subject to the law, and that the effect of the law was to annul the understanding which had been entered into between the City and the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company. The consequence of this was that the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company, which had been brought out under the fostering wing of the corporation of London, confederated with the other gas companies, and the price of gas was immediately raised to 4s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, and the price of the public lamps was increased, until two months ago, to £5 9s. 6d. per lamp, against the £2 9s. 6d. per lamp in the year 1853. The effect of this upon the interests of the inhabitants of the City may be well conceived: competition was dead; the gas companies supplied such gas as they chose, and at such prices as they pleased. That state of things continued until a recent period—the gas consumers always complaining, and the
  1600
  corporation always trying to do something on their behalf. In consequence of the attention directed to the subject, the corporation of London gave notice last year that they would introduce a Bill for the purpose of manufacturing gas on behalf of the citizens for their own use. That, in fact, is the Bill now before the House. The application to Parliament for that Bill was a matter of necessity to the corporation, representing, as I have before stated, the ratepayers and the gas consumers of the City. The City finding itself in this position, invited the chairmen of the various gas companies to confer with them. They came—they had a long conference; but the end of it was this: the City on the one hand objected to the quality of the gas, and the quantity of the gas, and the price charged for it; the gas companies, on the other hand, assigned reasons why it was impossible for them at that time to comply with the demands made upon them, but promised, after an indefinite time, that the price of gas should be reduced. The result of the conference was so unsatisfactory to the corporation of London, that they gave notice of the Bill now before the House. Now, Sir, upon the merits of the Bill itself, it is objected to upon various grounds. In the first place, it is said to be an irregular and an improper thing that the corporation should undertake the sale of an article like gas. My answer to that is, that the principle has been admitted by Parliament, and that in many cities and towns throughout the country gas and water are supplied by the corporations of those towns, to the great benefit of the ratepayers and inhabitants; and, I believe, that in those instances where it has been carried out on a large scale, and notably at Manchester, great advantage has been derived from that practice. But, Sir, I am told that the Act of 1860 was a settlement of the question. Well, Sir, I have yet to learn that any Act of Parliament is a settlement of a question. It is as competent for the House to re-consider what it has done at any time, on cause shown, as it is to pass an Act de novo. But the point which I wish to come to is this—that the gas companies are bound by that statute to make an annual report to Parliament of the state of their affairs. They have done so. The accounts of all the gas companies, their capital, their receipts, their expenditure and their division of profits are all presented to Parliament, and are to be found on the Library of the

  1601
  House. Well, the view that I take of the filing of these accounts on the Records of the House is this, that those accounts are intended to be examined by the House, and upon the accounts so rendered the gas companies are to be held answerable to us. It is for that reason that I have ventured to suggest, that in the event of this Bill being read a second time the inquiry should be extended to the whole metropolis, in order to enable Parliament to see that the gas companies have complied with the requirements of the Act of 1860, which compels them to supply gas of a proper quality and quantity, so that their profits shall not exceed 10 per cent, I have examined into the accounts of two of these companies. I will take the case of the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company, because it is one of the companies with which the City has to deal, and I find that in the year 1864 this company was not only dividing the sum of 10 per cent upon its capital, but it also laid by a considerable amount. I find that in the year 1864 the gross profits of this company were £47,428 I that they divided 10 per cent. upon their capital of £ 185,400; that they paid themselves a further sum of £11,781 as arrears of dividends due upon former years, and that they carried to a separate account, to the next year's account, a further sum of £17.017, that is to say, that whereas £18,000 was applied to the purpose of paying their dividend of 10 per cent, that they carried two sums, one of £11,000 and the other of £17,000 over and above that amount to other accounts. Now, Sir, the other case to which I will call the attention of the House is that of the Imperial Gaslight Company. That company is possessed of a capital, according to their last returns, of £1,235,000; they have also another item of capital which, I think, requires some investigation. They have £130,000 of what they state to be proprietors' 10 per cent bonds; but as those bonds figure in the accounts, as taking the place of capitalized profits of former years, I take it that these bonds represent the surplus profit of former years, for which nominal bonds have been granted to the shareholders. This increases the amount of capital on which 10 per cent is fairly payable. In the year 1844 this company made a gross profit, in round numbers, of £560,000. Out of this large sum they paid a dividend to their shareholders of 10 per cent on the capital stock. They, of course, paid all their charges. They paid
  1602
  all the interest on their borrowed money. They paid to the proprietors 10 per cent upon their capital, but upon another portion, their proprietors' bonds, they paid £26,000, that is to say, upon that last portion of their capital they paid 20 per cent. Besides that, they credited £42,570 to their contingent and reserved fund, which has now £90,000 in all at its credit. Now, Sir, the proposition that I venture to lay down is this—that in this particular case the Imperial Gaslight Company has made profits largely in excess of 10 per cent, and that the public are not benefited, as it was the intention of the Legislature the public should be benefited, by the diminution in the price of gas. I do not mean to say that the directors and other officers of these establishments are in any way chargeable with fraud, or with any colouring of their accounts; I believe that they simply take a different view of the operation of the Act of Parliament to what other persons do. It is for that reason, having these accounts now before us, that I am anxious that the gas proprietors themselves should he afforded on opportunity to have the affairs of their companies brought up for examination before a Committee of this House. I cannot conceive that the gas proprietors can decline this; if they are right, if their accounts have been properly framed, and submitted in the proper form to Parliament; if they have not divided more than they ought to have done, then the case of the City corporation, now before Parliament, falls to the ground, But if, on the other hand, they can be shown to have divided more I profits than they ought to have done, then I say that the corporation of the City of London is justified in coming before Parliament with a Bill to supply the City with gas. There is one point more upon which I should like to say a word. Amongst the companies now before Parliament is a company asking powers from Parliament to erect new works at Hackney Wick, at a cost of £300,000, which they allege to be undivided profits. Now, surely, if the statement which is made in this paper is correct—if this company is coming to Parliament to ask for powers to capitalize £300,000 of undivided profits, in addition to money which they are authorized to raise by their Act of Parliament, it stands to reason that the company must have been charging more during the last few years than they are justified in doing, according to the provisions of the Act of I860. In

  1603
  the ease of these two companies, which are connected with the City, application has been made to Parliament already for permission to lay out a further sum of £1,000,000 sterling. The corporation of London does not ask to supersede the gas companies, but what the corporation of London asks for is this: they Bay, we find that we cannot bring these 'companies to reason, and the only way in which we can protect the interests of our constituents is by asking Parliament for leave to compete with them, and it cannot be said, if the City is permitted to take up the ground which these companies are now seeking to take up, that the City is in anyway superseding the gas companies. Now, Sir, I hope I have said enough to convince the House that the question of gas is a large question, affecting the interests of the inhabitants of the metropolis; and, as far as the Act of 1860 is concerned, there is primâ facie evidence that the gas companies have not acted in the spirit in which that Act was framed, and that the time has come when an inquiry should take place into the operation of that Act, and for that reason, after the Bill has been read a second time, I shall move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. A Select Committee of the character I propose has this advantage, that whereas it is not usual in an inquiry before an ordinary Committee to hear parties by counsel, in this particular case the parties interested either for or against in these Bills would be allowed to appear and be represented by counsel before that Committee, so that there would be a thorough and, I should hope, an impartial investigation into the subject. Sir, for these reasons I trust that the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid: Sir, I should not have ventured to intrude on the House upon this subject, but for this special reason, that I was on the Committee of which Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was Chairman in 1860, and, in his absence from the House, I feel bound to say a word or two which I do with great reluctance, because my leanings are decidedly in this direction —that, if it be possible, there should be some mode of dealing with these gas companies. I do not think that they treat the public fairly. If there is one thing more important even than to provide against
  1604
  the effects of monopoly, it is the maintenance of the public faith in the House of Commons. What seems to me a matter of extreme importance is, that whatever we do in connection with commercial undertakings, when we hold out prospects by which persons are induced to become connected with commercial undertakings, we should observe the most scrupulous good faith. Now, Sir, this Committee of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt's sat during the greater part of the Session of 1860. After a great deal of dissension and a great deal of conflict, a settlement was arrived at, and that settlement was this—that various parts of London should be, as the phrase is, districted, that is to say, that they should be marked out as, so to speak, the gas property of these respected companies. [Cries of "Hear!"and "Oh, oh!"] I beg hon. Members who cheer to hear the view that was entertained by the Committee. Certain rigid conditions were imposed upon these Companies as to the amount of illumination that was required of them, and that it should be provided also in accordance with the General Act for all gas companies that after they had divided 10 per cent, and paid up back dividends for a certain limited number of years, I think it was six, and had also provided for the thorough efficiency of their works; that all surplus profit was to be divided to the benefit of the consumer. Well now, as I understand from the hon. Gentleman opposite, his case is, that these conditions have not been complied with, and if the matter had rested there, and he were able to substantiate a primâ, facie case of that kind, I should not have a word to say against the second reading of the Bill. But my objection is that he has gone to the wrong tribunal. The Committee of 1860 was careful to provide a remedy more easy than an appeal to Parliament in order that the gas consumers might have justice done to them, and they inserted a clause in the Bill of a very peculiar character, and I trust that I may invite the attention of the House to it—
  "The limits of each of the said companies shall be the respective districts supplied with gas by such companies as the same are defined upon four duplicate maps signed by the right hon. Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron Estcourt, and which maps have been severally deposited with the respective Clerks of the Peace for the counties of Middlesex, London, Surrey and Kent."
  Then it proceeds—
  "Provided that at the expiration of three years next after the passing of this Act, and of every three years thereafter, Her Majesty's Principal

  1605
  Secretary of State for the Home Department for the time being may, cither upon the application and with the consent of any two or more of the said gas companies whose districts adjoin one another, make any alteration in the boundaries of such districts, or upon the application of any local authority, or upon the requisition of not less than twenty gas consumers within any district or districts proposed to be affected, and upon proof to his satisfaction being given that any of the said gas companies are not in a condition adequately to supply with gas their respective districts, or have substantially failed to fulfil the obligations imposed by this Act, may make such alterations in the boundaries of such districts or admit any new company respectively, as he thinks proper,"
  Now, Sir, I want to ask if the corporation of London have adopted that remedy pro vided for them by Parliament? and I would submit that if instead of going to the Secretary of State, as they are bound to do, they have come with a Private Bill before this House, this House is bound, in respect of the provisions which this Act contains, to have recourse to the remedy provided by law, and when that remedy has failed, and not till then, the parties may come to the House of Commons. Sir, I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. ADAIR: Sir, I have risen to second the Motion of the noble Lord, whose very lucid explanation of the circumstances which led to the Gas Act of 1860, renders it unnecessary for me to make any observation upon the particular part of the subject. But I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances under which this proposition comes before it, whose Bill it is, and how it is proposed to be carried out. It appears to me that certain ratepayers of the City of London, being dissatisfied with the quality of the gas supplied to them, and not having thought it necessary to apply to the proper tribunal for redress, that is to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who sits below me, go to the Common Council of the City of London in a fit of spasmodic activity, and say we must bring in a Bill to remedy their grievances. Sir, who are the Common Council of the corporation of London? Why, Sir, it is the corporation of London itself. And what is the corporation of London? A very venerable and powerful institution, so powerful that it has been able three times to defy the threatened attacks of the right hon. Gentleman below me, and to its own admiration it remains to this day the only unreformed and irresponsible corporation in the kingdom. Well, Sir, the House will
  1606
  hardly be surprised when I draw their attention to some of the clauses of the Bill which emanates from the corporation of the City of London. In the first place, the corporation have a dislike to any interference from any person or body without the walls of the City; and having that dislike, they propose that they shall he exempted from the operation of the Act of 1860, because that relieves them from any superintendence and guiding influence of the right hon. Gentleman who presides at the Home Office. Well, Sir, what do they next propose to do? They then propose that they shall have the power of raising money upon all their funds, upon all their resources, upon all their estates, and upon all their dues whatsoever and wheresoever. Now,; I need not call to the recollection of the House the miscellaneous and very extensive sources of income which the City of London possesses. I need not call to their recollection that many of them do not arise within the City of London, but the richest of them is contributed by an area of at least twenty miles around the centre of the metropolis. Well, Sir, with this proposition, they come also with what they consider will be a very attractive proposition. They say, we, your trustees, want no money, we will manage your property for nothing, we will not only give the gas for a mere nominal value, but we will also beautify and improve your streets and the metropolis at large. Now, Sir, I think I may venture to say, that if my hon. Friend the Member for the City, and his colleagues, go to a tribunal upstairs, that tribunal will not be inclined to take the same view as he has been advised to do. But, Sir, there is another very peculiar point in this Bill, which is, that a corporation propose to deal with the property of two or three existing companies, making no provision whatever from the beginning to the end of their Bill for in any way compensating or purchasing existing interests. Now, Sir, I venture to say that, with the exception of one or two boroughs in this kingdom, there is no municipal corporation who light a town, who has not done that in one of three ways; it has either originated the lighting when it had no lighting, or it has compensated existing interests, or it has absolutely purchased existing interests. Now, Sir, I think that these are questions which are well worthy I the consideration of the House, and for this reason I hope that the House will not

  1607
  consider it right and proper that this Bill should not proceed to the stage of a second reading. I object to it on the responsibility of the corporation whose Bill it is; I object to it likewise that the taxation is general, and that the benefit is local and limited; I object to it moreover, that under the operation of the Act, any one of the opposing companies may be summoned at the instance of the Commissioners of Sewers, they themselves a portion of the Common Council, summoned before another member of the corporation, the alderman who happens to be the magistrate of the day, and that therefore this corporation must virtually sit as judge on those who are their rivals in trade. I think I need hardly supplement an arrangement of that sort with any further observations. Now, I appeal to the House whether there ever was a more striking instance of civic torpor and administrative incapacity. I therefore hope that this Bill will not be allowed to proceed further, and I hope that the metropolitan gas companies will not be allowed to be harassed by projects of the same nature, and with the same object. I think the House would do well to oppose any tendency of that sort, if it is calculated to foster the idea and encourage the expectation that this legislation may emanate from this House, if it be only pressed forward by well sustained importunity. Sir, for that reason I second the Amendment of the noble Lord, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Viscount Cranbourne.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE: Mr. Speaker, after the last speech I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words with regard to the matter before the House. The hon. Member who has spoken in favour of this measure being read this day six months, has alluded to circumstances which have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. This Bill has been introduced by the corporation of the City of London, because it has been pressed upon their notice by the whole of the inhabitants of the City, and the corporation feels that when they do anything for the benefit of the City, they do it also for the benefit of the inhabitants of this great metropolis. Sir, on the last occasion when the gas companies united to prevent another company being introduced into the City of London, the same attacks were
  1608
  made, the same arguments were used as on the present occasion, in order to prevent the new company being introduced into the City of London. What was the effect of the introduction of that new company into the City of London? It was to reduce the price of gas throughout the whole of this metropolis, and throughout every city and borough in the kingdom. That was the effect of the introduction of a new gas company into the City of London. Now, on the present occasion the gas companies seem to be afraid of a Committee of Inquiry upstairs. That is the wish of the corporation, that the whole of the Bills which are now introduced may be sent up to that Committee, and that there may be a full and fair inquiry into the subject, and they have no fear as to the result. Now, Sir, it is quite clear that the whole of this metropolis is unanimous that the manufacture of gas ought to be removed to places out of the City of London. It has been shown that gasometers may explode, and therefore it is necessary that the gasometers at Whitefriars should be removed to some place beyond the City, to a distance which would not endanger either St. Paul's or the Temple; and the gas companies, in order that they may prevent an inquiry, are anxious that this Bill should be thrown out on the second reading. We know that the gas which is supplied to the House of Commons is of very pure quality, and sufficient in quantity, and suits the purpose for which it is required. But the public does not know that that gas is manufactured specially for this purpose, and that it has a 22-candle illuminating power; and in the same way the House is not aware of the quality that is supplied to the general consumer. The public say that the article supplied to them is deficient in quantity, and is bad in quality, and that they have to pay a high price for it, and that it damages the sight of those who use it. Now, Sir, I think that a fair case has been made out why this Bill should have a second reading, and why it should be sent to a Committee upstairs; and I can tell my hon. Friend, who says he hopes that Bills of this kind may not be brought for-word annually, that if he succeeds in throwing this Bill out, the inhabitants of the district will band themselves together, in order to adopt some means by which they may protect themselves.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, in consequence of the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) who was a Member

  1609
  of the Committee of which Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was Chairman, by which the present arrangement with respect to the gas companies was settled, I will say a few words upon this subject. Now, the noble Lord stated very fairly the clause, the substance of which he read to the House, which, in fact, after providing for the metropolis being divided into certain districts, provides that on the application of certain persons, those districts may be re-arranged by the Secretary of State; but I rather think the noble Lord misled the House, I am sure, unintentionally, when he spoke of the power of interference of the Secretary of State under that clause. I will read the lines of the clause, which I think will put the House in possession of the real state of the question. At the end of the clause it is stated—
  "And no other company or person than the company to whom such limits are for the time being assigned, or shall hereafter he assigned, shall supply gas for sale within the said limits unless authorized by Parliament so to do."
  This clause, therefore, contemplates an application to Parliament for a new company, with power to override those powers under that Act. Now, Sir, the question is, whether a case for such a Bill has been made out? And I think that on a fair construction of that clause, no breach of faith can be imputed to Parliament by giving a second reading to this Bill. There is, in a subsequent clause, another power given to the Secretary of State, in case of complaint made of the quality or quantity of gas. He may then appoint a competent person or persons to inquire into those complaints. In one case, and in one case only, a complaint under that clause has been made to the Secretary of State, and he directed an inquiry to be made as to the gas supplied in the district to which the complaint referred. The gentleman appointed to make the inquiry reported that the gas was defective, and the company were required in the terms of the Act to remedy the defect. No other complaints have been made, and I presume that in that district the defect was remedied. Now, I think that the hon. Member for the City of London has made out a case for inquiry. Then, Sir, the question arises, should a Committee of this House be appointed specially to conduct that inquiry, or would it be better to read this Bill a second time, and refer it to a Committee to which the Bills have been submitted that have been promoted by these gas com-
  1610
  panies themselves? I am inclined to think that the best way would be to read this Bill a second time, and refer it to the Committee suggested by my hon. Friend, and to instruct that Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1860. If the result of that inquiry should be to show that those gas companies have not fulfilled the conditions which they were bound to fulfil, they will report accordingly. If the gas companies show that the conditions imposed by the Act of 1860 have been fulfilled, then I think there is no case for the Bill; but if, on the other hand, it be shown that they have not fulfilled those conditions, then I think this Bill might be allowed to proceed.
  MR ROEBUCK: One word, Sir, and that is as to the truth of the statement that the House itself is a very unfit tribunal for trying questions of this kind. Can anybody doubt for an instant from the appearance of the House that the House has been packed for the occasion? That is, people have been taken by the button-hole, letters have been written, constituencies have been applied to, Now, I want to know by whom? Why, by the gas companies. Now, Sir, I ask the House, for its own honour, to consider what it is doing, and to ask itself whether it is now acting in that judicial capacity in which a Private Bill calls upon them to act, and whether they are worthy to do so? Now, Sir, what does the hon. Member for London himself say? Why, that he is in a peculiar position. That on the one side there is the corporation of London, and on the other the gas companies; that he is pulled by one tail of his coat by one, and the other tail of his coat by the other. Is it not clear that the proper course is to send this Bill to the tribunal which the wisdom of Parliament has long ago said is the proper judge of private legislation, and that we should not take upon ourselves, in this unseemly manner, to decide this question?
  MR. CRAUFURD: Sir, I am not connected with any gas company, therefore my vote will not be interested, but the reason why I object to this Bill being read a second time is that it involves a question of principle. If the gas companies have misconducted themselves let there be an inquiry. The gas companies themselves, I am sure, will be the first to court an inquiry. There are plenty of Bills before the House promoted by gas companies which will give the opportunity of an in-

  1611
  quiry or, it might be, a Public Committee. The other day the reason given why this House should not object to a second reading of a Bill, on which a grievance was alleged against a railway company was that there was no Bill before the House which would give the opportunity of inquiry; but in the present case there are plenty of Bills promoted by the various gas companies, on which inquiry might take place. But the ground, and the principal ground, on which I ask the House to reject this Bill is the principle on which this House ought to legislate—namely, to refuse corporations the power of competing with existing gas companies. There has not been a single case in which this House has acceded to this proposition. Last year a Committee sat upon a Private Bill, and one of the Committee on that Bill was no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose views on that occasion I might quote in opposition to the arguments of his colleague, in the representation of the City of London. There are many instances which might be quoted to show that no corporation has been allowed to compete with existing companies. That is the principle of the Bill. Will this House sanction solemnly the second reading of this Bill, which involves a principle which has been uniformly and unanimously rejected by the House? On that ground, and on that ground alone, that being the principle of the Bill, I entreat the House not to agree to the second reading.
  MR. AYRTON: Sir, no man is more likely to defer than I am to the wish of the House to divide; but there are occasions when it is necessary to say one word before a division takes place. The question really is this—Will the House divide on the mere question of form, or will it divide on the substance of the question before it? No doubt if we divide on the form, we shall almost be unanimous in rejecting the second reading of this Bill, because I can hardly conceive that the House of Commons would grant power to the City of London to constitute itself into a gas company; but, independent of the question of form, there is besides the great question of substance; that is, whether the House will avail itself of the present proceeding to extend the inquiry into the operation of the Metropolis Gas Companies Act? And I beg the House not to reject this substantial question
  1612
  too hastily, because I happened to be one of those called on to represent the inhabitants of the metropolis in their endeavours to have that Act passed, and I was a Member of the Committee upstairs which sat to take evidence leading to the introduction of that Bill, and I recollect when we were endeavouring to take that evidence, the inquiry was defeated by the interest of the gas companies by their having a resolution passed that it was desirable that an investigation should take place with the assistance of counsel, at the instance of some parties interested in the inquiry, and we, not having funds at our disposal to combat those gas companies, were obliged at once to abandon the inquiry, and I myself made a Motion that the Committee report its proceedings to the House; and it was in consequence of that course taken by the gas companies on that occasion that there was not that full inquiry which should have taken place before legislation, and it was in consequence of the difficulty we were placed in in endeavouring to obtain for the inhabitants the light which we demanded, that that Act was imperfect. But the Act having been passed, no doubt we are bound to observe public faith, but we are only bound to observe it according to the strict letter of the Act, considering the circumstances under which it passed. Now, Sir, the corporation of London took no part in the inquiry; I never knew it do anything for the benefit of the inhabitants, and, therefore, I am not surprised at it; but the question is, whether, making allowance for the inexperience of the corporation of London not doing anything for the public good, we ought not now to look to the substance of the question, and not to be carried off by a mere idle form, because it is a mere idle form; if we are to reject the second reading of this Bill, if it is to be passed under the conditions proposed by the hon. Member for the City of London. I have had some experience in what are called Hybrid Committees; I apprehend that when you read a Bill a second time you do not pledge your mind to the principle of the Bill: what you pledge yourself to is the instructions in the first instance, and I apprehend the Committee must form its proceedings upon the instructions it receives before it can proceed to the Bill itself. Therefore, the substantial question is, will you allow a Committee to be appointed upstairs? Now, Sir, I ask the House to agree to that upon this ground,

  1613
  that no such Committee in the face of these wealthy gas companies can possibly pursue the inquiry unless there be some one before it, possessed of great resources and means, for the purpose of conducting that inquiry; and if the corporation of London, for the first time, propose to devote some of its resources to such an inquiry, I say that we ought to allow it to do so. It is the first time that they have passed from "gastronomy to gas," and I hope that the House will, pledging itself to nothing, agree to the instructions which my hon. Friend has proposed in the interest of the public.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: —Ayes 219; Noes 193: Majority 26.
  Mr. Serjeant Gaselee, Member for the Borough of Portsmouth, came to the Table, and stated that he had gone by mistake into the wrong Lobby, and while intending to vote with the Noes had voted with the Ayes; but Mr. Speaker stated that as he bad gone into the Lobby with the Ayes, and had been counted with them, his Vote must stand so recorded.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I now move, Sir, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of twelve members, five to be chosen by the Committee of Selection, and that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the operation of the Gas Act of 1860.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Before you put the Question, Sir, allow me to call the attention of the House to the fact that there are two retorts or gasometers, where gas is made and stored, near the Temple. Some time ago a serious accident occurred through the explosion of a gasometer, and I think that it ought to be a special subject of inquiry before the Committee, whether there can be any safety in the City while this state of things is permitted to exist.
  MR. AYRTON: There is a Bill before the House for the removal of these works, and I think it is part of the arrangement that that Bill should go before this Committee, and then the whole subject will be discussed.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Twelve Members, of whom Five shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection:
  1614
  Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the operation and results of "The Metropolis Gas Act, 1860."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  And on April 13 Committee nominated as follows:— Mr. HASTINGS RUSSELL, Mr. DUTTON, Mr. WOODS, Colonel NORTH, Mr. MORRISON, Mr. WESTROPP; and on April 16 Mr. Alderman LUSK added; and on April 17 Colonel NORTH discharged, Mr. STANILAND added.

CATTLE CARRYING VESSELS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there be any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to extend the system of inspection and survey now applied to Emigrant and Passenger Ships to Vessels engaged in the Cattle-carrying trade, with a view to securing the health, safety, and comfort of animals brought into this Country, either for the purpose of being slaughtered for food, or for dairy and breeding purposes?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, it is not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to bring in any Bill in order to extend the system of inspection and survey now applied to the Emigrant and Passenger Ships to vessels employed in carrying cattle. Various regulations of a sanitary character have been proposed with respect to the importation of foreign cattle, for the purpose of preventing the introduction of contagious cattle diseases into this country. It has appeared, however, to the Government advisable that a Committee of this House should be appointed to inquire into this subject, and it is worthy of consideration whether such Committee should not also inquire whether any or what regulations should be imposed on the inland carrying of cattle by railways.

GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the House the measures to be taken in consequence of the Report of the Second Commission on the grievances of Indian Officers, before issuing instructions on the subject to the Government of India; and, if so, when they will be submitted to the House?
  MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, he was not able to name the day when the matter would be submitted to the House. It would be his duty when the time came to mate a statement as to the nature of the measures which the Government were prepared to recommend. They had no desire to avoid Parliamentary discussion, or an expression of the opinion of the House on the question to which the noble Lord referred.

IRELAND—THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.—QUESTIONS.
MR. LOWEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland. Whether he will obtain and lay upon the table of the House the following information with regard to the Catholic University:—The Instrument of its foundation; the authority by which it professes to confer Degrees, and a list of such Degrees; the number of its Students fur each year since its foundation; and by Students he understood Students actually studying in the University, not affiliated to the Institution, and not evening Students; also the number of Professors?
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he desired, before the Question was answered, to put that of which he had given notice, having reference to the same subject. He wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether the changes contemplated in the constitution of the Queen's University in Ireland are to be affected by a surrender from the Corporation of their present Charter, or in what other manner; and if by a surrender of the Charter, whether the assent of the University to such surrender has been obtained?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, in answer to the Questions put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), he begged to state that the Catholic University was a voluntary institution, it did not receive aid from the State, and was not under its control, and he was not, therefore, in a condition to produce the information asked for; but he should be happy to make inquiries, and if he succeeded, he would lay the result on the table. In reference to the several points to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he might state that, as the Catholic University was founded by the Roman Catholic prelates in Ireland, he was not aware that there was actually any instrument of foundation. As to the second point, the power to confer degrees, it had
1616
no such authority, and he believed it did not profess to confer any degrees except in theology. He was not in a position to give the number of students or professors. He had only access to the University Calendar, and consequently could not give authentic information on these points. With respect to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), as to the mode in which the changes contemplated in the constitution of the Queen's University in Ireland are to be effected, he had to state that the mode of effecting these changes had not yet been finally decided upon. The changes which it was in the contemplation of the Government to recommend would be shortly laid on the table in the form of a letter from the Secretary of State to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It would, of course, be necessary to obtain the assent of the governing body of the Queen's University to those changes, and that assent had not yet been asked for.

CONSULATE AT BANGKOK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Knox, Her Majesty's Consul at Bangkok, had returned to his post; why he quitted it; and if any one was left in charge at the Consulate during the absence of Mr. Knox?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that Mr. Knox, Her Majesty's Consul at Bangkok, had returned to his post, which he had acquitted in consequence of very important affairs connected with British interests. The Government entirely approved his proceedings. In his absence he had left an officer of great ability and experience perfectly competent to manage affairs in charge of the Consulate.

  SPECIAL JURY SUMMONSES.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. WHATMANsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether, in the case of householders liable to serve on special juries, and resident in such houses during a part only of the year, and not occasionally, returning at other times, the High Bailiff of Westminster, or other summoning officers, are right in leaving summonses for such persons, their houses being shut up during such absence, to serve on juries whilst they are so absent; whether

    1617
    the High Bailiff of Westminster and other summoning officers ought to ascertain whether such persons have been so summoned during their absence before serving them with a peremptory order to pay a fine of £10, &c, and putting them to further trouble and inconvenience to be excused paying the fine imposed; whether, considering the inconvenience of this practice, and the consequent uncertainty of the suitors in court obtaining a full special jury, any steps will he taken to amend this practice; and whether the exemption of Members of Parliament to serve on special juries ends with the Session of Parliament, or whether it is continued by the successive prorogations of the House? Perhaps the House would allow him to add that the reason for his putting the question was that he had received a summons from the High Bailiff of Westminster to attend at his Court some days after the date at which he was required to attend. He subsequently received a notice informing him that he had been fined for non-attendance, and upon stating the circumstances to the officer he was told he must apply to the Court in order to have the fine remitted.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,in reply, said, that special jury lists were made out by the parish officers, whose duty it was to place upon the list the name of every householder qualified to serve. Special sessions were held for the purpose of revising the lists, and if the hon. Member found his name improperly placed upon the list his remedy was to apply to the Justices to expunge it. When the list was made out it was entered in the jury hook for the following year, and then it became the duty of the summoning officer to summon every person whose name appeared in it. It was not the duty of the summoning officer to inquire whether any person liable to be summoned was or was not permanently resident in London, as it was sufficient to leave the summons at the place of residence, there being no necessity for personal service. If the person summoned desired to have the fine for non-attendance remitted on the ground of his absence from town, he must apply to the Court, who would take the matter into consideration. In answer to the third Question of the hon. Member, he believed that some inconvenience had arisen from the fact that many persons occupied residences both in London and in the country, which gave rise to much difficulty. At the same time, he must say
    1618
    that there was great difficulty in obtaining a full number of special jurors, and he thought that the question whether there should not be some legislation on the subject deserved consideration. With regard to the last Question of the hon. Member, as to the liability of Members of that House to serve upon special juries, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that their exemption was not founded on any statute, but merely upon the privileges of the House. There could be no doubt that a Member of Parliament was exempt while Parliament was Bitting, and in 1829 it was decided by the then Speaker that a Member was exempt when the House adjourned. The question whether that exemption held good during a prorogation had not yet been settled by any authoritative decision, but it appeared to him that exemption from serving upon special juries could not be less extensive than the exemption from arrest. He was, therefore, of opinion that the exemption referred to extended over a prorogation.

  SALE OF BEER.—QUESTION.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether a Return can be made by the Government of the quantity of Beer sold in the United Kingdom in any one year; and, if so, whether there is any objection to a Motion for such a Return for the years 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Unfortunately, Sir, it is not in our power to give any Returns on the subject which I could in any manner guarantee. There are apparently the means of rendering such Returns, because the licences of brewers are charged according to a scale, the steps of which are described by so many barrels of beer. Therefore, it may be supposed that we have the power of giving very nearly the number of barrels of beer. But in point of fact, although that law is founded, and always has been founded, on a certain number of barrels of beer— that is, a supposed number of barrels of beer, or the number of barrels of beer computed to be brewed from the quantity of malt used by each maltster, which quantity of malt of course is known—yet there is no rule of knowledge whatever. In point of fact, information given on that ground, while it might mislead people by an appearance of reality, would be but of a deceptive character.

  CATTLE DISEASES BILL—REMOVAL OF HIDES—THE TANNING TRADE.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the staple trade of many towns, and of Beverley in particular, will, if the present restriction be continued, be injured, and a large proportion of the population thrown out of employment, it is the intention of the Government to redress the inequalities in the Tanning Trade now arising out of the differences in Local Orders with regard to the removal of Hides, by issuing an uniform Order in Council on the subject?
    MR. BARINGsaid, in reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to state that the Government was aware that there was a very great disturbance in the tanning trade, mainly in consequence of the decision at which Parliament had recently arrived, prohibiting the removal of cattle by railway until the 25th of March, and the result of which was that animals were slaughtered in places where there were no conveniences for doing so. The Question, however, was now before Parliament in the form of clauses contained in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which was now in another place. He was informed, and he believed, that the Bill would be sent down to that House shortly, and, therefore, until Parliament should have expressed an opinion upon the subject, it would be clearly improper on the part of Government to issue any Order on the subject.
    COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, he wished to know, whether Government were inclined to support the clause having reference to this subject which had been introduced into the Bill of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire when it came down to that House?

  SMITHFIELD DEAD MEAT MARKET. QUESTION.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table a Memorial addressed to him by the Churchwardens and Inhabitants of St. Sepulchre's parish in November last regarding the Smithfield Dead Meat Market and the Correspondence consequent thereon?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there would
  1620
  be no objection to the production of these Papers, which might be useful as showing the course which the Government had taken upon the subject with the corporation of London. If the hon. Member would move for the Papers they would be given.

CLERKS TO JUSTICES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. COLVILLE,on rising to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit Justices' clerks for counties conducting prosecutions in cases where the offender has been committed by the Justices to whom he acts as clerk, said, he sought to introduce no new principle, but simply to extend to counties the prohibition which had long existed in boroughs. He felt most strongly how much all those who acted as Justices were advantaged by the assistance of well qualified clerks, but the clerks were, he thought, unfortunately, paid by fees, and a very strong impression existed out of doors that in advising decisions the clerks were influenced by pecuniary motives. Certainly, the fees increased by a commitment; and with £6 or £7 looming in the distance if a prosecution was to be conducted by the clerk in the event of the offender being committed for trial, the pecuniary advantages obtained by a Justices clerk by recommending a commitment or conviction were considerable. He asked to be allowed to bring in his Bill to avoid in part this scandal. Clerks in boroughs had been prohibited from conducting prosecutions since the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act. The tendency of modern legislation was to prevent officers having any money benefit from advice judicially given. Coroners were, by statute, forbidden to conduct prosecutions where cases had come before them or their jury. He (Mr. Colville) asked the House to extend the same prohibition to County Justices' clerks. He quoted a judgment given by Lord Campbell in the case of R. v. Fox, where the Judge said—
  "Unpaid magistracy have been and are a great credit to the country, but it is of the last importance that the clerk should have no interest in the prosecutions, that he should have no bias in his mind, and that he should obtain no advantage, either directly or indirectly, from those cases in which he has to give advice."
  He thought that hon. Members, on whichever side the House they might sit, would agree with the remarks made by the learned Judge, and he hoped they would give their support to his Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Government had no objection to the introduction of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to prohibit the Clerks to Justices in Counties conducting the prosecution of any offender committed for trial by the Justice or Justices for whom they are acting as Clerk, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLVILLE and Sir HENRY HOARE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 53.]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS WITHIN PRISONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. HIBBERT,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to permit Capital Punishments to be carried out under certain regulations within the interior of Prisons, said, he should have been very glad to leave the question entirely in the hands of the Government if he had perceived any disposition on their part to bring in a Bill on the subject, and a desire to carry it to a successful issue. He was personally careless as to the fate of his own Bill, provided he attained the object he had in view. He wished to make a few remarks on the question with which the Bill he asked leave to introduce sought to deal, because last year, when he had the honour of submitting a similar measure, he was prevented making any statement by the fact that the subject was at the moment under the consideration of the Capital Punishment Commissioners. In looking at the question lie could not help referring to the very great change which had taken place in our penal system and in our penal laws during the present century. The House, he was sure, would agree with him in thinking that civilization had advanced concurrently with those changes, and that a mitigation of our penal laws had been produced by the force of public opinion. At the commencement of the present century criminals were hung, one might say, in droves; there were then no less than 160 crimes subject to capital punishment. He could not avoid referring to those times when the pillory was a public punishment, when culprits were hung in chains, and whipping was resorted to as a means of correction. He did so to show how the rigour of the law had been relaxed, and how the result justified our doing away with the few remains that were left of the barbarism of a past age. Those changes had not been carried
  1622
  out without considerable difficulty and opposition. It required at the early part of the present century a Romilly and a Macintosh to produce the smallest mitigation of the terrors of the law; and in the present age we were much indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) for his efforts to reduce the severity of our penal code. In reviewing our laws as to capital punishment we should find that in the year 1754 the country was not satisfied with merely hanging a man outside the gaol, but required him to be publicly carted from Newgate to Tyburn. There he was hung in chains, and, after the body had been cut down, was dissected. A few years later Parliament required that execution should follow sentence within forty-eight hours. A few years later, again, the culprit during those forty-eight hours was allowed nothing for his sustenance but bread and water. It was not until 1832 that any indication was given of an opposite feeling in our nature. In that year the Judge had the option of saying whether the body after execution should be dissected. Two years passed on, and a further step was taken in this direction. Two years later, again, the law was put into pretty nearly the state in which it stood at the present time, the body being buried in the precincts of the place where the criminal had been confined previous to his execution. That was the last legislation which took place. This mitigation of punishment had not had the effect of increasing crime; for he found in the "blue book" that in the ten years ending with 1832 the average number of executions per annum was 12·8, or 1 in 996,000 of the population; in the ten years ending 1842, 9·7 executions per annum or 1 in 1,536,000; in the next, 10·6, or 1 in 1,596,000; and in the next decade, ending with the year 1862, 11 executions per annum, or 1 in 1,727,000. Those figures bore out what he had stated —namely, that as the penal laws were mitigated, so crime, instead of increasing, had rather decreased. He would not take up the time of the House by referring to the very unpleasant scenes which took place on the occasion of a public execution. Every hon. Member would have read the thrilling descriptions that appeared in the press of what occurred on the occasion of the execution of the five pirates, and also of the man Müller. He would quote an extract from The Times' report of the execution of Muller, and he

  1623
  did so more especially because that journal had expressed a strong opinion against his proposal. The writer of the extract to which he referred said—
  "It was such a concourse as we hope may never again be assembled either for such a spectacle, or for the gratification of such lawless ruffianism as yesterday found scope around the gallows … There can be only one thing more difficult than describing this crowd, and that is to forget it … None but those who looked down upon the crowd of yesterday will ever believe in the leisurely, open, broadcast manner in which garotting and highway robbery were carried on…Such were the open pastimes of the mob from daylight till near the hour of execution⁖The impression, however (speaking of the silence at the time of execution itself), if any it was, beyond that of mere curiosity, did not last for long; and before the slow slight vibration of the body had well ended, violence, laughing, oaths, obscene conduct, and still more filthy language, reigned around the gallows far and near."
  The majority of the press in London and the provinces concurred in the alteration which he proposed, and even The Times had seen reason to change its views. That journal stated that the time had, perhaps, arrived when these executions should not be carried out in so large and populous a place as the metropolis. No one anxious to promote civilization could wish to see the recurrence of a scene of that kind. He must say for the press of this country, that, with some exceptions, it was to a very great extent in favour of the change he proposed. It was not in London alone that scenes like that he had referred to occurred. He could give the House as harrowing a description of scenes that took place at Kirkdale, near Liverpool. On one occasion above 100,000 persons were present at an execution there, and on another occasion 200,000 people were drawn from various parts of the manufacturing districts, many of them having travelled night and day to Liverpool to witness an execution, and they were content with catching a glimpse of the last agonies of the dying man. Two points had been raised by way of objection to executions being carried out in private. One was that if they did away with public executions they at once destroyed the deterrent effect on possible criminals; and the other was that they could not carry out executions in the gaol and at the same time satisfy the public that the sentence had been duly carried out. With respect to the deterring effect of public executions a letter appeared a few days ago in one of the morning papers from Dr. Lyford, a gentleman long connected with the Win-
  1624
  chester County Gaol, in which the writer stated that it had been his painful duty to witness on the scaffold about forty executions, and that on inquiring of the culprits, just immediately before their execution, as to whether they had ever been present at public executions, with two exceptions all replied in the affirmative, and several stated that they had witnessed many. He had letters from numerous persons in different parts of the country—gaol chaplains and others—very much to the same effect. He had also a letter from Mr. Thomas Wright, known in Lancashire as the prison philanthropist, who having attended more than fifty criminals to the gallows, gave it as his opinion, founded on his own observation, that public executions were not deterring in their effect. The Capital Punishment Commission had very carefully considered this question, and they recommended that—
  "An Act be passed putting an end to public executions, and directing that sentences of death should be carried out within the precincts of the prison, with such regulations as might be considered necessary to prevent abuse and satisfy the public that the law had been complied with.
  He would not enter into the evidence which had been given before the Commissioners; he had no doubt it would be well weighed by hon. Gentlemen; but he desired to remind the House that fourteen or fifteen of the witnesses examined had spoken in favour of the change he proposed, and that several Continental and American States had long since carried out the principle of private executions with success. The countries in Europe in which executions were not public were five in number—namely, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Brunswick. In Prussia the system had been in operation since 1851, and in the other countries since 1856. In America the system was in operation in five or six different States, among them being New-York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maine. In the Report of the Capital Punishment Commission there were replies from those different States of America showing that the plan had been entirely successful in that country, and that they did not wish to change it again for the system of public execution. The evidence which bore in the strongest degree in favour of his proposal was that which had been received from the Australian Colonies. In South Australia the system had been in operation since 1858, and in Queensland, Van Diemen'a Land, and New South Wales since 1853.

  1625
  The Governors of these several colonies in every instance stated, in reply to questions sent out to them from this country, that not only did they consider the present system of carrying out executions within the gaols to be as deterrent as the public system, but that there had never been since the system was put in operation the slightest suspicion on the part of the people that the sentence was not duly and properly carried out. In order that the same result might attend the adoption of the plan in this country, he proposed to provide that the sheriff, the gaoler, and other persons connected with the gaol, should be compelled to witness the execution, and that the magistrates of the locality and the representatives of the press should be permitted to be present at the time of execution. He also proposed to give the sheriff power to admit others who might think proper to be present. He next provided for a coroner's inquest being held within a certain number of hours after the body had been cut down, the jury to consider whether the sentence had been duly carried into effect; and then he provided that certificates, signed by those parties, should be sent to the Home Secretary, and also posted outside the gaol immediately after the execution. He thought that an execution conducted in that formal and solemn manner would be far more awful than the present mode of carrying it out in front of Newgate or the other gaols of the country. In this belief he had every confidence that the House would, in the interest of justice, humanity, and religion, support the Bill which he now asked leave to introduce.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to propose for the carrying out of Capital Punishments within Prisons;"—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Motion of my on. Friend. He has given great attention to the subject of his Bill; and has many times called the attention of the House to the principle upon which it is founded. The measure he proposes for our consideration does not touch in any degree, as I understand it, the question whether we should have capital punishment or not; it simply relates to the mode of giving effect to that punishment. Permit me, Sir, to remind the House of what has taken place upon this subject. When I announced the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to issue a
  1626
  Royal Commission to consider the question of capital punishments, I assented to a proposal to offer for the consideration of the Commissioners whether those punishments should be conducted in private or as at present. And I would take this opportunity of saying how much we owe to the Members of that Commission, who, after spending much of their time in hearing and weighing the evidence placed before them, have come to so clear a conclusion upon the whole matter. Their Report is very valuable, and I trust by its aid we may be able to make a real and substantial improvement in the law. I think they took a good deal of evidence with regard to that part of the subject to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government obtained for them the information you have heard from my hon. Friend, with respect to the conduct of executions in the colonies, and I confess those facts have produced a great impression upon my own mind. Indeed, I stated my opinion upon that point when I gave evidence before the Commission in favour of the proposed change. The majority of Commissioners reported in favour of the change. The course the Government have taken with regard to the Commissioners' Report is this: they have prepared a Bill which has been very carefully considered, and is now being revised by Mr. Waddington, the Assistant Secretary of the Home Department, who was one of the Commissioners. The measure is also in the hands of one or two other Members of the Commission, and it has been framed with a view to give effect as much as possible to the recommendations contained in their Report. My own opinion is that it would be better to deal with the recommendations of the Committee as a whole. I think my hon. Friend when he sees the Bill will say that it very fairly embodies his own views as to the mode of dealing with capital punishments. Looking to the present state of public business, probably the best way of obtaining for the measure full consideration at the earliest moment would be by introducing it in the other House of Parliament. I should be sorry for a moment to have the appearance of dictating to my hon. Friend, but, under the circumstances, I hope he will not press on the second reading, being assured that the subject must be brought before Parliament in a Bill founded on the Report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he was not about to oppose the introduction of the Bill; because

  1627
  so much consideration at least was due to the earnestness and attention given to the whole subject of capital punishment and the criminal code by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert); but he (Mr. Gilpin) was one of those who entertained an opinion that had grown with him—that this strangling of human beings for the purpose of illustrating the sacredness and value of human life was a miserable bungle—and, therefore, he said that if they made these exhibitions private, which up to this time had been public, they would take away from the advocates of capital punishment the only strong reason they gave for the perpetuation of this law, and that was, the example which they said—most untruly and most unwisely—it afforded to the people who witnessed these executions. He would only say he was satisfied that what enlightened public opinion asked for, and would obtain before long, was, not the concealment, but the abolition of this punishment.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion, but he thought it was a sort of self-condemnation of the supporters of capital punishment, when, after pleading the public example as a justification for executions, they now sought to withdraw from the public that example. There was hardly any subject on which so many vaccillations took place as on the subject of capital punishment. He was surprised that no provision was made in the Bill for the admission of the members of the press to witness the executions in case they should wish to do so. His hon. Friend had alluded to many countries where private executions took place; but had he observed the accounts received from countries where capital punishment does not exist at all? He would not find that in a single instance the country that had abolished capital punishment repented of it. His (Mr. W. Ewart's) feeling against capital punishment was as strong as ever; he believed the feeling against it was increasing every day, and must do so as long as Christianity and civilization proceeded in their course.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had done well in submitting his Bill in a separate form to the House, for the questions with which it was incidentally connected were of a kind that might take a longer time to carry than the single question which was embodied in his Bill. He was gratified to find that the House was in favour of the measure, and that inquiry had brought out
  1628
  an overwhelming weight of evidence in support of it. He wished to protest against the term "private execution," because that was not contemplated by his hon. Friend. The desire was to remove from executions the exhibition of torture which had been long since abolished in connection with all other punishments in England. This sort of display should be for as few eyes as possible. They did not propose private executions, but that the executions should take place before a diminished number of persons in such a way as would produce a conviction on the public mind that the executions had actually taken place.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the carrying out of Capital Punishments within Prisons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. TOLLEMACHE, and Mr. MITFORD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54.]

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [March 5] reported.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that an hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Charles Russell) in some observations he had made on the previous evening upon musketry instruction, had evidently not been accurately reported. His hon. and gallant Friend, he thought, had done great service in bringing the subject of musketry instruction before the notice of the House; and were it not that he (Lord Elcho) was a Volunteer, and military men might say that he was taking up a subject with which he had no concern, his own experience at Hythe would have induced him to call attention to the matter. Any person acquainted with the musketry instruction practised at Hythe, and given to our Volunteers, must feel that it was somewhat hard upon those who had to go through that course. He was told that it not only caused dislike, but that it affected the recruiting of the line. A Volunteer at Hythe was kept at practice there a fortnight; an officer used to go for twelve weeks; but he believed that that term was somewhat reduced. [Sir CHARLES RUSSELL: To ten weeks.] For all practical purposes of making a man a good shot fourteen days at Hythe was all that was necessary. An intelligent sergeant sent to Hythe to become a musketry instructor could be taught in less than ten weeks—he had no doubt that fourteen days, or even less, would make such a man competent to give the practical instructions the men required. He was not at all saying that the Hythe

1629
School of Musketry should not be retained, but that some modification of the present system of instruction was necessary. Modifications were necessary with respect to firing at distances. It was now laid down that the firing at 300 yards should be performed standing; beyond 300 yards, kneeling; the exception being in favour of old officers and the cavalry. The former, from stiffness of the joints might not be able to kneel, and there was a good reason why the position of kneeling would be inconvenient to the cavalry. But the point to which he rose to refer more particularly was that his hon. and gallant Friend had been reported to have said on the authority of a young officer of the 95th that the rifle drill was complete nonsense, and that there was not a practical officer in the army who would not agree in that assertion. Now, he was quite certain that his hon. and gallant Friend had not said that, or could have wished the Committee to believe that there was not a practical officer in the army who would not adopt the sentiment. There was another point to which he should have wished to call the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary at War if he had been present, and that was the inconvenience to which the Volunteers were subjected by having to shoot at two descriptions of targets. In class firing they used the regulation target. Now, in the opinion of all Volunteers the form of target used was not the one best calculated to elicit skill in the use of the weapon. In prize firing they used quite another kind of target. The Secretary at War would confer a great boon on the Volunteers if he would institute one uniform target for class and prize firing.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I am obliged to my noble Friend for calling attention to a slight inaccuracy in The Times newspaper report of the few observations I addressed to the Committee on musketry practice, and which did not occur in any other newspaper. I called the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a paragraph in the Army and Navy Gazette, which stated that a case of a young officer of the 95th had been brought before a medical commissioner, as he was labouring under intermittent mania, which first exhibited itself by his saying that the rifle drill was all d—d nonsense; and I said that, although officers of the army would not go any such length as that, they would decidedly sympathize with the man if he were placed in a lunatic asylum for having
1630
said so. Those were my words, and I am anxious that the impression should not be conveyed to the House, or to the gallant officers who conduct the schools of musketry at Hythe and Fleetwood, that I wished to express on my own behalf, or that of the army, that rifle practice is itself nonsense.
Resolutions agreed to.

PRINCE ALFRED'S ANNUITY (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 43.]—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey.)
Bill considered in Committee.
MR. NEATEsaid, that the alteration which had been made for the purpose of making the annuity inalienable was much more important than it might at first seem to be. The House might declare the inalienability by a Bill; but he doubted whether they had power, by leaving the discretion with the Crown, to dispense with an existing law. As a matter of policy and general law it might be desirable to make allowances to the Royal Family inalienable in the same way that the pay of an officer was considered inalienable, it being granted to maintain a particular position. His objection in this ease was not so much to the principle as to the mode in which it was proposed to give effect to it. He did not think that a matter of this kind should be left to domestic arrangement between Her Majesty and the Prince.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed that the words which were introduced when the Bill was committed pro formâ were not devoid of importance; but they did not alter the intention of the Bill, nor he believed of the House, when it sanctioned the previous stages; because the question whether the annuity was to be inalienable was raised on earlier occasions, and he had stated his belief that the Bill as it stood would have the effect of rendering the annuity inalienable. That was an answer given in good faith but with insufficient knowledge, and the effect of the clauses of the Bill, and his impression at the time, was that the grant to trustees would practically have that effect. On finding that that was not the case, his course was to introduce words into the Bill for the purpose of giving effect to what he believed to be a sound principle of policy, and so to fulfil an engagement with the House. He did not understand his hon.

1631
Friend to dissent substantially from the policy of the enactment. Although, undoubtedly, contrary to the general practice and spirit of the law of England, as his hon. Friend was aware that these were cases of grants made to enable persons to sustain a public position where, with a view to the propriety of the case and the prevention of further demands, the character and inalienability was attached to those grants. So that the objection narrowed itself to this—that by the form of words adopted in the Bill the character of inalienability would, in the last resort, depend on the discretion of the Crown. That mode of proceeding was adopted as on the whole more deferential towards the Sovereign, and which, while manifesting the intention of Parliament, was quite sufficient to remove any invidious character which his hon. Friend thought might attach to it, if regarded as a purely domestic arrangement.
MR. NEATEthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his very satisfactory explanation.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, Bill to render legal Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERS, Mr. HANKEY, and Mr. MORLEY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 50.]

LEGITIMACY. DECLARATION, &c, BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, Bill to explain the Act of the twentieth and twenty-first Victoria, chapter eighty-five, and the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERS and Mr. EDWARD CRAUFURD.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 51.]

SUPERANNUATIONS (OFFICERS METROPOLITAN VESTRIES AND DISTRICT BOARDS) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HARVEY LEWIS, Bill to provide for Superannuation Allowances to Officers of Vestries and District Boards within the area of the Metropolis Local Management Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARVEY LEWIS and Mr. CHAMBERS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.]

SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend certain provisions of "The Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act, 1860," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer

MUTINY BILL.
On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the better Payment of the Army and their Quarters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE.
Bill presented, and read the first time.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Several Lords took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee —Divorce and Matrimonial Causes [H.L.]*(17); Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (31).
Report —Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (31).
Royal Assent —Telegraph Act Amendment; Cattle Diseases (Ireland).

BRITISH WHITE HERRING FISHERY ACT.—PETITION.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL presented a Petition of Proprietors of Land, &c, and Fishermen of Lochfine, praying for partial Repeal of the British White Herring Fishery Act. The noble Duke said, that although the matter was one of local interest, it was of considerable importance. Some years ago an Act was passed to regulate Scotch fisheries, and among other things, to prevent trawling herrings. Herrings had been ordinarily caught by the gills in the meshes of drift nets attached to boats. About twenty years ago the inhabitants of Stonefield discovered that trawling was being extensively practised, and they complained of its interference with their sea fishing; the Scotch Fishery

1589
Board found it necessary to interfere, and trawling was prohibited; and since then two Royal Commissions had inquired into the subject generally. Both Commissions had reported against the continuance of the prohibition of trawling, and in favour of a return to the former state of the law, under which trawling was at least not illegal. He did not agree with the recommendation of the Commissioners, as trawling could hardly be carried on in conjunction with the usual mode of fishing. The herring net was used as a sea net. The trawling net dragged along the sea bottom, caught all fish that came in its way, and if trawling were to be permitted it would be perfectly useless to attempt to protect salmon. Alarmed at the Report of the Commission recommending the repeal of the statute by which trawling was prohibited, the petitioners prayed that the prohibition might be continued within certain arms of the sea.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, their Lordships would be interested to hear the following Report by Professor Simonds:—
"Veterinary Department of the Privy Council Office, Princes Street, March 3, 1866.
"Sir,—I have the honour to report that, acting on your instructions, I have to-day visited Mentmore for the fourth time, for the purpose of ascertaining the progress of the cattle plague in Baron Rothschild's herd, and the result of the treatment adopted by Mr. Worms. Since my last visit. February 22, the disease has made rapid progress, and I regret to add that the fatality has kept pace with its advance. It appears that, in consequence of the deaths which had occurred up to the 22nd of February, and the number of animals which were then sinking more or less rapidly from the disease, it was determined to give a trial to Mr. Worms' remedy as a prophylactic as well as a curative agent, and, accordingly, all the remaining animals of the original 119 were dosed on succeeding days with the mixture. With a view also to limit the number of cases, the unaffected animals were taken out of the straw yards and placed in small lots in nine different yards, distant from each other, and temporarily fitted up on the south side of one of the plantations. The location of these yards, and the manner of their construction, were well suited for the required purpose. Before describing the state of things as now existing, it will be necessary shortly to refer to my former reports of the 15th, 19th, and 22nd of February, in which the particulars were given of the first twenty-five animals which had been removed from the herd and put under Mr. Worms' treatment. In the first of these reports it was stated that ten animals, which, at the time of my examination, gave no evidence of
1590
disease, were being treated by Mr. Worms, and that one—the original animal attacked—had succumbed to the malady. In my second report I stated that four other unaffected animals had also been taken out of the yards for treatment, with five more which were the subjects of the cattle plague. In my third report I stated that in the interim three of the animals which were unaffected at my first and second visits had been attacked with the plague, and in addition to these other cases had also occurred. A summary was attached to this last-named report, which is here repeated:—February 22, 1866—Unaffected 11; affected, but not severely, 5; died, 5; dying, 4–25. On my visit to-day I found that the whole of the 11 animals referred to in the summary, and which had been regarded by Mr. Worms as having been cured, had been attacked, and that nine of them had died. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it may be as well to add the result of the treatment of these 25 animals as distinct from the rest of the herd. Numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are dead, and numbers 2, 8, 9, 11, and 19 are convalescent. Passing from these eases I have now to describe the general state of the remaining portion of the herd, the disease, as previously stated, having made fearful havoc among the animals since the 22nd of February. In the sheds were five heifers rapidly sinking from the disease. In contiguous yards were lying thirteen cows and heifers which had been shot, some on the previous evening, and the remainder on this morning, all having been so severely affected as to be beyond all hope of recovery. A bull and a heifer were about to share the same fate just as I arrived on the premises, but were allowed to live until my inspection was completed I may here remark that none of these animals were destroyed by the orders of the local authority. In No. 1 extemporized yard were twenty-four cows, ten of which were dying, and the remaining fourteen were all more or less affected. In the eight other yards were thirty-five heifers, all of which were affected. Several were dying, and three were dead. The general state of these animals was such that in a few days scarcely one of them may be expected to be alive; and so great has been the mortality, and so rapid the progress of the disease, that I was informed by the bailiff that all treatment had been abandoned for some few days, and the animals left to their fate. Graves were being prepared as quickly as possible, and all the requirements of the law were being properly carried out. The almost total destruction of this herd will, it is to be feared, be followed by a serious loss among the dairy cows on the estate. On the 24th of February the malady unfortunately made its appearance among them, and on my inspection to-day, I found that two had died, six been slaughtered, and two others were dying. Two bulls and seven calves were also rapidly sinking. The entire stock on the dairy farm consists of twenty-nine cows, twenty-four calves, and four bulls, all of them being animals of great value. In concluding this report I cannot refrain from expressing my sincere regret that another supposed means of arresting cattle plague by medical treatment should have proved abortive.—I have the honour to be Sir, your obedient servant,
"JAS. B. SIMONDS.
"The Clerk of the Council."

RAILWAY REFORM (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE THE EARL OF BELMORE moved for
  "Copy of a Memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, signed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin on behalf of a Public Meeting held in that City on the 2nd of February on the Subject of Railway Reform."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Memorial in question had not been received at the Treasury; but he had no objection to produce it as soon as possible after it should be received
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that next to Fenianism, there was no question of more importance to Ireland than that of railway communication. If it were wisely and liberally treated by the Government, the most beneficial effects might be expected to follow. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not make a reply to the Memorial without having fully considered the matter, and that there would be no discussion in that House on the subject until the Government had come to some definite decision.
  Motion agreed to: —Return ordered.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE APPROACHES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYasked Her Majesty's Government, If, in completing the Approaches of the Two Houses of Parliament, it proposed to make any Provision for the Shelter of the Horses and Carriages of the Members of each House?
EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that no doubt considerable inconvenience was caused by the present state of things; but the fact was that at the present time there was no space available for the accommodation of horses and carriages. When the law courts were removed there would be a space available for the purpose on the west side of Westminster Hall. It would, however, be five years or more before the law courts were removed.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.