Sitting of 14 August 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Stroud, v. George Poulett Scrope, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Royal Military Canal* (313).
Second Reading—Traffic Regulation (Metropolis) [97]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [43], debate adjourned; Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans)* [56].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (re-comm.) [228]; Agricultural Gangs* [310]; Consecration of Churches and Churchyards * [276].
Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (re-comm.) [228]; Agricultural Gangs* [310]; Consecration of Churches and Churchyards* [276].
Considered as amended—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (re-comm.) [22S]; Hours of Labour Regulation * [258]; County Courts Acts Amendment* [212]; Railway Companies (Scotland) * [306].
Third Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (re-comm.) [228]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Courts of Referees* [311]; Hours of Labour Regulation * [258]; Railway Companies (Scotland) * [306].
Withdrawn—Metropolitan Improvements [55]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [14].

NAVY—TENDERS FOR ENGINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the tenders for the engines for the two iron-clads building at Glasgow have been decided; and, if so, to state the price named in the accepted tender, with the names of the parties who were invited to tender?
  MR. CORRY, in reply, said, the tenders in question had only been received on the 7th instant, so that they had not yet been taken into consideration. He could not, therefore, give his hon. Friend any information as to the price; but he could give him the names of the parties who had been invited to tender, if that was desired.
  MR. GRAVES: No, no!

NAVY—MARINE ENGINES ORDERED AND RESOLD.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESsaid, he would also beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If a pair of marine engines, of about 700-horsc power, ordered of Messrs. Napier and Co., were re-sold by the Admiralty to the contractors before they left their factory; and, if so, to state what ship they were ordered for, the price paid for the engines, the amount that the Admiralty sold them back for, and the reason for the re sale?
MR. CORRYsaid, he had to stale to his hon. Friend that no marine engines had been sold by the Admiralty to Messrs. Napier and Co.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (re-committed) BILL (Lords.)— [BILL 228.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 45 (Regulations respecting landing, &c., of Foreign Animals).
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I wish to make a short statement with regard to

  1517
  the debate and division on this clause which occurred on Monday night. The expression of opinion on that occasion was so decided, and the minority was so large that the Government have felt that they could not pass the circumstance by without consideration. That minority contained the names of persons to whose judgment the Government has been accustomed in a great degree to defer. The whole minority, indeed, consisted of Members whose wishes the Government are always anxious to consult. It must be confessed that considerable difficulties prevented the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance). If it had been admitted into the Bill the Privy Council would have been placed under "a hard and fast" rule to slaughter all foreign animals at all times, whatever might be the circumstances of the country. If an emergency and distress for food were to arise, then the rule could not be relaxed. Yet Parliament in 1848, placed the power and consequent responsibility in the hands of the Privy Council, and refrained from determining it by an Act of the Legislature expressly in order to meet such a case, so that restrictions might be imposed whenever there was danger of disease, and relaxed whenever an emergency with regard to food should arise The Government felt, therefore, that they would not be justified in freeing themselves from the responsibility and in agreeing to bind themselves hand and foot for the future; yet they entertain a strong desire to meet the wishes of the minority, and, having considered the arguments which were used on Monday night, and perceived that the object which was conscientiously aimed at was the slaughter of all foreign animals at the ports of landing, they have determined to revoke the Order with reference to Harwich and Southampton, so that all cattle should be slaughtered at the ports of landing, and none allowed to leave those ports alive. The Bill, if carried, would only be in operation for a year, before which time Parliament would have to deal with the whole question. He, therefore, asked the Committee to allow the Bill to pass with all despatch, in order that it might become law this Session. The Consolidated Order was in type, but could not be issued before this Bill was passed. Unless the Bill was sent to the House of Lords to-morrow, it would be impossible that the Bill could be passed on Saturday.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was glad to hear the determination that had been come to by the Government. The course taken was precisely that which he had been pressing on the Government, and which had been adopted by France, with the best results.
  MR. CORRANCE: After the statement of the noble Lord, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon the present views of Her Majesty's Government upon this clause. It seems to me, if I have perfectly comprehended their scope, that the present Orders which the Privy Council are about to issue under the authority of the Bill, are in exact accordance with the point embodied in the amended clause I submitted the other night—that they do make slaughter imperative; that they will define the ports; the time of doing so being simply limited by the limited duration of this Bill, say for one year. I can take no exception to this; indeed it seems to me that it is perhaps the wisest course. The provisions of this Bill are entirely provisional, and are not such as would be desirable to make permanent; and to meet the present case by the time specified, it will no doubt be in the power of the Government to deal in a more comprehensive manner with the question, and from the effect of the measure they now propose to adopt, they will gain some valuable experience of the operation of such law upon markets, prices, and their relation to produce of every class, for which the data are undoubtedly insufficient as yet. Had I been met by such a proposition as the one now moved I should not have pressed to a division the other night; nor, indeed, had I been aware that I should find myself directly opposed to the whole Government strength, would it have been the case. There has been some misapprehension as to this. By the statement now made by the right hon. Gentlemen these are removed; and, accepting the proposition, I can only express my satisfaction at the results. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the remainder of the Amendments proposed, from line 9, to the end of the clause; but, as the noble Lord said nothing concerning the sub-section with reference to quarantine, I shall therefore beg more particularly to call his attention to that point. The rest I am happy to leave in Government hands.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the transit of foreign cattle had occasioned the greatest alarm in Oxfordshire, and he was much

  1519
  gratified at the announcement of the noble Lord. He had presented a number of Petitions from his own county on the subject, and all they asked for had now been granted. He only regretted that this step had not been taken before.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was not at all surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) whose county was one for the growth of cattle, and almost nothing else, should have been pleased with the idea of slaughtering all cattle at the port of landing, but it did not follow that because such a regulation would be good for Aberdeenshire, it would be good for every other part of the country, and he would suggest that words should be introduced into this clause, declaring that for the purposes of this Act, the City of Edinburgh and the port of Leith should be held to be one and the same place. In the Bill of last Session, of which the hon. Gentleman who was now the Secretary to the Treasury had charge, a clause to that effect was inserted.
  MR. HENLEYwas sure the House and the country would hear with great satisfaction the statement made by his noble Friend on the part of the Government. There could be no doubt that so long as the risk existed, which seemed to be perpetually recurring by the introduction of animals from abroad not slaughtered at the ports of entry, it would be necessary to keep up the restrictions on the home trade of the country, and he believed those restrictions had a very great effect in keeping up the price of meat to consumers, and enormous inconvenience to all persons concerned in the trade, and the sooner they were relaxed the better. He could quite understand that the Government would not be willing to have their hands tied by an Act of Parliament; but in his own county everyone was most anxious that everything in reason should be done to prevent the recurrence of this disease. He heartily accepted the promise of the Government because it showed that the discussion which had taken place on this Bill had satisfied the Government that these measures should be taken. The present vexatious restrictions, as the noble Lord said, were about to be much lessened, and he hoped they would be entirely relaxed, for they applied not only to cattle, but to sheep.
  MR. LIDDELL, as one who had voted in the minority, cordially hailed the annoucement just made by the noble Lord.
  1520
  He entirely agreed with the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire. He lived in a part of the country which had suffered much loss and inconvenience from the restrictive measures adopted in regard to the home trade, farmers having to travel miles and miles to obtain passes for their cattle. He had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk, because he felt convinced that they could not safely or wisely relax the restrictions on the home trade till they adopted measures to prevent the spread of infection from the ports of entry. He hoped and believed the wise step now taken by the Government would be followed by another equally necessary—he meant the consolidation and simplification of all the Orders in Council relating to the cattle plague. He also thought the powers and duties of the Privy Council should be better defined. It was a very anomalous body. He had himself sat on a Committee to inquire into the constitution of that Board, but no one could define its limits or responsibility. The country generally, did not understand upon whom the responsibility for the acts of the Privy Council lay. The question was one of great importance, and he trusted that the Government would seriously consider the subject of the re-organization of this department of the public service.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEexpressed his thanks to the Government for meeting the views of the Western counties upon this subject. The question was of importance not only to the agriculturists but to the interests of the community generally. Two cases of cattle disease that had occurred recently near Bristol had been traced distinctly to foreign cattle which had come from London to Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had so clearly expressed the views he himself entertained that he would not further trespass upon the attention of the Committee.
  MR. READalso wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the question so ably put by the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell). The whole system upon which the Privy Council worked was imperfect and incomplete. The Privy Council had no more right to deal with the cattle plague than the Board of Trade had to attempt the collection of agricultural statistics. We require to have some department of the Privy Council exclusively devoted to agriculture, so as to understand

  1521
  agricultural wants and interests, and to command the confidence of the farmers. He was glad to hear that this Bill was only intended to continue for a year, and he hoped that during the recess the noble Lord would take into consideration not only the proper method of dealing with the cattle plague, but also the mode in which the transit of cattle, both by land and sea, was conducted. He was glad to hear that the Privy Council intended to issue a Consolidated Older, which, he understood from the noble Lord, was to be published on Saturday, and which he sincerely hoped would remove from the home cattle trade the bulk of the present most vexatious restrictions.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested the insertion, of words into the clause which should meet the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. (Mr. M'Laren). If no words were inserted in the clause extending the limits of the port of Leith to Edinburgh, the Act would not apply to the city. As the Bill now stood, the local authorities would have no power to enforce the provisions of the Act; and therefore he should be glad to hear from the noble Lord that it was his intention to bring up a clause which should give the local authorities power to secure places for the slaughter of cattle.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would take care that the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were met by the provisions of the Consolidated Order. As he had before stated, the Consolidated Order was already printed, and directly this Bill was agreed to by both Houses it would be promulgated. In general, the ports were too large. The port of London, for instance, was seventy miles long; That of Plymouth twenty-six. What was wanted was to diminish, rather than extend, the limits of the ports. The Privy Council was an ancient institution, formed for the purpose of assisting the Sovereign with advice; but Committees of the Privy Council devoted themselves to specific objects. In the present case, the Committee of Privy Council was not empowered to make arbitrary Orders, but only such as they were distinctly authorized to make under the Act of last Session.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that previous to the passing of the Act of last Session, the question of permitting cattle to pass from Leith to Edinburgh had been minutely gone into, when it was found that, owing to the road between those places running
  1522
  through market-gardens, there could not be the slightest danger in permitting cattle to be driven along it. From the peculiarity of Edinburgh there was no danger whatever of infection from the transit of cattle from the harbour into Edinburgh.
  MR. CANDLISHthought that if the port of Leith were to be made to include Edinburgh some difficulties might arise with the Customs authorities.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would propose the insertion of the following words in line 13, after the word "land:"—"and may define the limits of such port or ports for the purposes of this Act." He thought this Amendment would meet the case of Edinburgh and Leith.
  MR. M'LARENthought the Amendment satisfactory.
  MR. AYRTONthought it would be still necessary to insert another clause, giving the local authorities power to carry into effect the provisions of the Act.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUproposed to add words to the clause in order to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, giving power to the local authorities to fit up places for the slaughter of cattle, and to charge for the use thereof such rates as should meet with the approval of the Privy Council, and providing that all expenses so incurred should be deemed expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act.
  MR. AYRTONpointed out that the words proposed by the noble Lord gave the local authorities no power to acquire lands for the purposes of the Act.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, perhaps it would be better for him to withdraw his Amendment, and to bring up a clause at the end of the Bill, to meet the hon. and learned Member's views.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
  New clauses moved, and added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)brought up a new clause, embodying the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, giving the local authorities power to erect buildings for the slaughter of cattle and sale of cattle, and to acquire land for that purpose.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEprotested

  1523
  against this clause as interfering with the privileges of the City of London in the management of local markets.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the clause seemed sufficiently general and comprehensive to meet the various circumstances of the case. The cattle disease was introduced into this country chiefly through the negligence of the Corporation of London, and he thought they were putting themselves into a very invidious position by standing in the way of any proposal for putting an end to the calamity under which the country had suffered during the last two years. Unless the Corporation of London were prepared to pay the whole expenses to which the country had been put in consequence of the introduction of the cattle plague, they should not obstruct the passing of this clause.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that at this period of the Session it would be impossible to enter into the large question as to the creation of local markets, which must be considered upon its own merits. The establishment of separate markets would entail great expense, and must necessarily interfere with the vested rights of the City of London. He did not think that such interference would be justifiable without a full discussion of the subject. The clause had better be agreed to as it stood, and he would then move an addition to it which would protect the interests of the City of London.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved the addition of the following words:—"Provided that nothing in this Bill contained shall interfere with the rights of the City of London."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that no one was more friendly to the rights of the City of London than he was; but he thought that the authorities were placing themselves in an invidious position by standing on their extreme rights in this matter. The Corporation had done nothing to check the disease during the last two years; and they now wished, in order to preserve to themselves a small pecuniary benefit, to continue a practice which was fraught with great danger to the agricultural interest of the country. He never knew a more striking illustration of the fable of "the dog in the manger." It had been stated by the noble Lord who had official information on the subject that it was impossible to guard against foreign cattle being infected. These cattle came 500 or 600 miles by land and sea, and then crossed the whole of England,
  1524
  and if they were to be admitted into the metropolitan markets, those markets would become the centres of infection; yet it was now proposed that they should be permitted to enter these markets in order that the Corporation might preserve their miserable tolls. If the City of London were to come forward and offer to provide places for the slaughter of these foreign cattle, he should be the last to wish to interfere with its privileges. He, however, did not see that while other persons and corporations had given up all their rights those of the City of London should alone be preserved intact.
  MR. NEYILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he agreed that the Corporation would be acting very invidiously if they set up their rights in this instance. He hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment, which was calculated to interfere with the interest of the general community.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEdefended the City of London from the charge that had been brought against it of desiring to obstruct the passing of a measure which would tend to extirpate the cattle disease. All that they desired was that in the event of these new markets being established the control of them would be left in their hands. If the word "sale" were struck out of the clause, their objection would be removed.
  MR. AYRTONdenied that the markets in the metropolis, with the exception of the one at Islington, were under the control of the Corporation, and pointed out that the markets at Whitechapel, Portland Place, Covent Garden, and elsewhere were under no such authority. The Islington market, no doubt, was within the rule of the Corporation; but every one knew that the Corporation constructed that market merely out of spite, and that the Corporation went to an enormous expense over it rather than take advantage of the market already established in a place convenient for the agricultural interest.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUthought that, after the clear expression of the opinion of the House, it would not be worth while to press the proviso.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that nothing could be farther from the truth than the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) with regard to the conduct of the Corporation in building the market at Islington. There really was not the slightest foundation for asserting that

  1525
  it was built from motives of spite: it was constructed at the special request of the Government, and at a great loss to the Corporation. As regarded the present clause, no obstacle would be put by the Corporation in the way of anything being done that was necessary for the prevention of the disease. But the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets knew very well what private interests, on the other side, were at work in this matter, and he was therefore not justified in coming down and attributing to the Corporation unworthy motives that had no foundation.
  MR. AYRTONadmitted that this clause had been drawn up and placed in his hands by some of his constituents—wharfingers on the Thames—who were very much interested in it. With respect to the suggestion that the word "sale" should be omitted, it was only necessary to point out that if foreign cattle could not be slaughtered until they had been sold the object of the clause would be defeated by the proposed Amendment.
  Proviso negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. READmoved the following new clause:—
  "When any animal is slaughtered by the order of the Inspector of the Privy Council, or the Inspector of any Local Authority, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of any disease under which such animal may be labouring, the owner of such animal shall be compensated in the manner provided by the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866."
  It had often been discovered that the disease from which the animal slaughtered was suffering was not the cattle plague. In the absence of such a provision great injustice was often inflicted on the owners of cattle.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he felt inclined to propose that an inspector who made such a mistake should be sent to the treadmill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that at present the inspectors had no authority to order the slaughter of any animals except those which were suffering from the cattle plague. He had, however, no objection to the clause, but it would be necessary to add to it words authorizing the inspectors to order the slaughter of any animal for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of any disease suspected to be cattle plague from which such animal may be suffering.
  Clause withdrawn, and new clause, as proposed by Lord R. MONTAGU, agreed to, and inserted in the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; Amendments made:—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

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

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to rectify some statements which he had made in the early part of the Session. As, however, the hon. Member for Poole, who had given notice of a Motion respecting the state of Candia, was not present, and as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Under Secretary were both absent from the House, it was not his intention to say anything which would lead to controversy. He did not wish to retract anything which he had said in the early part of the Session with regard to the state of affairs in Turkey itself. The consular reports differed very much as to the condition of the Christians in the East, but that was no doubt owing in a great degree to the individual conduct of the pashas who ruled the different districts. But when his hon. Friend the Member for Galway brought forward his Motion, in the early part of the Session, he defended, to the best of his ability, the conduct of the Greek authorities, and he took this opportunity of stating that information which he had since received had led him to the conclusion that the present conduct of the Greek Government with respect to Candia was, to say the least, very injudicious. At the same time, he thought there was plenty of room for the amelioration of the condition of the people in Candia, and that the Turkish Government could not do better than turn their attention to the subject. Still, he was of opinion that no country ought to encourage hostilities against another country with which it was nominally at peace. If the hon. Member for Poole had been present, he should have gone into the matter at greater length, but having always been a friend to the Greek nation and the Greek

  1527
  Government, he had thought it only fair to the House and to the country to state that his opinion of the conduct of the Greek Government was different from that which he had entertained, and that he thought their present policy was prejudicial to the interest of civilization, and could not be too highly deprecated.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(Lords)— [BILL 97.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it had been very carefully considered in the House of Lords. He believed there was no opposition to the Bill except on the part of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who wished to protect, as he supposed, the interests of the City. But he trusted that his hon. Friend would defer his comments on the Bill until it reached the next stage, and allow it to be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, this Bill was of vast importance to the trade and commerce of the metropolis, but not a word of explanation had yet been given of it in this House. He objected to the Government attempting to carry such a measure at that advanced period of the Session. It had been taken for granted by the great interests of the metropolis that the Bill would not be pressed forward on the 14th of August. The Bill would interfere, to an extraordinary extent, with the trade and commerce of the metropolis. It was read a second time in the House of Lords on the 12th of February, and came to the House of Commons on the 26th of March last; it had been hung up ever since, and those interested in it believed it had been abandoned. He did not say that the Government were responsible for the delay. The Bill should have been introduced to the House of Commons first, or it should at least have been sent to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, that its details might be sifted; for, although it had been before a Select Committee of the Upper House, the proceedings there were
  1528
  conducted in private, and none of those interested in it knew what was going on; many even did not know that Evidence was being taken. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it would increase the price of all articles of necessity to the inhabitants of the metropolis. It had been said that the Bill was similar to one introduced by the Corporation of London; this was not the case. The Corporation's Bill would have regulated the traffic; this would simply suppress it; instead of directing the routes the traffic should take, it would expel traffic from the metropolis. The measure had been framed on evidence given by Sir Richard Mayne, who evidently felt that the traffic had got beyond him, and that there was no means of controlling it except by suppression. Sir Richard Mayne desired to prevent coals and heavy goods from being delivered either in the City or suburbs as far as Clapham, Hampstead, Notting Hill, and other places four miles distant from Charing Cross, except between one and ten in the morning; he also suggested that people should sit up to receive the coals, or leave the coal plates of their cellars unfastened; but the consequence would be that the consumers would have to pay an additional 2s. 6d. per ton for their coals. The wine and spirit trade ought to be entirely excluded from the operation of the Bill, as the docks and bonded warehouses which were under the supervision of the Officers of Customs were only open for the delivery of goods from nine o'clock to four o'clock in the winter, and from eight o'clock to four o'clock in the summer, consequently it would be quite impossible to remove wines and spirits in casks from the docks and bonded warehouses and deliver them in the City of London either before ten o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening as was provided by clauses in this Bill. The parties affected by the measure should be afforded an opportunity of stating their grievances and explaining how its provisions would injuriously affect them. The provisions for insuring the speedy removal of snow were the most absurd and impracticable that could have been desired, and would cause considerable annoyance to the street authorities of the metropolis, and therefore ought to be expunged from the Bill. And that part of Clause 12 should also be struck out which authorizes any police constable to take into custody without warrant any person who within view of such constable should disregard

  1529
  the regulations in any street within the special limits of the Bill. If the Government would adopt measures by which Waterloo Bridge would be made free, the metropolis would be greatly relieved from the pressure of traffic. Great advantages had been derived from throwing open Southwark Bridge, and similar advantages would result to the Western and North Western parts of the metropolis from making Vauxhall Bridge free. It was a new idea that a Bill for the Regulation of Traffic should commence by suppressing traffic, and that it should presume to say what vehicles should alone pass through the streets. On the whole, he felt convinced that it would be most objectionable to press the measure forward this Session when it was known that it would inflict great evils on the trading community. It was supposed that in Paris after certain hours no heavy traffic was to be seen in the streets; but this was a mistake, for he himself had seen great waggons conveying stone to buildings in course of erection within the prohibited hours. But the real reason why the heavy traffic of Paris was capable of being controlled, was that, comparatively speaking, it was of very moderate dimensions. In Paris, there was no great river with freight equalling that of the Thames, or manufactories of large articles. It was a city of pleasure, and elegant trifles formed the staple of its products. The effect of compressing the limit of time within which heavy traffic could be carried on would be to necessitate the employment of many more vehicles and horses to do the same work quicker. Loss of life was spoken of; but loss of life was owing in the City not so much to the slow as to the quick traffic, which it was now sought to accelerate. The House was familiar with a very common form of complaint. A gentleman wanting to get from the West End to Bishopsgate Street Station rapidly, having a dinner party at home perhaps, and not having allowed himself sufficient time to drive there, missed his train, spoiled his dinner party, and then wrote next day to The Times, complaining of the crowded state of the streets. The effect of increasing the present rate of driving must be to add to the annual number of deaths. The Metropolitan Board of Works had, under their seal, petitioned the House of Lords, praying to be heard by counsel against this Bill, but their Lordships refused to accede to their
  1530
  prayer. It should be remembered that Petitions from all the principal railways running into London had been presented to Parliament against the passing of the Bill. The vestries of the most important parishes in the metropolis, from St. Luke's, Old Street, to Kensington, inhabited by very different classes of population, all disapproved of the Bill as interfering materially with social arrangements, likely to produce great inconvenience, and to require a great increase of police and parochial officers. Boards of Works, Commissioners of Sewers, and other public bodies, also petitioned against the Bill, pointing out the ill effects that would be produced by the clauses relating to the delivery of goods, as well as by other regulations affecting houses and property. These all asked to be heard against it, and to have an opportunity of appearing before a Committee. He knew it was hopeless for him to contest the Bill against the weight and authority of the Government, which was all-powerful in the month of August; but he appealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to listen to their opinions, and to postpone the measure for that purpose. They might carry the measure, but putting in force its provisions was a very different matter, and Sir Richard Mayne, with all his men, and even a large accession to the police force, could not attempt it without leading to the greatest confusion. What would be said if it were proposed to take the heavy barges out of the Thames, and leave it clear for the fast steamboats? It was equally ridiculous to propose to take the heavy traffic out of London streets and leave them to cabs and carriages. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." — (Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had been anxious to take some part in this debate, but the subject had been treated in such an exhaustive manner by his hon. Colleague, that it was impossible to approach it at any point that had not been thoroughly discussed. He could only say that he agreed with his hon. Colleague. He did not object to Parliament dealing with the traffic of the metropolis, but at this period

  1531
  of the Session it was impossible the subject could be properly considered.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Bill contained many clauses which he thought it was desirable to pass. He suggested that the House should consider these clauses, but that the Home Secretary should withdraw that portion of the Bill relating to the delivery of coal and the removal of snow and dust.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the radius of three miles within which this Bill was to operate should begin not at Charing Cross, as was proposed, but at Guildhall. In the former case, Belgravia and Tyburnia would be brought under the operation of this Bill. That would be an unreasonable interference with the comfort of the inhabitants of these districts, because there was no crowded traffic there. He insisted that before any measure was passed on this subject, the people whose property and comforts would be affected by it, ought to have an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee of the House.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) who had gone into so many subjects beyond the scope of the Bill. Those embraced within the measure were not very numerous, but they were very important as regarded the comfort and well-being of the metropolis. Some of the regulations provided in this Bill had been called for year after year, and there could be no doubt that the question of regulating the traffic of the metropolis must be dealt with before long, whatever party might be in office. Even at that advanced period of the Session he thought it was incumbent on the House to attempt to remove some of the evils with which the Bill dealt. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment complained that there was not time for a consideration of the Bill; but it had been before Parliament during the whole of the present Session, and, no doubt, every Member of that House had given it his consideration, and made up his mind on it. Again, though he would not venture to say that an inquiry before a Select Committee of the Lords superseded inquiry in the House of Commons, still hon. Members ought not to refuse to recognize inquiries made by the other House. The Bill, as now before the House of Commons, did not go nearly to the extent which had originally been intended. All the various interests concerned
  1532
  had been heard attentively by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and very considerable modifications had been made in the measure at the suggestion of those interests. It had been at first intended that extensive power should be given to the Commissioner of Police as to the streets in which there should be restrictions on the traffic; but, instead of that large discretion being given to him, the streets in which the restrictions were to have effect were all duly scheduled. It would be seen that the streets so scheduled were principally those in which great carrying companies had found it to be for their own interest to have self-imposed restrictions as to the delivery of goods. The want of proper regulations for heavy traffic was a disgrace to the metropolis; and better regulations with regard to hackney carriages and to dogs were also urgently required. There had been some distressing occurrences in consequence of rabid dogs being allowed to run about the streets in warm weather. Various useful regulations, too with regard to shoeblacks, commissionaires, and other employés were not to be despised. The hon. Member (Mr. Labouchcre) had asked the Government to consent to take out the clauses relating to the removal of snow, dust, and coals. He should not like to pledge the Government to give that consent, but he was authorized to say that they would accept any reasonable modifications which might be proposed, and that when they got into Committee they would consider the question of the withdrawal of such clauses as might be objected to. He trusted that that promise would satisfy the House, and that the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment he had proposed.
  MR. LOCKEwas glad to hear the statement which the hon. Baronet had made, the more particularly since the persons connected with some of the trades with reference to which it was proposed to legislate had had no opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee and stating their objections to the clauses and where the shoe pinched them. He understood that the whole of the City of London and the liberties thereof were scheduled in the Bill with respect to the delivery of goods, and considering the immense trade of the City, regulations forbidding the delivery of bulky goods within certain hours of the day would create an enormous tax upon traders, which tax the public at

  1533
  large would ultimately have to bear. It was likewise a most preposterous proposition to say that beer should not be delivered to public-houses between ten o'clock in the morning and seven o'clock at night. He suggested that they should strike out all those clauses which had not been considered by a Select Committee of that House. With regard to the removal of snow, the vestries, while disclaiming the contemplated interference with their powers, were unanimous in expressing the opinion that it would be impossible to carry out the provision of the Bill which related to this subject, and that provision ought also to be struck out, and any regulation necessary on the subject postponed till next Session, when it would be able to receive proper consideration. There were several valuable provisions in the Bill, such as that relating to dogs straying about the street, and he should be sorry to see those parts of the Bill lost because there were other clauses to which great objection was entertained.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought that some of the clauses—such as those relating to gambling, advertising vans, and dogs—could be made useful, and the other clauses could be subsequently taken into consideration.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that after the declaration made on the part of the Government he should withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow at Two of the clock.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Tite.)
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

  [BILL 55.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Bill was introduced early in the Session, but owing to the great consideration which the subject required, the second reading had been postponed from time to time, and it was now too late to proceed with the measure in the present Session. He might, however, say, inasmuch as no explanation had as yet been given of its objects, and as it had been made the subject of much misrepresentation, that the Bill had been framed in accordance with the Report of the Committee which had deliberated upon the subject, and that it proposed not to increase
  1534
  the taxation of the metropolis, but to restrict, regulate, and make its incidence fall more regularly upon the community. To do this, of course some people would be subjected to more taxation than they had hitherto paid, and hence the misrepresentation that had been made. He thought it was impossible to conceive anything more just than that works undertaken for the permanent improvement of the metropolis, and enhancing as they must do the freehold interest of the metropolis, should be in some measure paid for by those who possessed freehold interests. He trusted that the Government would in the recess give some attention to the subject, and bring in next Session a comprehensive measure, dealing not only with the taxation, but the general organization of the metropolis. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the discharge of the Order.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Lord John Manners, Mr. Hunt.)
LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.

  [BILL 43.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  MR. AYRTONmoved that the Order be discharged, he having arranged with the noble Lord having charge of the measure that the Order for this and the following Bills should be discharged.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "said Order be discharged,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that it was unusual to press a Motion for the discharge of a measure in the absence of the Member who had charge of it.
  MR. TITE and COLONEL SYKEShad both understood that the Order was to be discharged.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that, at all events, it was only a question whether the Order should be discharged on that or the following day.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought that an arrangement once made should be carried out. He should persist in his Motion, but had no objection to the debate on that Motion being adjourned until the following day.
  MR. LABOUCHEREmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 14.]
(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Locke.)
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 14.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, it was with great regret that he found himself obliged for the second time, to move the discharge of the Order relating to this Bill. It was due to those who had supported the measure this year and last, to state why its promoters had reached so late a period of the Session without having made more progress than they had. He acquitted the Government of any share of what might seem to be blame in the matter. He believed the Leader of the Government was perfectly sincere in the opinion which he had more then once expressed favourable to the principle of the Bill, but there were great difficulties in working it out. He ought not to shrink from saying that the reason why, for the second time, the destitute portion of the population would be left without any remedy or attempt at remedy against disease, demoralization, and death was the implacable hostility shown to the principle and provisions of the Bill by a small section of the House, not defined by party so much as by locality, and by the possession of advantages which none would envy, but which constituted in his mind a peculiar claim to a more just and generous consideration by them of the merits of the question. ["Oh, oh!"] Pledging himself to bring forward the Bill again next Session, in earnest faith that the Government would consider how they could promote it, he moved that the Order be discharged.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Walpole, Lord John Manners, Mr. Attorney General.)
PARKS REGULATION (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 273.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In fixing this Bill for Two o'clock to-morrow I would venture to say that the language used by many Members yesterday leaves me not without hope that, by some alterations in the Bill, it may be rendered acceptable to the House. I am most anxious not to press this Bill so as to drive even a minority of the House to take a very strong course against it. I would therefore make the proposal that the first clause—prohibition of public meetings in the Parks—should be withdrawn; that it should become a Regulation Bill; and that, instead of the penalty being 40 s., it should be £5, as in other Park Bills.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.