Sitting of 12 February 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir John Burgess Karslake, knight, for Andover.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Metropolitan Local Government appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Tests Abolition (Oxford):
Ordered—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings; Church Rates Commutation; Industrial Schools (Ireland); Tests Abolition (Oxford); Railway Debenture Holders; Land Tenure (Ireland)*; Associations of Workmen.
First Reading—Church Rates Abolition * [13]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [14]; Church Rates Commutation [15]; Tests Abolition (Oxford) [16]; Industrial Schools (Ireland) [17]; Trades Unions* [18]; Land Tenure (Ireland)* [19].

RAILWAY BILLS—STANDING ORDERS.

  DISPOSAL OF DEPOSITS.—QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcalled the attention of the House to the conflict between the Standing Orders of that House and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the clause to be inserted in Railway Bills regulating the disposal of the deposit, and asked the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, What course he proposed to adopt to meet this state of circumstances? The conflict in question arose in consequence of an alteration made by the House of Lords in the Standing Orders on the last day or two of the previous Session, whereby the deposits lodged by railway companies were prohibited from being withdrawn until half the capital was subscribed, and a certain portion of the proposed line had been actually constructed. Now, as this alteration was opposed to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, he was anxious to know what was to be done under the circumstances.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN,Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, said, the hon. Baronet opposite had called his attention to this subject in the last week of the last Session; but as almost all the Members who usually took part in Private Bills had then left town, he did not consider it prudent to bring this matter then before the House. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons permitted the withdrawal, under certain circumstances, of the deposit made by railway companies; but on the last day or two of the previous Session, at the instance of Lord Redesdale, an Amendment was made in the House of Lords whereby such withdrawal was impossible. This Amendment had occasioned much comment amongst all parties interested in railways. The Committee of Standing Orders were about to take the subject into their consideration, and he would be prepared to take such action in the matter as he would be advised.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Amendments made in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were of a character to contradict the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and they were also to
  280
  a certain extent in contravention of the 9 Vict. c. 20, which regulates deposits. When the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were of such a nature as to direct a certain clause to be inserted in every Railway Bill, it appeared to him to be trenching upon legislation, and it was practically an attempt at legislation by a single House of Parliament. In deciding on the course it should pursue in regard to these Amendments of the Lords, the House should, and no doubt would, be guided solely by the consideration whether those Amendments were just and expedient or not. It was, however, a thing to be regretted that such Amendments should be proposed in the other House of Parliament at a period of the Session when there was no opportunity of communicating directly or indirectly with Members of this House.

METROPOLITAN CABS AND HACKNEY CARRIAGE TRADE (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st day of March 1866, in which they state their opinion of the condition of the Metropolitan cabs and also the peculiar nature of the hackney carriage trade in the metropolis; and also to the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the inability of the police, under the present regulations, to prevent the licensing of cabs unfit for public use; and also to the evidence of Sir John Thwaites and others, before a Committee of the House of Commons, as to the very unsatisfactory condition of the hackney carriages of the metropolis as compared with those of other cities and towns in the kingdom, and with those of other cities in Europe; and, whether he will be prepared to introduce a measure during the present Session to consolidate the various Acts relating to metropolitan hackney carriages; to revise the tariff with a view of enabling the public to have the option of obtaining a superior class of hackney carriage at an increased fare; and to take away the power at present possessed by the cab-owners of imprisoning their drivers in White Cross Street Prison in the event of their failing to pay the doily hiring?
  MR. WALPOLEstated that his atten-

  281
  tion had been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st of March, 1866, in which they expressed their opinion of the condition of the metropolitan cabs, and also of the peculiar nature of the hackney carriage trade in the metropolis; and also to the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the inability of the police, under the present regulations, to prevent the licensing of cabs unfit for public use; and also to the evidence of Sir John Thwaites and others, before a Committee of the House of Commons, as to the very unsatisfactory condition of the hackney carriages of the metropolis as compared with those of other cities and towns in the kingdom, and with those of other cities in Europe. He believed all those statements to be substantially correct; but the Government were not prepared to introduce a general measure during the present Session to consolidate the various Acts relating to metropolitan hackney carriages. As to the tariff of fares, he wished to inform the House that his noble Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department in the other House had brought in a Bill relating to the street traffic in the metropolis, and in that Bill would be introduced clauses which it was hoped would have the effect of providing an improved class of hackney carriages. With respect to the third question, he was not prepared at present to say whether there ought to be any alteration of the law in that respect.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEthen asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1866, in which they state—
  "It must be admitted that our four-wheeled cabs are a disgrace to the Metropolis of a great Empire; that the Duty is very heavy; that capital is repelled from embarking in the hackney carriage trade: and that the number of needy men who set up a single cab and drive it themselves is increasing every year, while that of the large proprietors is diminishing:"
  and, whether he will be prepared to introduce a measure during the present Session for the equalization of the Duties on Metropolitan and Provincial hackney carriages, the Duty at present levied upon Metropolitan cabs being about three times that charged upon similar vehicles in any other part of the Kingdom?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had read the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with great interest, not merely with regard to the point mentioned by the worthy Alderman, but also with regard to several other matters. The worthy Alderman he was sure would not deem him guilty of any disrespect if on the present occasion be declined to give any information as to whether he was going to propose any remission or considerable alteration of the public taxes. He was sure the worthy Alderman would allow him when he had any alteration or remission to propose on such a subject to announce it himself to the House, and that he should not be asked to answer questions which, under the circumstances, would expose him to great misapprehension and lead to great inconveniences.

BRITISH TROOPS IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the number of British Troops still remaining in New Zealand; what force is to be left there permanently; and, by whom the expense of maintaining such force is to be borne?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the British troops in New Zealand, already reduced from 10,000 to 3,190, are under orders to quit, except one regiment of Infantry, which this country will maintain; but, while it does so, the colony is to appropriate yearly £50,000 to native purposes. Peremptory orders had been issued to immediately send home the excess of the number over the one regiment to be kept there, and it did not appear, from the most recent accounts received from the colony, that there was any reason why those orders should not be immediately obeyed. He should present further papers in continuation of those presented at the end of last Session, which would put the House in possession of all the correspondence that had taken place on the affairs of New Zealand up to the present time.

SCURVY.—QUESTION.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the circumstance that on the 9th instant eleven seamen were hoisted helplessly on board the

283
Dreadnought Hospital Ship in a state of utter prostration, from the easily preventive disease of scurvy, whilst others were received the same day suffering in a less degree from the same malady; and, whether steps have been taken to ascertain the number of British seamen suffering in a greater or less degree from scurvy at the home ports, who take refuge in sailors' homes and in lodging houses apart from the seamens' hospitals; and also at the Colonial and Consular ports, in the Indian and Pacific ports?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Yes, the attention of the Board of Trade has been directed to the case of these seamen, and an inquiry has been ordered into the circumstances. That inquiry is now taking place. I may mention that it has for some time past been the practice of the Board of Trade to direct the shipping masters of the different ports to report to them all cases of seamen landing ill of scurvy. We have, however, no special information as to the number of such seamen who take refuge in sailors' homes or in lodging-houses. In the ports, however, the case is different, and the results of the inquiries that had been made were laid before Parliament last Session. More recent papers relating to the same subject will be shortly laid upon the table. In regard to the Colonial and Consular ports we have not the same means of obtaining information. A correspondence in reference to this matter has been going on with the Indian Government, and the papers will be laid before Parliament. The Government hopes before long to be able to introduce some provisions to meet this very melancholy case, and to apply a stronger control over the causes which seem to render the disease of scurvy so prevalent.

SCOTCH BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What Scotch Bills are to be introduced by Government, and who is to take charge of Scotch business in the House of Commons, the Lord Advocate not having a seat?
MR. WALPOLE: I have just had some correspondence with the Lord Advocate upon this subject; but, as he is not now in London, and as no definite arrangement has been made, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have no objection to put his Question again on Friday, when I hope I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

RATING AND RENTALS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BASSasked the President of the Poor Law Board, When the Returns as to Rating and Rentals ordered by the House on the 28th day of June will be presented?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In consequence of a letter the hon. Gentleman addressed to me yesterday, I have made inquiry on the subject, and I find that the Poor Law Officers state they are not in possession of materials necessary to enable them to furnish the Returns. The few Returns which have come in are so imperfect in many respects that they are of no use whatever.

APPREHENDED DISTURBANCES AT CHESTER.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCH: I wish to put a Question with reference to a statement in the morning newspapers that 800 persons in the course of yesterday took possession of Chester Castle. That the alarm was so great that the inhabitants were sworn in as special constables, and that that alarm extended to Her Majesty's Government, a regiment of Guards having been sent down last night by special train. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department let us know what truth there is in these statements, and what reason there is for supposing the movement to be a Fenian one? I am informed that the gathering was really nothing but a collection of roughs to witness a prize fight that was coming off in the neighbourhood.
MR. WALPOLE: Perhaps the best answer I can give to the Question of the hon. Gentleman will be to state, in as simple a narrative as I can, all the circumstances leading to the inquiry he has made of the Government. On Sunday morning last I received a communication stating that there was unusual excitement among those who are generally acknowledged, or, at any rate, believed to be Fenians in the town of Liverpool. It was stated that they were meeting together with unusual frequency, and that there was some apprehension that a movement was about to be made on their part. In consequence of that information, on Sunday afternoon I sent down a person specially to inquire into the truth of those statements which had been communicated to me, and to report as soon as possible what information he could obtain for the Government. Soon after I had reached

285
the Home Office on Monday morning a telegraphic message came from the Mayor of Chester, stating that a large number of strangers were in the town and neighbourhood; that they were believed to be Fenians; and that the apprehension was they were about to attack the Castle, for the purpose of obtaining the arms and ammunition stored there; and the telegram also stated the numbers of troops there were in the town, and expressed a wish that an additional force should be sent down. Upon that information being conveyed to the Home Office, I directed that a company of troops should be sent from Manchester to Chester, in addition to the troops then stationed there. Later in the day I received a report from the person I had sent to Liverpool, and according to that report it had been ascertained that on the previous Friday evening there had been held a meeting of Fenians, who had resolved to attack the town of Chester on the Monday morning for the purpose of obtaining the arms and ammunition contained in the Castle. So far, the report received from Liverpool corresponded with circumstances mentioned in the telegrams which came from the Mayor of Chester, and this correspondence gave a serious aspect to the affair. Still later in the day I received two other telegrams—one with reference to the calling out of the Volunteers in case the troops in the Castle should require additional support, and the other a general telegram as to how they were to act. With regard to the first, I replied that the Mayor ought not to call out the Volunteers in their military capacity; that it would be their duty to aid in preserving the public peace as much as it was the duty of any other civilians to do so; and that in case of emergency they would be justified in using their arms, not in a military capacity, but as I have stated. With regard to the second telegram, I replied that the Mayor had better put himself in communication with Major General Sir John Garvock, who commands the troops in the northern division of England; and a further telegram was sent to General Garvock, instructing him to put himself in communication with the Mayor of Chester, and so save telegraphic messages coming to the Home Office. That was all that had been done up to the time the House met yesterday. Yesterday evening, while my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was making his statement to the House, I received a further telegram from the Mayor of Chester, and
286
it was as nearly as possible in these words—
"400 more have arrived, making in all 1,200 in the city. The town is in a state of excitement, and more troops are required."
On receipt of the telegram I communicated with the heads of the Departments as much connected with such a subject as is my own, and we consulted as to the course that had better be taken. We agreed, inasmuch as there was no specific statement that these strangers were armed, and inasmuch as there was a great absence of details such as would justify the Government in adopting extraordinary measures, to send telegrams to the Mayor of Chester and to General Garvock. That addressed to General Garvock inquired whether the strangers in Chester were armed; if so, whether he required any further force; and, if he required such force, to what extent. That sent to the Mayor was to this effect—
"Telegraph directly what is the state of the town at this moment, and whether anything further is needed."
We determined not to send any troops in addition to those which had been sent until we got an answer to those telegrams; but my Colleagues agreed with me that, if we did have an answer, then I should be at liberty to communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and that such measures might be adopted as might be deemed advisable. I ought to observe, that in the interim we had desired that a battalion of Guards should be in readiness in case they were needed; and also that a train should be kept under steam ready for their conveyance. I received no answer to either telegram until this morning. I received the answer to the Mayor's telegram first, about one o'clock this morning, and from General Garvocdc about a quarter past four. The telegram from the Mayor was to this effect—
"There are 1,500 strangers in the city: they have come from Liverpool, Manchester, Halifax, Stalybridge, and other places. The town is in great excitement. Please telegraph directly to Manchester for more military. All our other means of prevention are exhausted."
I considered what was best to be done under these circumstances, and upon these reports. I wrote to the Brigade Major of the Guards, sending the letter through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, stating that I thought he had better send down 500 Guards for these reasons—first of all, because it would be very detrimental to denude Manchester of troops instead of sending them from Lon-

287
don, and it was important if any outbreak occurred, that Liverpool and other towns in the neighbourhood should be as much protected as Chester; in the second place, I thought that prevention was better than cure; and thirdly, I believed that instead of waiting for morning, if it was known that the Guards were in Chester when the people rose from their beds, it would have a greater effect by inspiring confidence among the good and peaceful inhabitants, and striking terror among the evil-disposed. It was under these circumstances that the troops were sent. Three hours afterwards I received a telegram from General Garvock, who did not take so gloomy a view of the affair as had been taken by the civil authorities. He thought the troops in Chester were sufficient for its protection. I have no detailed intelligence beyond what I have now given to the House. I have no detailed intelligence received to-day. I hear that several of these men went away last night or early in the morning; I hear further that several of these strangers were in Chester two days; but, until I receive fuller information, I am not able to communicate to the House anything beyond what I have briefly and plainly stated. I have given no opinion as to whether this is a Fenian outbreak or not; but the circumstances unquestionably point in that direction. I trust the course the Government has taken will meet with the approbation of the House, and show those, if there be such in England, who wish for an outbreak, that they will be sure to be repelled without promoting the mischief they intend.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information as to whether the strangers in Chester were armed; what their conduct was; what they did; and whether they threatened the Castle or made any other demonstration?
MR. WALPOLE: I have received no information down to this moment as to whether they were armed or not.
MR. OWEN STANLEYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, what the military force at Chester Castle was on Friday last?
MR WALPOLE: I hope the House will not press for that information till tomorrow.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he would give notice of a Question on the subject.
LORD ELCHO: I think it right—as I am in possession of a telegram from Chester from Earl Grosvenor, who went down yesterday afternoon—he being in command of the Chester troop of Yeomanry—that I should Inform the House of its contents. It arrived at four o'clock this afternoon, and is to the following effect:—"Was serious. Timely information saved the town. All right now."

GRANTS FOR FORTIFICATIONS.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to call the attention of the House to the Grants of Money, authorized by the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 109, for constructing Fortifications to the number of seventy-one, and to move an Address for a Return of the past and prospective outlay in detail upon the seventy-one Works [in a form stated.] He said, it was not his desire to invite discussion at present, but to ask the House to consider the subject by the help of the facts which this Return would supply, before they granted further supplies for these fortifications. The House had engaged to lay out £11,500,000 upon the seventy-one works, not including the central arsenal at Weedon. Since 1860, when this money was granted, the opinions of engineers must have undergone great change; and he should, at a future time, raise the question whether in the interest of the taxpayers of this country it was desirable to carry out the project, which was the result of panic-arising from the alleged foolish boasting of some French colonels. The money already raised was £5,200,000, the first grant having been £2,000,000, the second £1,000,000, and £650,000 in succeeding years until I866. His object in now asking for these particulars was to elicit facts upon which the House might form their own judgment.
  GENERAL PEEL: So far from having any objection to furnish the Return moved for, my hon. and gallant Friend has only anticipated me in doing nearly what I proposed to have done myself. During the recess I called for a Report for the express purpose of laying it upon the table of the House. That Report was upon the progress made in constructing the fortifications. It gives an account of all the steps that have been taken, the different Acts of Parliament passed upon the subject, and the sums raised under those Acts of Parliament. It then goes on to give a

  289
  short statement with reference to the object and the nature of each work included in the schedule of the Fortification Act of 1865, the progress made in its construction, the expenditure and liability incurred thereon, and the probable sum for which it will be completed. This Return would now have been in the hands of Members if I had not delayed it in order to carry the expenditure down to the 1st of January; but it will be in the hands of Members in the course of a very few days. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in deprecating any discussion until the Returns are presented. But no person can be more anxious than I am that the House should be placed in possession of the fullest information upon this point. Up to the present moment the Government have incurred no responsibility whatever with regard to these fortifications. The works have been going on during the time we have been in Office, but those works are under contracts made before we came into Office. I certainly proposed last year to move for £50,000, in order to carry out works necessary for the defence of the Thames, which, at the present moment, is not defended at all. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) objected to that outlay, because the work was not one of those included in the schedule of the Act, and therefore it should not be paid for by money raised by a Vote of this House. On looking into the Act, I found that the right hon. Gentleman was right in that objection. I hold the late Government responsible for the completion of the works included in the schedule laid before Parliament in the Act of 1865. According to that schedule the estimated expenditure upon these works was not, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, £11,000,000—that was the amount contemplated by the first schedule—but £6,995,000, or, in round numbers, £7,000,000. But I hold the late Government responsible for more than that. The Estimate that I shall lay on the table for the completion of these works will show an excess of £152,000, which, considering that labour has risen 15 per cent since the Estimates were first made and the works first planned, is no very great excess. But there is a further Estimate which will be necessary to complete the works as they certainly ought to be completed. A great many of these batteries will be perfectly useless unless sheathed
  290
  with iron, and it is also necessary to place in turrets and on turn-tables the heavy guns with which those batteries must be armed. The additional expense required for this iron sheathing and these turntables will be very nearly £1,000,000. I hope, however, that this expenditure may be met by deducting the outlay contemplated upon works which were included in the schedule but have not yet been commenced. Thus there is a contemplated charge of £500,000 for defences at Chatham, and another sum of £150,000 for the purchase of a site for a central arsenal; and I hope that those sums may be struck out of the schedule. When these Returns are laid on the table I shall be able to show conclusively that up to this moment the present Government have incurred no responsibility whatever with regard to these fortifications, and that it will be for the House to consider whether they shall be completed and supplied with iron shields, turrets, and turn-tables. I have to add that there is one portion of the expense of these fortifications which it was always intended to throw upon the annual Estimates—that is to say, the armaments. Now, although that conclusion was come to in 1860, it was only in the present year that any guns have been prepared. An extraordinary estimate was made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto), who frightened the House by declaring, if I remember rightly, that £17,000,000 would be necessary to complete the armaments and the ammunition of these fortifications. My noble Friend the late Secretary for War estimated the amount which would be requisite at £3,000,000; and owing to the great reduction in the expense of making guns, and also of shot, I do not believe that the armaments of these fortifications will amount to much more than half the £3,000,000 stated by my noble Friend. Every information will be given to the House in this Return, which will be in the possession of the House in a day or two.
  Motion agreed to.

AMIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill relating to Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings, said, that last Session he had the honour

  291
  of introducing a similar measure, which was read a second time without a division. It was then referred to a Select Committee, which reported unanimously in its favour. The Bill was intended to provide better dwellings for artizans and labourers; and he asked to introduce it now in the same terms as he had reported it from the Select Committee of last Session. The measure was therefore no longer his, but that of the Select Committee. It was not found possible to pass the Bill last year, and he now asked the House to re-consider the subject. The additional information which he had been able to obtain between the end of the last and the opening of the present Session led him to the conclusion that matters were getting worse rather than better, and that the want of accommodation and the amount of misery which resulted from it far exceeded all that voluntary efforts could do to afford relief. All that many benevolent and enterprizing persons like Alderman Waterlow could effect was as nothing compared to what was urgently demanded. The Industrial Dwellings Company had spent £40,000, and thereby given relief to 1,400 or 1,500 persons. At this rate the advance of £1,000,000 by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, as proposed by this Bill, would enable them to provide in one year for 35,000 people. He did not ask that that sum should be lent at once, but only tentatively; and he begged the House to remember that it was not out of the general taxation of the country that he asked the loan to be advanced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer debited himself to the amount of some £46,000,000 or £47,000,000, a portion of the thrift and savings of the working classes, and as the Government paid only 2½ per cent on that vast sum, it was not unreasonable to ask that £1,000,000 should be lent back at 3½ per cent. It was said, by way of objection, "If those dwellings will pay a remunerative interest, why not leave it to private enterprize to deal with the emergency?" But building speculations, if properly carried on, would require 8 or 10 per cent, and private enterprize sought only the sunny spots, while it left the dark spots of pestilence and death wholly unrelieved. He was prepared, however, to show that no loss could accrue to the public. Whatever sums were advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners would be charged by way of mortgage on the buildings to be erected, the plans and sur-
  292
  veys of which would be laid before them, and they would have the security of the municipal and in London of the metropolitan rate to make up any deficiency. He proposed to adopt a plan which was in successful operation in Liverpool—namely, that houses condemned by the officer of health should be presented before the grand jury; that the owner should be allowed a reasonable time in which to rebuild them; and that if he failed to do so they should be bought by the municipal body, which should rebuild them, and after the lapse of seven years should re-sell the property. He had reason to hope that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be willing to undertake the duty which would thus be cast upon them; and he believed that no burden would be imposed on the ratepayers, since the increasing value of house property was a sufficient assurance that houses re-built by the Board would re-imburse the original outlay. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. WALPOLEremarked that at the late period at which the hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill last Session, it was hardly possible for the Government to bestow any consideration upon it. In the general object of the Bill he, for one, most heartily concurred; but he wished to guard himself from expressing an opinion on that part of it containing an important provision relating to the property and rights of individuals, which required to be carefully looked into. With that qualification he should be happy to give his support to the Bill.
  MR. J. B. SMITHcontended that it would be useless for capitalists to compete with persons who built houses and required only 5 per cent interest, and that the Bill would therefore place them in an unfair position. He thought his hon. Friend had taken a leaf out of Louis Blanc's book, and that if he began by building houses for artizans, he would end by establishing ateliers nationaux.
  MR. LOCKEobserved, that if the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) wished to protect persons who were anxious to spend their money in building houses there could not be the slightest objection to their doing that, and especially in neighbourhoods where better dwellings for the poor were wanted. The object of the Bill was to destroy fever nests in the metropolis, and they had the evidence of medical men, officers of the boards of health numberless, to the fact that without some

  293
  such Bill it was impossible that the public health could be protected. This was not the first time that a strong feeling of political economy had been brought to bear against a charitable and humane scheme for the benefit of the poor. There were spots in the metropolis which bad been condemned over and over again, situate in a cul-de-sac, where it was impossible fresh air could penetrate, and where disease generally prevailed, and it was proposed that the municipal or local authorities should have the power of condemning the houses in these localities, and seeing that proper dwellings were erected in their place. The late Government approved of the principle, and also of lending money to carry out the object. His right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Home Department said he entirely approved of the Bill; and the only question was, whether the interests of private' individuals had been guarded with sufficient care. In the Committee which sat last year on the Bill this point was very carefully considered, and he believed there were ample clauses in this Bill to protect the interests of individuals. He had asked one of the directors of Mr. Alderman Waterlow's Company, whether some of their buildings in the borough paid 5 per cent, and the reply was that they paid 10. "How was that?" he inquired; and the director replied, "In consequence of the locality being near their work, so as to enable the tenants to go home to their meals." That was a strong argument in favour of removing these pestilential buildings and erecting others in their place for the working classes, instead of driving those classes to the suburbs. The working classes, like the rest of the community, objected to being driven out of the localities in which they had hitherto dwelt, and be thus cut off from those associations which they had been accustomed to enjoy. It was likewise most objectionable that they should be compelled to dwell in places at a distance from the metropolis entirely alone. It was desirable that all classes should be in proximity to one another, so that the less fortunate might profit by the example and support of those who were more affluent than themselves. These objects the Bill was well calculated to effect.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the question was not whether money should be found for building dwellings for the poor, but whether they should, with a view to the
  294
  public advantage, try to get rid of disease and misery. Enormous mortality was caused by people being crowded together in what were little better than dungeons. He regretted that Scotland was excluded from the benefit of the recent Act allowing loans for such improvements, for there was a sanitary society in Aberdeen which had effected great good, but which was unfortunately short of funds, and when he applied to Mr. Spearman for a loan he was surprised to find there was a clause exempting Scotland. He hoped the rents for houses thus re-built would be fixed at sums which working men could afford to pay, for in Aberdeen lodgings were provided at as low a sum as 1s. 9d. a week.
  MR. KINNAIRDwas glad to state that the Government had consented to include Scotland and Ireland within the operation of the recent Act. He rejoiced also to find that they were prepared to give the fairest consideration to the present Bill, and he hoped it would become law this Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide better Dwellings in Towns for Artizans and Labourers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS, Mr. KINNAIRD, and Mr. LOCKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 14.]

COMMUTATION OF CHURCH RATES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. NEWDEGATErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Commutation of Church Rates. Last year he introduced the same measure, but withdrew it in deference to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Commutation of Church Rates."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished for some explanation on the part of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He presumed it was the Bill of last year for commuting church rates; and if so, it contained a proposition to impose a rate of 2d. in the pound upon all real estate for the maintenance of the fabrics of churches. This rate would produce a sum of £800,000 or £900,000 per annum. He believed the hon. Member for North Warwickshire disputed his figures; but that was the result of his own calculation. Were they to have the same Bill this year as they had for

  295
  several years preceding? He thought it would be wise to let the subject drop. It had been before the House thirty years, and the character of the House had not risen in consequence. He hoped that the Government would express an opinion on the subject. It would not do to keep this question constantly before the country. He thought there should be a dissolution between Church and State. It should never be forgotten that the Nonconformists claimed to be a majority of the people of England; that in Scotland the Church of England had not many supporters; that in Ireland the Church was not one-eighth of the people. Under these circumstances, to have a Bill thrown in their teeth claiming a rate of 2d. in the pound was too bad. It was time that this was put an end to; and he moved, as an Amendment, "the Previous Question."
  MR. CANDLISHseconded the Amendment.
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE,in explanation, said, the hon. Member was speaking of a Bill not in his hand; and he had made a most extraordinary statement with respect to the Bill of last Session. The hon. Member had said that he (Mr. Newdegate) intended, by the Bill of last year, to impose a charge on real property amounting to £800,000 or £900,000 a year. The hon. Member could not have read that Bill. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered explaining to the hon. Member some years ago that such was not the effect, or the purpose, or the intention of the Bill. He could only express a hope that as the subject had been discussed in the House of Commons, he would be allowed to lay the Bill on the table of the House.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was a matter of ordinary courtesy to allow an hon. Member to introduce a Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not oppose that course on the present occasion.
  MR. HADFIELDthen withdrew his Amendment.
  Previous Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEWDEGATE and Colonel STUART.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE O'CONOR DON,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, said, that the measure was the same as the Act passed for Great Britain last Session, with such modifications as were required by the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. He had taken the Irish Reformatory Act as the model on which those alterations were made. The necessity for such a measure was even greater in Ireland than in England. From the judicial statistics published by the Irish Government, it appeared that the criminal statistics of Ireland compared favourably in every respect with those of England, except in the item of juvenile vagrancy. The number of juvenile vagrants and tramps in Ireland was twice as great as in England in proportion to the population, and this was mainly attributable to the fact that there was no institution in Ireland to which these unfortunate children could be sent. The Act of last Session had given general satisfaction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to extend the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The O'CONOR DON, Mr. MONSELL, and Mr. LEATHAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 17.]

TESTS ABOLITION OXFORD BILL.

  RESOLUTION IN COMMITTEE. BILL ORDERED. FIRST READING.
  Tests Abolition (Oxford) considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. COLERIDGE MR. COLERIDGE moved a Resolution,
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of Religious Tests in connection with Academical Degrees and Offices in the University of Oxford."
  MR. FAWCETTthought the House would remember that last Session the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, in one of the most completely Liberal speeches he ever made in the House on the Universities, strongly advised that so far as possible some of these Bills should be united, and that the House should not be troubled with constant repetitions of the same question. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member was distinct in principle from that of another hon. Member, because the latter affected endowments, while the present Bill simply related to degrees and offices in the

  297
  University, and he was aware that some who would vote for one would not support the other. What he rose for was to give notice that if the Bill of the hon. and learned Member went into Committee, he should move that it be an Instruction to the Committee that the Bill be made to apply to the University of Cambridge as well as to the University of Oxford.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of Religious Tests in connection with Academical Degrees and Offices in the University of Oxford.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. GRANT DUFF.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]

RAILWAY DEBENTURE HOLDERS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WATKIN,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for affording better security to the holders of Railway Debentures, said, that it would be unnecessary to trouble the House at any length, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he had submitted a sketch of the Bill, had intimated that he would not oppose its introduction. He merely wished to say that he brought in the Bill in the interest of the 80,000 or 100,000 persons who were the owners of the £120,000,000 invested in railway debentures, and the object of it was to remove by legislation certain difficulties which had arisen, and to provide machinery by which, in certain cases, debenture-holders might take some share in the management of their own affairs. He desired to remove an impression which might be created by what he had said on a previous occasion—that the nominal capital of railway property in difficulties was one-tenth of the whole. Upon further examination, and having had a table carefully prepared, he found that the gross nominal capital of railways, where the interest on debentures had failed to be paid, was £24,700,000. This included nearly £17,000,000, the nominal capital of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Out of the £24,700,000 of nominal capital, £6,600,000 only consisted of debentures, of which sum nearly £5,000,000 attached to the Chatham. Thus the whole nominal amounts of capital of unsound lines was less than 5 per cent of the whole railway capital of the country; and the
  298
  debenture-debt, inclusive of that of the Chatham, was only 1½ per cent, and exclusive of the Chatham, only 6s. 8d. per cent. Was it not, therefore, unnecessary that the House should be asked to take into consideration any general scheme of legislation? At the same time, he thought that whenever a railway company, sound or unsound, applied to Parliament to regulate its capital account, and to enable it to meet its liabilities and complete its works, it would be the duty of the House rather to facilitate than to place any difficulties in the way of such an application. Many cases had occurred in which difficulties had been got over by means of a perfect agreement between all parties interested. The House would remember the case of the Caledonian Railway. It was in the greatest difficulties when the shareholders and bondholders devised a scheme, to which they ultimately obtained the sanction of Parliament, and in the result secured a large measure of prosperity. He was not without hope that, if a similar course were adopted, companies now in difficulties might, in the course of two or three years, be successfully extricated from them. It must be borne in mind that he was speaking in the interest of property equal to £450,000,000, the development of which had conferred an enormous advantage to the trade of the country. He might say, for the satisfaction of the debenture-holders, that at the end of 1865 the debenture capital was under £100,000,000, and at the end of 1866 it was under £120,000,000. The total net profit earned by railway capital in 1865 was nearly £19,000,000, and in 1866 it was nearly £21,000,000. Therefore, if six years' net revenue of all the railways were thrown together, it would pay off the whole of the debentures, which were the first mortgage on the undertaking. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he saw no objection to the introduction of the Bill, as its provisions were prospective only. By the time it came on for second reading the House would have had an opportunity of seeing whether the plan could be adopted without injustice to other classes of creditors. He was glad the hon. Gentleman took the same view as he himself had ventured to express the other evening—namely, that it was desirable when cases such as those to which the hon. Member referred arose they should

  299
  be dealt with by special legislation. He also concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking we might look forward to a more satisfactory state of the railway world. He believed there was unnecessary panic in reference to railway property.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for affording better security to the holders of Railway Debentures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WATKIN, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, and Mr. LAING.

ASSOCIATIONS OF WORKMEN BILL.

  LEVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. NEATErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt during a limited time Associations of Workmen which were in respect of any part of their constitution entitled to the benefits of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, from forfeiture of those benefits by reason of their being in other parts of their constitution adapted to the purposes of a trades union. The hon. Member remarked, that previously to 1825 all combinations of workmen for the object of getting any advance of wages were illegal; but in that year a measure was passed removing all liability in criminal proceedings from all societies of a peaceable kind, and these societies continued for a long time to enjoy such facilities for the administration of their funds as the law then allowed to other societies. Then came the Friendly Societies' Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., in which special facilities were given to what were termed Friendly Societies—that is, societies raised and constituted in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. At that time there were friendly societies which partook to a certain degree of the character of trades unions, and on these also certain advantages were conferred by a clause introduced into the Act of 1844. Very recently, however, on the occasion of the treasurer of a society absconding and the matter being brought before a magistrate, the magistrate refused to grant a warrant, on the ground that the society was not entitled to the benefit of the Friendly Societies' Act, on account of its being partly of a trades union character. Subsequently the decision of the magistrates was confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench. He did not question for a moment that the decision was right; but still, it was productive of great inconvenience, and he might mention that it affected not only trades unions of the most
  300
  complicated and oppressive character, but also those which were of the most innocent kind. It might be that the forthcoming inquiry on the subject of trades unions might exclude them from the pale of the law; but that certainly had not hitherto been the intention of the House of Commons, because, for example, four years ago they were empowered to invest their funds on the security of the Post Office savings banks. In his opinion, a Bill ought to be passed to protect these associations—at any rate, for a time and until the whole law had been considered—from the effect of the recent decision. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. WALPOLE: The difficulty proposed to be dealt with is very great, as it will be necessary to draw a line between such societies as ought to take advantage of the Friendly Societies' Act and those societies which are contrary to law. Of course, I can give no opinion on the hon. Member's measure till I have seen its provisions, but I shall not oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to exempt Associations of Workmen from certain disabilities for a limited time, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEATE and Mr. THOMAS HUGHES.

  THAMES NAVIGATION BILL.
  Bill "for extending to the Thames between Staines and the Metropolis the provisions of 'The Thames Navigation Act, 1866,' relating to the prevention of the pollution of the River; and for otherwise extending and amending the Thames Conservancy and Navigation Acts; and for other purposes," read the first time.

  CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. TREVELYAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

  LAND TENURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLES, Bill to regulate and improve the Tenure of Land in Ireland between Landlord and Tenant, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. GREGORY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 19.]

  METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, &C.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Local Government and Local Taxation of the Metropolis."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  And, on February 13, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Mr. TITE, Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. MILL, Mr. HANBURY, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. BEECROFT, Mr. TURNER, Sir WILLIAM GALLWEY, Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. SANDFORD, and Mr. KEKEWICH:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—British North America* (9); Sale of Land by Auction* (10).
Second Reading—Traffic Regulation (Metropolis) (5) and referred to a Select Committee.

THE LORD CHIEF BARON.*

  PETITION OF RIGBY WASON, ESQUIRE.
  EARL RUSSELL,in presenting a Petition complaining of the Conduct in 1835 of the Lord Chief Baron, then Mr. Kelly, and praying for Inquiry; of Rigby Wason, of Corwar, in the County of Ayr, Esquire, said: My Lords, I have a Petition to present upon a matter of considerable importance. It is from Mr. Rigby Wason
  [*The report of the debate on this Petition has been necessarily restricted to those parts of it which relate immediately to the allegations of the Petition.
  The law of Parliament considers any publication of its proceedings to be breach of privilege, and therefore gives no protection to any report, however faithful; Lord Campbell's Act does not extend its very limited protection to cases arising from such reports; and success against proceedings in an action at law is only in degree less disastrous than an adverse result. Everything, therefore, to which exception might be taken has been excluded from the report.
  In the Session of 1857 Lord Campbell, adverting to the recent case of "Davidson v. Duncan," said—
  "When I had the honour to propose in this House a Bill which afterwards became law (6 & 7 Vict. c. 96), and which effected a most material improvement in the Law of Libel, I submitted a clause very limited in its nature—for I was afraid
  against Sir FitzRoy Kelly, and he prays your Lordships to appoint a Committee to investigate the charges made in this Petition; and if the Committee should find these charges to be proved, then he prays that your Lordships will concur with the other House of Parliament in praying the Crown to remove the Lord Chief Baron from his high post. The allegation of the Petition is that in the year 1835 Mr. Kelly, being then in practice at the Bar, pledged his honour as a gentleman to the truth of a statement for the purpose of deceiving a Committee of the House of Commons. The Petition alleges that the Committee was thereby deceived, and, being an Election Committee, reported that Mr. Kelly, who had been a candidate for the representation of the borough of Ipswich, had not been guilty of bribery, and had not committed any illegal practices. Mr. Rigby Wason, however, alleges that on further inquiry the Committee came to a different opinion, and were convinced that the statement made by Mr. Kelly was unfounded, and thereupon unseated Mr. Kelly on the ground that he had committed bribery by his friends and agents. The Petitioner goes on to state that in 1845 Mr. Kelly was appointed Solicitor General by the Government of Sir Robert Peel; that Sir Robert Peel was in some measure deceived as to the facts relating to this inquiry before the Election Committee; but that he (Mr. Rigby Wason), having
  to go very far—providing that any bonâ fide account of the proceedings of either House of Parliament should be privileged, and not subject to an action. I was unable to carry it; there was a majority against me, because it was said, not only that the law gave no such privilege, but that it ought not to be given."
  In the same year Lord Campbell obtained the appointment of a Select Committee on the "Privilege of Reports," before which Mr. Dobie, the solicitor of The Times, Mr. Baines of The Leeds Mercury, Mr. Hargrove of The York Herald, and Mr. Hansard, gave evidence. The Committee reported in favour of extending protection to faithful reports of proceedings in Parliament, "the majority being influenced by the evidence of Mr. Hansard, and of the solicitor to The Times newspaper." In the following Session, Lord Campbell introduced a Bill to give effect to the Report of the Committee. The Bill contained the following clause:—
  "No person shall be liable to action, informa-
  no personal enmity to Mr. Kelly, did not think it right to go into the case against him. Mr. Kelly was afterwards appointed to the office of Attorney General; and again to the same office under Lord Derby's Government in 1852; and finally attained, under the present Government, the office which he now fills. The Petition concludes with the prayer which I have already detailed. My Lords, I have felt it my duty to present this Petition, relating, as it does, to a public matter of the highest importance. But there are some reasons in the Petition itself which certainly make me feel it not my duty—whatever course other noble Lords may think it right to adopt—to ask your Lordships to assent in this case to the appointment of the Committee which is asked for. In the first place, I cannot agree with the allegation of Mr. Rigby Wason that when Sir FitzRoy Kelly was appointed Solicitor General by Sir Robert Peel it was not a matter of great public importance, or that if Sir Robert Peel had been deceived it was not a question in which Mr. Wason ought to feel any interest. Now, in the first place, a gentleman of the Bar who is appointed Solicitor General is in the direct road to promotion to the office of a Judge, and it would be a great injustice to the public to appoint any man to be Solicitor General who had notoriously been guilty of pledging his honour as a gentleman to the truth of that which he knew to be false and, therefore, if
  tion, or indictment for libel, in respect or on account of any faithful report of proceedings at any sitting of either House of Parliament, at which strangers have been permitted to be present."
  In his speech in moving the Second Reading, after a full exposition of the law on the publication of reports of proceedings in Parliament, Lord Campbell said—
  "Mr. Hansard, a name well known to their Lordships, after stating that he had not had actions brought, but had been in constant dread of them, gave this evidence:
  "'Your Lordships are very well aware that my publication is the only publication which professes to record the proceedings of Parliament in extenso, and with very considerate fidelity, but that I am not in any way recognized—that I have no protection whatever more than any other person who should publish in extenso or otherwise any reports of debates in your Lordships' House or of debates in the other House. Now, the consequence of the present state of the Law of Libel is this: that if matter is uttered in debate in either House which would be libellous and would be unprotected if published out of the House, I am obliged to consider whether it would be safe for
  there had been ground for charging such an offence against Sir FitzRoy Kelly, it was Mr. Rigby Wason's duty to have brought the matter before Sir Robert Peel. Nobody can believe that Sir Robert Peel would have thought lightly of such a charge, or would have appointed Sir FitzRoy Kelly Solicitor General without any contradiction of the charge so made against him. It appears to me, first, that Sir Robert Peel having appointed Sir FitzRoy Kelly to be Solicitor General was satisfied of his integrity and his fitness for the office, and that he should be advanced in the usual manner. In the next place, it appears to me that Mr. Rigby Wason could hardly have refrained from pressing his charges from any feeling of personal tenderness for Sir FitzRoy Kelly, but rather because he felt that his proofs were insufficient. But I have had further information upon the subject since I came to that decision. Mr. Rigby Wason sent me copies of letters which he had written to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), and to Mr. Walpole, the Home Secretary, bringing these charges, and I have also received the answer sent from Sir FitzRoy Kelly to Mr. Walpole, stating that he would send an answer more in detail oil a future day; but, meanwhile, totally denying the truth of these allegations. I have since seen a statement under the hand of Sir FitzRoy Kelly himself, in which he not only denies the truth of these allega-
  me to print that matter; and if I am clearly of opinion that it would not be safe for me to do so, inasmuch as the publication is not of such a nature that I could stand the expenses of a prosecution, the result is that I strike the matter out without any attempt at modification or otherwise.
  "'That apprehension induces you to suppress that which ought to appear if the report were fully accurate S It is, advisedly and systematically so.'"
  Lord Wensleydale opposed the Bill, and moved its rejection; and after an instructive debate, in which the present Lord Chancellor (who at that time also held the Great Seal) spoke strongly against the measure, the Amendment was carried by a majority of 35 to 7, and the Bill was thrown out.
  Under such a state of the law, and such being the declared opinion of Parliament on the subject, and considering that the vindication of the Lord Chief Baron's character was the essential part of the discussion, Mr. Hansard holds it within his discretion to restrict his report to that point.]
  tions, but enters into explanations for the purpose of showing how totally unfounded they are. In the first place, he states—what Mr. Rigby Wason does not state—that the particular charge in which he is accused of having stated what was false was founded on a statement which Mr. Rigby Wason alleges Sir FitzRoy Kelly to have made, that he was not acquainted personally with a Mr. Pilgrim, and knew nothing whatever of him. Sir FitzRoy Kelly says that he never made such a statement, for it was notorious that he knew Pilgrim, who was clerk in the office of a solicitor at Ipswich. He further says that by accident Mr. Gurney, the shorthand writer, had kept his notes of that speech, and that the notes contained no such statements as those embodied in the allegations. The truth of that charge being thus denied, Sir FitzRoy Kelly proceeds to say that, so far from Sir Robert Peel having any difficulty or doubt about appointing him, he was afterwards appointed under another Government to the same office. The Election Committee which, as I have already stated, reported that Sir FitzRoy Kelly had been guilty of bribery, could not have found that he was personally cognizant of bribery, for they reported that it was committed through his friends and agents. It therefore appears to me that the allegations fall to the ground. It seems to me impossible that since 1835, now nearly thirty-two years ago, Sir FitzRoy Kelly could have been a candidate for Ipswich, afterwards a candidate and Member for Cambridge, and finally Member for Suffolk—having been elected, I believe, six times for that county—without these circumstances being brought to light. It seems to me quite impossible—the speech having been taken in shorthand—that some of his constituents or opponents would not have brought the matter forward during the excitement that usually takes place during a General Election. For these reasons, though I have thought it right to present the Petition, as I have already stated, I do not support its prayer or intend to found any Motion upon it.
  LORD ST. LEONARDShaving requested that the prayer of the Petition might be read by the Clerk at the table, the Clerk read as follows:—
  "Your Petitioner therefore prays your right honourable House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the distinct Charge which has been made; and that if such Committee find that Sir Fitzroy Kelly has been guilty of that with which
  262
  he has been charged, then that your right honourable House will join the other House of Parliament in moving an Address to the Queen, praying that Sir Fitzroy Kelly may be relieved from his judicial position."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl (Earl Russell) was good enough to give me a copy of the Petition which he has presented for the purpose of sending it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chief Baron; and I have received from him information which I trust will enable me to answer the Petition fully and satisfactorily. My Lords, I think the noble Earl might have been excused if he had declined to present a Petition of this character; and certainly the course he has taken is one of an unusual description, for he has adopted the unusual course of reading through every part of it, and has, as he proceeded, given a refutation of every charge contained in it; I cannot help thinking, then, that it would have better become the noble Earl if he hail, under the circumstances, declined to take charge of the Petition. I know an impression prevails that if a petition is couched in respectful terms to the House, no Member ought to refuse to present it; but ever since I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House I have ventured to act upon a different principle, and I have exercised a discretion with reference to petitions which have been intrusted to me. I have no doubt that the noble Earl was acting from a different impression as to the duty of a Member of this House; and I am quite sure I do him no less than justice when I say that he was not very well pleased with the task which his sense of duty compelled him to undertake. Now, my Lords, assuming every word of this Petition to be true, we must not forget that the facts upon which these most grave charges against the Lord Chief Baron are founded took place no less than thirty-two years ago, and that during that long period my right hon. and learned Friend has twice held the office of Solicitor General, and once that of Attorney General—and the noble Earl was perfectly right in saying that these offices are generally looked upon as giving a sort of inchoate right to the highest seat upon the judicial bench—my right hon. and learned Friend has also stood election tests; he has represented the county of Suffolk, I think, in three different Parliaments, and your Lordships will very well believe that if there should be any moral stain upon the

  263
  character of a candidate for Parliamentary honours it is likely to be drawn out in the heat of a contested election. Your Lordships may naturally wonder why Mr. Rigby Wason has kept silence so long, and why he has chosen to speak at last. This he explains, or endeavours to explain, in his Petition. He says that at the time my right hon. and learned Friend was appointed Solicitor General he was applied to by Sir Robert Peel to give information as to
  "the facts respecting the conduct of Mr. Kelly, but he declined to do so on the ground that he had no personal feeling in the matter, and that Mr. Kelly could not inflict greater injury upon the public as Solicitor General than he could as a Barrister in full practice."
  The noble Earl forestalled me in the answer to this statement when he remarked that there was a very material difference between a barrister in ordinary practice and a person of that description being selected by favour of the Crown and placed at the head of the profession, having thus as it were a passport to the judicial bench. The Petitioner says the reason he has now ceased to be silent upon the subject is—
  "That your Petitioner submits to your right honourable House that the appointment of a Judge should be governed by very different principles from those which might excuse the appointment of Solicitor or Attorney General; and that the precedent held out to the Bar, that wilful and deliberate Falsehood should be no bar to attaining the position of a Judge, must be fraught with the most disastrous consequences not only to the character of the Bar but to Society."
  I regret, my Lords, that I am obliged to enter into matters of this description; but it is absolutely necessary in order to explain some of the statements of the Petition. In 1837, then, Mr. Kelly was a candidate for the representation of the borough of Ipswich, and one of the results of that candidature was that Mr. Rigby Wason publicly charged him with deliberate falsehood before a Committee of the House of Commons. The laws of honour, as they are called, which prevailed at that time, prevented a man from sitting tamely under an imputation of this description, and compelled him to attempt to vindicate his honour by washing out the affront by the blood of his libeller. Few men were then able to brave the public scorn which attended any attempt to disregard this evil custom, and your Lordships will look probably with some forbearance on the conduct of my right hon. Friend in having demanded what is called "satisfaction" from
  264
  Mr. Rigby Wason. Mr. Rigby Wason refused the meeting proposed by Mr. Kelly; and on a consequent proceeding of the latter, he applied for a criminal information against my right hon. Friend for endeavouring to provoke him to fight a duel. This information failed, on grounds which I shall presently explain. This being the ground of the feeling of the Petitioner towards Mr. Kelly, I have heard it said by some, "Why not treat such charges as this with profound contempt?" But, unfortunately, a person charged in this House in this way cannot afford to do so, because the public will believe that such charges remained unanswered only because they were unanswerable; therefore, I must ask your Lordships to allow me to go through the charges contained in this Petition as briefly as I can. The first charge is—
  "That Sir Fitzroy Kelly, then Mr. Kelly, having been eleven years at the Bar, and being a Queen's Counsel, did, upon the 11th of April, 1835, pledge his Honor as a Gentleman to the truth of that which he knew to be false, for the purpose of deceiving a Committee of the House of Commons."
  This charge is couched in the most vague and general terms, and therefore only admits of a general denial; but, fortunately, an interpretation has been given to it in the letters to which the noble Earl alluded as having been sent to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the letter to my noble Friend Mr. Wason says—
  "Sir Fitzroy Kelly was returned to Parliament in 1834 with Mr. Dundas. A petition was presented by electors of Ipswich, but supported by my colleague and myself, and our senior counsel opened several distinct charges of bribery; among others, one of the most important as affecting agency was committed by Mr. Pilgrim. In reply, Mr. Kelly assured the Committee, upon his honour as a gentleman, that he had never heard of any person of the name of Pilgrim, and actually charged us with having invented the story, which, he said, was almost proved by the very name we had selected."
  Mr. Wason then goes on to say in his Petition—
  "That such judicial tribunal was deceived by such assertions of Mr. Kelly's, and he received the Fruits of his falsehood by the Committee deciding That no illegal act had been established against Mr. Kelly and his Colleague.' That the Committee then adjourned until the middle of May, when it met, and proceeded with the Scrutiny, which was interrupted by the Petitioners producing distinct evidence proving beyond all doubt that the assertions made by Mr. Kelly were false. That the Committee, therefore, not only rescinded the above Resolution, but resolved that Mr. Kelly and his Colleague were, by their Friends and Agents, guilty of Bribery and Corruption, and

  265
  that the opposition to the Petition was frivolous and vexatious."
  I will satisfy your Lordships that this statement was utterly incorrect. In 1834 Mr. Kelly was returned with Mr. Dundas, for Ipswich, and a petition, on the ground of bribery, was presented against their return. One of the charges was that one of the voters had been promised £20 by a man named Pilgrim, and that the money had subsequently been paid by that person. When the case arrived at the point where it was necessary to sum up on behalf of the sitting Members, the counsel were all absent, and my right hon. Friend was obliged to take the duty upon himself. It is untrue that in doing so he denied all knowledge of Mr. Pilgrim. On the contrary, he referred to him as a clerk in the I employ of Messrs. Sewell and Blake, solicitors of Ipswich, with whom he had frequently been in communication, and from whom he had received many briefs. What he contended was, that there was no evidence of agency, and that, consequently, there was no evidence against the sitting Members. The Committee having come to that conclusion then adjourned for a considerable time for a scrutiny. Soon after Pilgrim went over to the enemy's camp and appeared, and not only proved the act of bribery to which I have referred, but also proved his own agency in the matter. Of course, under these circumstances, the Committee had no other course open but to rescind the Resolution at which they had arrived. Now, it may be asked, how do I prove that what my right hon. Friend said was not false, as is asserted by Mr. Wason? Mr. Wason asserts that my right hon. Friend denied all! knowledge of Mr. Pilgrim. It is very hard to prove a negative; but it happens, fortunately, that there were notes taken of my right hon. Friend's speech by a shorthand writer, and from the beginning to the end of that speech, which has been carefully searched through, not only by my right hon. Friend, but by another gentleman, a barrister of reputation, there will he found no passage to sustain this charge. I My right hon. Friend in a letter to Mr. Walpole, and referring to this speech, says:
  "I have carefully looked through it from the beginning to end, and there is not one word to be found in it having the semblance of a declaration on honour, or an assertion, or a suggestion that Mr. Pilgrim was unknown to me, or that no such person existed."
  Mr. Phillpotts, the barrister to whom I have alluded, writes as follows:—
  "My dear Lord Chief Baron.—Before attend-
  266
  ing the consultation of the late Solicitor General's chambers, I carefully read your speech of the 11th and 13th of April, 1835, referred to by Mr. Wason in his proposed Petition to the House of Commons, and can confidently say that there is not in that speech any such declaration as Mr. Wason alleges; not any assertion or suggestion that you did not know Mr. Pilgrim; nor a sentence that can be distorted into meaning anything of the kind. In deed, certain passages in the speech appear wholly inconsistent with any such declaration.—Believe me, yours sincerely, W. F. PHILLPOTTS.'
  There is another circumstance which I will mention to your Lordships as bearing out my statement. According to this statement made by Mr. Wason, Sir FitzRoy Kelly had been detected in the most discreditable falsehood it is possible for a man to utter, and this offence had been committed in the face of the Committee and in the presence of the opposing counsel. When the Committee re-assembled my right hon. Friend appeared as before, and summed up the case for the sitting Members as he had previously done. There was no disgust or indignation exhibited on that occasion by any Member of the Committee, nor did the opposing counsel suggest in any way that anything had occurred to render him unworthy of credit or in the slightest degree to disparage his testimony. Now, my Lords, let me pass to the second charge. That second charge is conveyed in the following words:—
  "That your Petitioner humbly submits to your right honourable House that the conduct of which Mr. Kelly was guilty was precisely the same, morally speaking, as wilful and deliberate perjury to benefit himself, as stated by the late Lord Chief Justice Denman, who rebuked Mr. Kelly's Counsel by remarking, in an indignant manner, 'Do not go on this way, Mr. Attorney; this Court knows no distinction between what a man swears and what he says upon his honour as a Gentleman."
  I am, fortunately, very easily able to explain this matter. At the election of 1837 to which I have already alluded, Mr. Wason stated that my right hon. Friend, before a Committee of the House of Commons, had called God to witness that he had nothing to do with the absconding of Mr. Pilgrim to avoid the Speaker's warrant. The observation of Lord Denman referred to the criminal information which Mr. Wason had filed against my right hon. Friend. In the affidavit Mr. Wason did not state, as he had stated at the hustings, that my right hon. Friend had called God to witness; but merely that he had asserted on his honour that he was no party to the absconding of Pilgrim. The affidavit of my right hon. Friend denies that he employed either of the expressions, though he contended that if he had said either it would

  267
  have been perfectly true. The Attorney General who was counsel for my right hon. Friend on that occasion, referred to the discrepancy between the assertion of Mr. Wason in the affidavit and on the hustings drawing a distinction between a mere assertion and a statement upon oath. Lord Denman, with an indignation which burst forth whenever he had any idea there was an intention of confounding moral distinctions, said—
  "That whatever a gentleman professes to declare, appealing to his own knowledge on the subject, must be taken to have been as solemnly made as if any obligation or any form of words had been appended to it."
  But in delivering judgment, Lord Denman expressed his opinion that there was no proof that my right hon. Friend had made use of the expression attributed to him by Mr. Wason—he said that Mr. Wason would not attempt to prove it, and would not pledge his oath to that belief. Under these circumstances, the criminal information fell to the ground. And now, my Lords, I come to the third charge, which is made in the following terms:—
  "That your Petitioner has been informed and believes that the late Sir Robert Peel, ten years afterwards, positively refused to appoint Mr. Kelly as his Solicitor General, upon account of his conduct before the Ipswich Election Committee; and that the Right Hon. Gentleman's legitimate scruples were overcome by a fraud."
  Now, this charge amounts to this—that on Sir Robert Peel hesitating to appoint my right hon. Friend as his Solicitor General his scruples were removed by his having palmed off upon him the evidence given before the Committee, which was published in the blue book, and which did not, of course, contain my right hon. Friend's speech, in which this remark complained of was said to have occurred. Now, it so happens that I am personally able to contradict this charge. I was Solicitor General on the 28th of June, 1845, when the death of my lamented and very dear friend Sir William Follett, the Attorney General, occurred. The funeral took place on the 4th of July, and immediately after the funeral I attended Sir Robert Peel by appointment at Whitehall. He informed me that I was to be made Attorney General. I said, "Who is to be my Solicitor?" He said "Kelly;" and my right hon. Friend has the notification of his appointment to the Solicitor Generalship on that very day now in his possession. Some little correspondence, of which I was not aware until it was communicated to me by my right hon. Friend,
  268
  had passed between my right hon. Friend and Sir Robert Peel in the interval elapsing between the death of Sir William Follett and my right hon. Friend's appointment. About that time a question of privilege was under discussion, and my right hon. Friend was not so strong an assertor of the privileges of the House of Commons as Sir Robert Peel, and this occasioned a correspondence; and this was the occasion of the delay—if there was any delay—and not any unfavourable rumours against the character of my right hon. Friend. I will not apologize for trespassing thus much upon your Lordships' attention, because the question is one of the utmost importance. If my right hon. Friend had been guilty of the conduct attributed to him in this Petition he would not attempt to defend himself by saying that there ought to be a limitation to charges of this description; and I should certainly agree in the opinion that a person who is contaminated by such scandalous conduct as has been attributed to my right hon. Friend is utterly unworthy of being raised to the judicial bench. The noble and learned Lord concluded by asserting that he had fully confuted the charges of the Petition against the Lord Chief Baron.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS: My Lords, I am unwilling to occupy your Lordships' time further; but I feel myself bound to make an appeal to the noble Earl to withdraw the Petition. The noble Earl must be aware what is the constitutional mode of proceeding against a Judge who is considered unfit to occupy his seat on the judicial bench. In the first place, it is necessary that there should be a direct inquiry into the charges at the Bar of your Lordships' House and at the Bar of the other House; that Committees should be appointed by each to further inquire into the matter; and that there should be an agreement between both Houses to present an Address to the Crown praying that the Judge should be removed from the judgment seat. It is impossible that there can be a question of deeper interest to the entire country than such an inquiry. One great element in the happiness and the glory of this country is the upright character of the Judges who administer justice. Does the noble Earl believe for a moment that if the Petition is permitted to lie upon the table of the House, answered as it can only be at present by the denial of its truth, it is possible for the Lord Chief Baron of England to sit for another hour upon the judgment

  269
  seat of the Exchequer? Can he remain there until the proper steps have been taken to investigate the truth or falsehood of the charges which have been brought against him? How can he sit to administer justice with charges of this sort hanging over him—charges which, if true, would render him utterly unfit to sit in the society of gentlemen? What would become of justice when so administered? It is very difficult in ordinary cases to make a defeated suitor believe that the judgment against him is just, even where the character, honour, and integrity of the Judge is untainted; but what would be the effect upon such a man's mind when the character of the Judge pronouncing the judgment has been brought before your Lordships' House, on allegations such as those contained in the Petition presented by the noble Earl? The noble Earl has more than once been Prime Minister in this country, and no person is better versed than himself in the steps that he is bound to take should he insist upon the Petition laying upon the table of the House. I utterly deny that it is possible for him to lay that document upon the table, and then to withdraw from further interference in the matter, and leave the whole responsibility upon your Lordships. I trust that if the noble Earl is impressed, as he says he is—and therefore I am bound to believe that to be the case—with the truth of the Lord Chief Baron's denial of the charges brought against him, he will handsomely withdraw the Petition, and will not suffer it to remain on the table of the House. It cannot remain there without further steps being taken; and if it be not withdrawn it is utterly impossible that the Lord Chief Baron, with such terrible imputations upon his character, can continue to discharge his duties as the chief of the Court of Exchequer. Upon the charge itself I shall not dwell five minutes. In the first place, what does it amount to? It appears that there was a contested election, and unhappily the principal counsel of the then Mr. Kelly, being unable to attend on his behalf before the Committee of the House, the right hon. Gentleman was induced at the last moment to address the Committee on his own behalf—a most unwise step undoubtedly—and in that double capacity of both Member whose seat was being contested, and of counsel, he is said to have made a statement which was false to his knowledge. It is admitted that if the right hon. Gentleman made the statement, he must have made it knowing
  270
  it to be false, because he had been for years perfectly acquainted with the person in question. Is there any evidence in support of the charge that he denied on that occasion all knowledge of this person? Not the slightest evidence exists which I can in any way substantiate the statement I contained in the Petition. The. note taken by our own shorthand writer in Committees does not contain a single syllable in support of the charge. Who, then, is the only other witness? Why, the Petitioner himself—a person in hostility to the right hon. Gentleman upon the particular question before the Committee. But he makes other statements in his Petition. He states that when Sir Robert Peel wished to make the right hon. Gentleman Solicitor General, he hesitated to do so on account of the right hon. Gentleman's bad character in reference to this very question, but that he was induced to give him the appointment in consequence of the entreaties of Lord Lowther, now the Earl of Lonsdale. The Earl of Lonsdale has been spoken to upon the subject, and he utterly denies that any such communication passed between himself and Sir Robert Peel on this subject, or that he had any part whatever in the advancement of the right hon. Gentleman. Can your Lordships believe that a gentleman of position at the Bar and a Member of the other House of Parliament would so far forget his honour and his feeling as a gentleman as to pledge himself to a fact that he knew to be false? This attack was first made in 1835, and from that moment down to the present the right hon. Gentleman has been continually before the public, he has stood several contested elections, and has been returned six times consecutively Member for his county without a single word in reference to this matter being breathed against him. My Lords, I call on the noble Earl opposite to consider what a bad precedent has been made in this case; for where is the man whose character would be safe if, on the ground of some speech or conversation two or three and thirty years ago, such a charge is to be brought against him, the object of which is to remove him with ignominy from the high office he may have attained? Solemnly and seriously, I ask the noble Earl before the world to consider the terrible consequences of the step he has been induced to take. I ask him whether, in justice to my right hon. and learned Friend, he does not consider it his duty to withdraw this Petition?
  EARL RUSSELL: I hope your Lordships will permit me to refer again to the course I thought it my duty to take with regard to this Petition. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has given his opinion that it would be better if on occasions of this kind no petition should be presented. Now, I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that in a matter of private concern, without any public object apparent, it would not be right to present a petition of this kind to your Lordships; but this is the case of a petition signed by a subject of Her Majesty, asking Her Majesty for a remedy which is pointed out by the Constitution—namely, that a certain charge being made and proved, your Lordships should address the Crown to remove the Judge. I own it appeared to me that if petitions of that sort were refused by every Member of your Lordships' House, far more injury would be done than could result from their presentation and discussion, and that every kind of publicity would be given to the charges by publication in the newspapers without the opportunity of refutation. In the first place, there would be the appearance of shutting the doors of this House against the petitions of the Queen's subjects; in the next place, the charges would be repeated in the newspapers and pamphlets, and without the same opportunity to the party charged of answering them. My Lords, I did what I considered to be my duty; I took a copy of the Petition to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I stated that I looked to him as head of the law, and I asked him to have the goodness to communicate to the Lord Chief Baron the contents of the Petition. I did this, that when the Petition was presented there might be a full opportunity of an answer to the charges which it contained. That opportunity the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has fully and properly availed himself of. He has given a complete answer to all the charges made. It appears to me a matter of the greatest public importance that the character of our Judges should remain, as I am happy to think they have hitherto been, unstained and pure in the eyes of the public; and I do confess that it appears to me, my Lords, better that before an assembly such as your Lordships, such charges should be heard and refuted, than that they should be suppressed, and that every Peer should refuse to listen to a petitioner, and that a person aggrieved should not have the opportunity of saying that he was
  272
  not even allowed a hearing in the House of Lords. That was the view I took of this matter; and I own I still think on an occasion of this kind, where great constitutional questions are concerned, that publicity and debate, either in this or the other House of Parliament, does tend to the public welfare. With regard to the request which the noble and learned Lord who last addressed your Lordships (Lord St. Leonards) has made, I am not versed in the proceedings of your Lordships' House with respect to petitions of this kind, whether they should be allowed to lie on the table or be withdrawn. I am free to declare, for my part, that I am ready to withdraw the Petition. I would refer the matter to the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, who is well versed in the proceedings of the House. If he declares that it is in conformity with the usual course of proceeding to withdraw the Petition, I am quite ready to take that course. I am fully satisfied that the character of the eminent Judge, so far as it is impugned in the Petition, remains unstained; and that the subjects of Her Majesty may have full confidence in the administration of justice by that very eminent man, not only from his knowledge of the law and great learning, but also his high personal character.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, as the noble Earl has referred to me, I will say without the slightest hesitation that if I had been led inadvertently to present such a petition, I certainly should feel it my duty to withdraw it after the discussion which has taken place and for this reason, that if you present a petition and move that it lie on the table, you express an opinion as to the merits of the case. But after the discussion which has taken place, after the crushing refutation of every single point, and the complete and entire vindication of the right hon. and learned person who was attacked, I do think the House of Lords is bound to go a little further than expressing no opinion about it. After the debate and refutation we shall only be doing our duty and supporting our own dignity and character by refusing to allow this Petition to lie on the table. I will not question the taste and judgment of the noble Earl in bringing it forward; but, having brought it forward, and having heard it refuted entirely to his own satisfaction, I think that his plain and obvious course is to withdraw the Petition.
  EARL RUSSELL: I beg, my Lords, to withdraw the Petition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The

  273
  proper course will be to put the Question to the House—That the Petition do lie on the table? The Not-Contents have it.

APPREHENDED DISTURBANCES AT CHESTER.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I wish to put a question to the noble Earl respecting certain events which have just taken place at Chester. It appears that an inroad of some 1,500 Fenians has taken place, with the intention of attacking the Castle and possessing themselves of the arms stored there, and that there being very few troops to protect the city, it has been found necessary to send down by train a regiment of the Fusileer Guards. I would ask the noble Earl, Whether he has received to-day any accounts from Chester, and what was the state of the town?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I believe I can give the noble Lord little more information than has appeared in all the public papers. The facts are shortly these:—On Sunday morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department received an intimation from Liverpool that considerable excitement prevailed in that town caused by an extraordinary influx of strangers from Manchester, Staley-bridge, Preston, Halifax, and other quarters, none of them appearing to have any business to do, and all of them having a very suspicious aspect. In the course of the afternoon of Sunday information had been received that the object of these men was to go on the following morning to Chester and endeavour to take possession of the arms stored in the Castle. In consequence of this information, the chief constable of Liverpool thought it necessary to send over an officer to Chester to apprise the authorities. It was late when he got there; but having called up the functionaries, he suggested that immediate steps should be taken; and next morning the proceedings were telegraphed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He thought it right to communicate at once with General Garvock, commanding the district, and with the Mayor of Chester, putting them in communication with each other, and authorizing the Mayor, if he thought it necessary, to send for an additional company of the 54th Regiment, from Preston. In the course of the day the number of these persons in Chester had largely increased. There were 1,500 or 1,600 who were described as Fenians, and apparently bent on the design attri-
274
buted to them. The Mayor, therefore, requested authority to send for further troops from Manchester or Preston. Thereupon, my right hon. Friend communicated with the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief, and it was agreed between them that it was not desirable to weaken the small force at Preston and Manchester, on which the safety of Liverpool depended, there being not a single soldier there—consequently, if other troops were required it would be desirable to send down a battalion of Guards from London. That was communicated by telegraph to the Mayor between nine and ten o'clock, with the request that if more troops were considered necessary to telegraph back again and a battalion of Guards would be ready to be sent down. In the meantime directions were given that 500 men should be kept in readiness to start on a moment's notice. At one o'clock a telegram was received from the Mayor urgently desiring that the Guards should be sent down; and they were sent down at two o'clock this morning, and must have reached Chester at an early hour this morning. I requested my right hon. Friend to let me know the latest accounts; but when I came to the House he had not received any further intelligence. A private telegram, however, had been received by Lord Elcho from Lord Grosvenor, which reported that the matter had been serious, and that the town had been saved by the promptitude of the measures which had been taken.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 5.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
TRAFFIC REGULATION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 5.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the necessity for legislation on this subject was shown by a Return which showed the number of persons killed and injured by being run over in the streets of London during the year 1865. In that portion of the town which fell under the supervision of the Metropolitan Police, the number of persons killed from the cause he had mentioned since January, 1865, to March, 1866, was 163; and in the City the number killed between the 1st of January, 1865, and the 26th of February, 1866, was 17. The number injured in the London Metropolitan Police district was 1,938, and in

  275
  the City 237. The Bill applied to all parts of London, including the City, within a radius of four miles from Charing Cross. The Bill necessarily consisted in a great degree of matters of detail, the principal of which he would mention to their Lordships. The first clause after the interpretation clauses prohibited, under a penalty of 40s., the removal of ashes, dust, or refuse from any house, or the sweeping of streets—except the removal of snow—between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and seven in the evening. By the next clause it was provided that no coal, or casks, whether empty or full, should be loaded or unloaded on or across any footway within the metropolis—which as defined by the Bill meant the City of London and all parishes and places within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works—except between the hours of one o'clock and ten in the morning, or in such back streets or other byways as might be approved by the Commissioners of Police; that no goods or other articles should be allowed to rest on any footway or other part of a street for a longer time than might be absolutely necessary for loading or unloading. As he had reason to believe that there would be a good deal of opposition to this clause, he pointed out that the public had an absolute right to the user of the foot pavement; and that although these provisions might cause a certain amount of inconvenience to individual interests, yet it was not unreasonable that those interests should give way to the general public good. It was likewise proposed by the Bill to prevent the driving of cattle through the streets between the hours of ten in the morning and seven in the evening without a licence from the Commissioners of Police. Another clause of the Bill contained a provision to prevent, without licence from the Police Commissioners, the driving along the streets carts laden with timber, iron, or other heavy goods, or with ladders, scaffolds, or poles, or other articles exceeding twenty-five feet in length, or any cart drawn by more than four horses, between the hours of ten in the morning and seven in the evening. With regard to the drivers of metropolitan stage carriages, it was provided that they should not stop to take up or set down except as near as possible to the left side of the roadway; there was a prohibition in the Bill against pictures, prints, boards, placards, or notices of any kind being carried or distributed by way of advertisement in any street by any person riding
  276
  in any vehicle, or on horseback, or on foot. There were certain clauses in the measure relating to "special limits," and by these it was provided that the Commissioners of Police, subject to the sanction, in the Metropolitan Police district, of the Home Secretary, and in the City of the Home Secretary with the approval of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, might from time to time take any street or portion of any street out of the special limits of the Act, and might make regulations prohibiting any vehicles coming into such street for the purpose of only passing through, and might lay down the route for them to take. The time during which vehicles might be allowed to come into or remain in any street within the special limits for the purpose of loading and unloading was also prescribed, as well as the maximum speed at which vehicles and horses were to go, and the line to be kept by persons riding, driving, or walking. The second part of the Bill contained regulations with respect to hackney carriages. In future the driver of any hackney carriage drawn by one horse would be entitled to a fare of not less than 1s.; and he would be bound to furnish his vehicle with at least one lamp properly trimmed and lighted after sunset. He intended to propose some other clauses in Committee with a view of providing for the public the benefit of a superior kind of cab or vehicle of that description. It had been stated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the cabs of London were very bad and were getting worse, and into the hands of a more needy body of men. There were certain detailed regulations with respect to hackney carriages with which he need not trouble the House. He should next advert to those provisions of the Bill which related to the removal of snow. It was provided that the "street authority," be it the vestry or any other body, shall with all practicable speed remove the snow which falls in the streets within its jurisdiction. If the street authority neglected the performance of that duty, besides a penalty, complaint may be made by any private individual to a magistrate, and a summons may be obtained from him calling upon the offenders to appear before him; and, if satisfied of the justice of the charge, he might make an order requiring the street authority to remove the snow within a limited period—three hours, for instance—or some such reasonable time. If that order were disregarded, then the complainant might apply for a further order to remove the

  277
  snow, authorizing him to employ persons for the purpose, and might, by a subsequent order to be called a pay order, recover the expenses of the work. The Bill went on to provide, with respect to dogs found straying about the streets, that they may be seized by the police and, if not claimed within three days, may be sold or destroyed; and upon complaint that any person has been bitten by any dog, the magistrate may direct the dog to be destroyed. There were besides certain miscellaneous provisions in the Bill relating to fairs, lamp-posts, and street-betting, with which he need not on that occasion trouble the House, and he would conclude by moving that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Belmore.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that although some of the provisions in the Bill might be advantageously adopted for facilitating the traffic in the central and most crowded districts of the metropolis, they would operate very vexatiously if brought into general operation in the suburbs. The noble Lord was also understood to ask for information on some of the details of the clauses. A Bill, like that now before the House, full of minute details, would require much examination, and he suggested that it would be improved if it were referred in the first instance to a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHcalled the attention of the House to the numerous deaths and the severe injuries to the person caused by the reckless driving of cabs and other one-horse vehicles in the metropolis; and he thought some provision, whether by way of giving the magistrates power to issue bye-laws, or in some other way, ought to be introduced into this Bill for the purpose of checking the evil of which he complained.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in reply, said, that if it was thought that the details of the measure would be better considered in a Select Committee than in the usual Committee of the Whole House, he should not object to its being so referred, though be did not at present see the necessity of adopting such a course. With respect to the alteration in the cab fares, the proposition was that no cab should be called off the stand at less than Is., but that the hirer should be at liberty to insist on being driven two miles for that sum. He saw no reason for altering the provision with regard to the four mile radius.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHcomplained that the noise in their Lordships' House was so great that it was impossible to bear with any distinctness the statements of his noble Friend; but from what he could gather relative to the proposals submitted, they embraced many minute points of detail, which it would be impossible to discuss in that House, and therefore he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that it would be expedient to send this Bill to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREwould not offer any further objection to that course, and would therefore consent to the Bill being now read a second time, with the view of its being so referred.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a; accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on February 15, Select Committee appointed as follows:

  Ld. Privy Seal

  K. De Grey

  Ld. Steward

  E. Granville

  E. Tankerville

  E. Kimberley

  E. Graham

  L. Methuen

  E. Lucan

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Belmore

  L. Houghton.

  And, on February 18, The Marquess of Westmeath, The Earl of Airlie, and The Earl Stanhope added; February 19, The Lord Portman, and The Lord Ebury added.

  BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith—Was presented by The Earl of CARNARVON; read 1ª. (No. 9.)

  SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Law of Auctions of Estates—Was presented, by The Lord ST. LEONARDS; read 1ª. (No. 10.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.