Sitting of 18 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—Elementary Education (School Board Loans)*.
Second Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment* [250]; Military Manœuvres* [251].
Committee—Public Health (re-comm.) [215]—R.P.; Custody of Infants* [93], House counted out.
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment* [216–258]; Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint) (re-comm.)* [248].
Considered as amended—Church Seats* [194].
Third Reading—Masters and Workmen (Arbitration)* [213], and passed.
Withdrawn—Elementary Education (Elections)* [168]; Larceny Law Amendment* [241]; Prison Ministers* [191].

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to carry out the regulations recommended by the Departmental Committee of 1871 for extending the system of instructing and employing soldiers (so soon as the necessary drills are acquired) in trades and on public works; whether suitable workshops have been allotted to the various barracks on the home stations; whether a qualified officer has been appointed to each regiment to supervise the industrial training of the men, and to look after the workshops, in accordance with the statement he made last year; whether it is now his intention to make the repair of barrack damages and fair wear and tear dilapidations compulsory on the troops; how far it is intended to utilize military labour in the erection of the large number of barracks about to be built; and, whether he will state what additional steps he proposes to take to establish a more uniform system for utilising the
  1360
  spare time of the troops for the public benefit and their own advantage?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, Pioneers of the following trades—namely, carpenters, bricklayers, smiths, masons, painters and glaziers, plumbers, and gas-fitters—have been selected and appointed in each regiment at home. These men, assisted by others who had learnt trades prior to enlistment, have performed a portion of the barrack repairs, and have worked for the Royal Engineer Department. Regimental workshops have been established at some stations by the re-appropriation of accommodation where it could be spared. At other places—the Curragh and Portobello—workshops have been built; and at some other places sites have been selected for the future erection of such buildings. In nine battalions officers have been appointed. In the other cases the time has not arrived at which it has been considered necessary that the appointment should be made. The men work under the direction of the pioneer. By the General Orders of 1871, Nos. 67 and 68, commanding officers are directed to arrange with the Royal Engineers and Control Departments for the repairs and alterations to barracks and the repair of furniture and utensils being performed, when practicable, by the artificers of the regiments, and to give every encouragement to men who can be spared from regimental duty to work in those departments. Endeavours will be made to utilize military labour as far as possible. If when the system is in full work any defects shall be disclosed, requiring further measures to be taken, the necessity will be duly considered.

IRELAND—ROYAL RESIDENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the establishing a Royal Residence in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to say that I have no statement to make upon the matter.

EDUCATION—ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TIME TABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether Teachers

1361
in Elementary Schools are required rigidly to adhere to the Time Tables approved, by the School Inspectors on their official visits, or whether they may, as circumstances require, extend or curtail the time set apart for any secular subject, and, if necessary, substitute another in its place, providing always that the time allotted to religious instruction be strictly adhered to?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the teachers in all elementary schools were not required rigidly to adhere to the time tables approved by the school Inspectors so far as secular instruction was concerned. The Minutes of Council of the 7th February defined the duties of the Inspectors. According to the Code, at least two hours must be given to secular instruction. If there was reason to believe that the Inspectors or managers were under the impression that the provision in Section 7 of the Education Act either obliged the Inspectors to stipulate, or the managers to abide by the stipulation, to submit a secular time table, care would be taken to remove that false impression. At the same time, it had for many years been found necessary to make a deduction from the grant if there was any serious fault in the discipline or management, and one fault would be the having an unfit time table.

NAVY—CHANNEL SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any objection to give the inhabitants of the East Coast of England an opportunity of seeing the Channel Squadron this summer?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the Admiralty were always glad that as many parts of Her Majesty's dominions as possible should see Her Majesty's ships. The first consideration in determining the cruising ground for the Channel Squadron was the efficiency of the ships, the best means of drilling them, and generally such a cruise as would best promote the efficiency and discipline of the crews. The wishes of the inhabitants expressed by means of their Representatives in Parliament were only a secondary consideration. He could give no hope to his hon. Friend that the Squadron would visit the East coast of England this summer.

ARMY REGULATION ACT—REGIMENTAL PAYMASTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is contemplated to allow regimental paymasters who still hold their former commissions as combatant officers of captain, lieutenant, or ensign, to sell the same either now or on retirement, so as to put them on an equality with combatant officers who had gone to the control department, and who have been permitted to receive the full value of their commissions; and, if not, whether he would state to the House the grounds on which they would not be allowed to sell their commissions?
MR. CARDWELL: As I repeatedly stated last year, every officer who held a saleable commission was indemnified by the Army Regulation Act. The terms on which the Control officers referred to entered that service were, that if they sold their commissions they lost their right to count previous service towards retirement. Paymasters were entitled to count their previous service, but not to sell their commissions.

ARMY—INDIA—INDIAN SOLDIERS—ISSUE OF BALL AMMUNITION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the recent murder of Captain and Adjutant Laurie, of the 108th Regiment, by Private Butler, he has issued, or intends to issue, instructions to Her Majesty's Forces in India (similar to those existing in England) forbidding the carrying of ball ammunition by the men when off duty?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The Government of India has not told us that it proposes to make any change in consequence of the murder alluded to by my hon. Friend, and the wisdom or unwisdom of allowing soldiers when off duty to carry ball ammunition depends so entirely upon considerations of which the authorities on the spot can judge and we cannot, that the Secretary of State would be most unwilling in any way to interfere. Of course, the position of the individual soldier in India is quite different from what it is in England, and his danger, if inefficiently armed, is far greater. I can assure my hon. Friend

  1363
  that the Commander-in-Chief in India is quite alive to the importance of the subject.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) BILL—SECTION 28.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, under section 28 of the Government Licensing Bill, the disqualification of the premises therein mentioned is also intended to apply to the forfeiture of the license; and, if not, whether, in the event of the disqualification order being cancelled, the license will, ipso facto, be available for transfer, as if such disqualification had not occurred; and, if not, whether it be not reasonable that some remedy should be provided in the Bill?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that in the event of any disqualification of premises, the owner would be in the same position as the owner of unlicensed premises. There being no license, it could not be transferred, but the owner might at the next Brewster Sessions make application for a new license, which would of course be granted or refused, according to the discretion of the Justices.

ARMY—YEOMANRY ADJUTANCIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether he has any objection to state the number and names of the regiments of Yeomanry in which the adjutancy has become vacant since the introduction of the new regulations in April last, together with the names of the officers appointed to fill such vacancies, specifying the cases in which the appointment has been subsequently resigned?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: I have no objection to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requires. The only regiments of Yeomanry in which the adjutancies have become vacant since the 1st of April, 1872, are the Queen's Own Royal Regiment Glasgow Yeomanry and the Westmoreland and Cumberland Yeomanry. The Queen's Glasgow Yeomanry are not entitled to an adjutant, being under 200 strong. Captain Graham, on full pay, of the 6th Dragoon Guards, was offered the adjutancy of the Westmoreland and Cumberland Yeomanry, and declined it, because the pay was
  1364
  not, in his opinion, sufficient. Captain Edmonds, of the 2nd Dragoon Guards, was also offered the adjutancy of the same regiment, but declined it because his half-pay lapsed. Neither of these officers was gazetted, and therefore no resignation was necessary.

  ARMY—EFFICIENCY OF VOLUNTEERS—DRAFT SCHEME.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOT (for Colonel C. LINDSAY)asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention to make the Draft Scheme of Amendments relative to the efficiency of Volunteers prospective from the 1st of December, or whether it is definitely fixed to take effect from the 1st of November, as laid down in section 1 of the Draft Scheme?
  MR. CARDWELL: The drills of November, 1871, will be permitted to count towards efficiency in the year ending the 31st of October, 1872; and in the event of there being men who have not completed their drills on the 31st of October, 1872, there will be no objection to their completing them in November; but in such case those drills must not be counted over again towards efficiency in the following year.

DOMINION OF CANADA—DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY.—QUESTION.
MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will, with the concurrence of the Dominion Government, consider the propriety of appointing a joint Commission to inquire into the means of defence at the disposal of Canada as regards forts, armament, and material of war generally; if his attention has been drawn to the following facts, substantiated by the last annual Report of the Minister of Militia and Defence—viz., (a.) That the new forts erected before the withdrawal of the Imperial troops are wholly unarmed; (b.) That the armaments of the old forts are of an obsolete character, with the exception of ten rifled guns, for which there are no serviceable fuzes; (c.) That the amount of ammunition both for guns and small arms is only sufficient for peace requirements, and that there are no arsenals or manufactories of warlike stores in the country; and, whether, considering the geographical position of Canada, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to insist upon that dependency

1365
being kept in a proper state of defence, and to offer the Dominion Government every reasonable facility for doing so?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will first give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an answer generally. The engagements undertaken by this country in respect to the defence of Canada have, I think, been fulfilled. That is the general answer I have to make. Coming to the particulars of the Question so far as I think it desirable to enter upon them, I have to state that a Commission was appointed by the Government of Canada to consider the defence of that country. The Commission reported in 1862. I am now referring to the native proceedings on the subject. The Report of that Commission has subsequently been reviewed by the Defence Committee in this country, and we do not see that, under the circumstances, there is any necessity or would be any advantage in our appointing anew a Commission of Inquiry to examine into the means of defence at the disposal of Canada in the terms proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Government of this country have asked Parliament, and Parliament has met the request, to pass a Bill for the purpose of guaranteeing the money it is proposed to expend on the forts at various places in Canada. With respect to the intention of the Government of Canada to make use of that guarantee I have no information to give. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, which relates to matters of military detail, I must leave it to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance to reply to it, if it is desired to have a particular reply, which will come with more propriety from my right hon. and gallant Friend than from MR. The only other observation I have to make is with reference to the last part of the Question—"Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to insist upon that dependency being kept in a proper state of defence, and to offer the Dominion Government every reasonable facility for doing so?" We do not think it is our function with regard to Canada, considering the position and development of Canada, to insist on this or that particular measure with respect to the defence of Canada, as we recognize the full competency and capacity of Canada, and have no doubt of the inclination of Canada to perform what
1366
the Dominion Government may think to be its proper duties, and as we believe it to be the best judge of those duties. Our office has been to offer the Dominion every reasonable assistance; that duty we have fulfilled, and we have had every support from Parliament in our endeavour to fulfil it.

IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAVANAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When, in accordance with his undertaking on the 6th of May, he will introduce, either in this House or in the House of Lords, a Bill to amend the Irish Church Act of 1869; and, whether he can hold out any reasonable hope of that Bill being passed into Law during the present Session?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A Bill has been prepared embodying the Amendments thought necessary by the Irish Church Commissioners. The Bill had to be considered in certain points by the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets very much that, owing to the pressure of business, there has been some delay in considering the measure. I hope, however, the Bill will be approved by the Treasury, and be introduced very shortly in the other House. If it be found acceptable to the various parties interested, I see no reason why it should not still become law.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE METRICAL SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
MR. J. B. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Communication has been received from the French Government inviting Great Britain to a Congress of Nations on the subject of an International system of Weights and Measures; and, if so, whether the Government propose to send a Representative to the Congress?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: The French Government have stated that the International Commission on the Metrical System, the sittings of which were interrupted in 1870, will meet again on the 24th of September next. It is understood from the Board of Trade that Mr. Chisholm and Professor Miller will attend as delegates on the part of this country.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION ACT—FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. S. READasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been directed to the prevalence of foot and mouth disease in the Metropolitan Cattle Market, where over one hundred cattle so diseased were certified by competent veterinary surgeons to have been exposed for sale upon four consecutive Mondays, and also to a case at Norwich, in which a Norfolk dealer was fined £50 and £8 4s. costs for exposing twenty-five sheep affected with foot and mouth disease on Norwich Hill; and, whether he will reconsider the expediency of maintaining the present regulations under which the district authority rigorously enforces the penalties under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, while the foot and mouth disease, as well as sheep scab, exists in the Metropolitan Market, and is from thence taken to all parts of the Kingdom?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Department had received a letter stating that it was the impression of certain veterinary surgeons that foot and mouth disease had prevailed in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. On inquiry, the local authority of the Metropolitan Market, which was the Board of Works, stated, through their Inspector, that they could not ascertain that the statement was correct. He was inclined to believe they were right in their opinion. As regarded the Norwich case, he understood that certain persons had been prosecuted, and he was glad to find that the authorities at Norwich were determined to put the Act in force. It was not the duty of the Department but of the local authority to put the Act in force. The Department had reason to believe that in London the local authorities were doing all in their power in the matter. The Metropolitan Board of Works had instructed their solicitor to act in the matter, their Inspectors to make inquiries and be vigilant, and the police would be directed to assist them. Since the 1st of January 359 cattle and five sheep had been seized and slaughtered. The hon. Gentleman asked him to "reconsider the expediency of maintaining the present regulations, under which the district authority rigorously enforces the penal-
  1368
  ties under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, while the foot and mouth disease, as well as sheep scab, existed in the Metropolitan Market, and was from thence taken to all parts of the kingdom." The regulations in the Act he was bound to enforce, and he believed there was a very general desire in all parts of England to enforce them and to stamp out the disease, whenever it was found out. But any attempt to do so by renewing the cordon, would, be believed, meet with strong opposition. He trusted the local authorities would put the Act in force to stop the exposure of animals having the foot and mouth disease, to prevent the movement of such animals, and especially to disinfect the markets where they had been.
  MR. C. S. READ, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer he had received, begged to give Notice that early next Session he would move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and the constitution of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council.

IRELAND—LORD LIEUTENANCY OF LEITRIM—THE EARL OF GRANARD.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Earl of Granard has resigned the Lord Lieutenancy of the County Leitrim, or whether he has intimated to the Government his intention of so doing?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that communications from lords-lieutenant of Ireland were addressed not to him, but to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. As he was not aware until two or three hours ago that the Question was to be put, he was unable to give an answer; but if the Question was repeated on Monday he would endeavour to give an answer to it.
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that if the right hon. Gentleman's reply is not satisfactory, I will ask him whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remove from the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Leitrim this now notorious disturber of law and order in Ireland?

INDIA—BENGAL POLICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a Deputy Inspectorship of Police in Bengal has lately been conferred on a young civilian not belonging to the force, although there were officers of the staff corps of distinction and experience belonging to the force, whose claims to the appointment were entitled to prior consideration; and, whether the present Governor of Bengal has recently decided that the higher posts in the Police Force, viz. those of Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General are not in future to be held by anyone but a covenanted civilian, and if he will lay upon the Table the Paper containing the reasons for this new regulation?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I have heard nothing of the transaction to which my hon. Friend refers. Appointments to vacancies in the Indian police are entirely and exclusively in the patronage of the local governments, and never come under the review of the home authorities. I think it is very probable that some such order as that alluded to in my hon. Friend's second Question has been issued, because such an order would be very much in accordance with the views announced by Lord Lawrence during his Viceroyalty, which views were approved by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). No information, however, with regard to the issue of any such order has reached the Secretary of State in Council.

INLAND REVENUE—RAILWAYS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEEMAN, in putting a Question, wished to explain that at present the Railway Companies were not liable to pay duty for third-class passengers carried by trains which stopped at every Station. Railway Companies now, however, were carrying third-class passengers by fast and express trains, and the Government were charging them duty on those passengers. He therefore wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Inland Revenue Office intend to charge Railway Companies the Government Duty on the third class passengers
  1370
  which are being conveyed by express and fast trains?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: These express and fast trains are not within the exemptions of the Act; therefore, it will be the duty of the Government to collect the tax upon them. This collection is not merely technical in character, but is, I think, just and fair; because it is notorious that the exemptions were granted under an idea which prevailed at the time that it would be a losing business to carry third-class passengers at a penny a mile, whereas it has turned out to be a very lucrative one.

  NAVY—WORKMEN IN CHATHAM DOCKYARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he intends taking any steps to improve the position of the workmen in Chatham Dockyard?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There is a similar Question on the Notice Paper by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. J. D. Lewis) for a future day, and I will reply to both Questions at once. I have to inform the hon. Members that a decision has been come to with regard to the labourers, not in Chatham Dockyard only, but in the dockyards generally, which I trust will be satisfactory, and which will be communicated to them, I believe, by Saturday morning.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH'S JUDGMENT—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: With regard to the consideration of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, I think it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would inform us, Whether he has decided on the course which Her Majesty's Government will take on that subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no announcement to make at present beyond the fact that Thursday, as I have stated already, will be devoted to the consideration, so far as it may be necessary, of that question, and I will take care, with respect to other matters, that due notice is given. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) is still engaged in considering the important questions referred to

1371
him by statute. I am able to state that he will, not later than on Tuesday, announce to the House the course he intends to take.
MR. DISRAELI: My object is merely to prevent misconception, and my Question was put in consequence of what I understood to be the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he would give Notice of a Resolution if the Government decided upon bringing one forward. It may be for the convenience of the House to know certainly that on Thursday, the 25th, the opinion of the House will be asked upon the question; because if Her Majesty's Government, upon reflection, say they are of opinion not to propose a Resolution, an hon. Member of this House will avail himself of the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the Orders of the Day and give precedence to a Motion asking the opinion of the House upon the subject.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not the case that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) has had for some time a Motion on the Paper which raises the whole question, which he has been and is most anxious to submit to the judgment of the House.
MR. GLADSTONE: If there is such a Motion on the Paper, it is hardly within the rules for me to announce that it is so. I do not think it is part of our duty to determine, as between different independent Members, what Motion shall have precedence.
MR. DISRAELI: Speaking to a point of Order with regard to this Question, I beg to remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M. Henry) that the Notice of Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick is given for a day when Motions are preceded by Orders of the Day, which are at the disposal of the Government. Certainly I understood—I believe it was the general impression on both sides of the House—that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Orders of the Day would be postponed in order to give precedence to a Notice of Motion by which the opinion of the House might be asked upon the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh. I do not think it was understood at the time that it was an offer which referred to a Notice of Motion which had already been given, and
1372
which was to come on after the Orders of the Day.
MR. GLADSTONE: It neither referred particularly to the Notice of Motion, nor did it exclude that Notice of Motion. We will give an opportunity for the discussion, and it is not for me to say that the question should not be discussed upon any Notice which had up to that time been given.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GLADSTONE: I shall propose that the Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Military Forces Localisation Bill, which is the second for to-night, shall be read, in order to be postponed to Tuesday next at 2 o'clock. I do so in the hope and expectation, which we have been encouraged to form from communications with Members of the House interested in the Public Health Bill, that if we apply ourselves assiduously to the clauses of the Bill, and if hon. Members will allow the dimensions of their speeches to be considerately influenced by a recollection of the period of the year and the general desire felt for an early termination of the Session, we maybe able to close the Committee on the Bill in the course of this evening. In that case we shall desire to proceed on Tuesday with the Military Forces Localisation Bill, which it is our absolute duty to submit to the judgment of the House, as being in our opinion part of the military arrangements of the year, and as having been already in its principle and substance accepted by the House, and concurred in by the arrangements already made.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Is the House to understand that the Military Forces Localisation Bill will certainly be taken on Tuesday at 2 o'clock, or will that be contingent on the Public Health Bill having passed through Committee?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is necessary to see what progress we make; but in any case we may give an answer to the question to-morrow.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I wish to put a Question to the Home Secretary. In consequence of the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill having been altered from the position of first to that of 18th Order to-night, I wish to ask whether he will state for certain when the Bill will be proceeded with in

1373
Committee? I need hardly remind him that there are many Amendments on the Paper in connection with that Bill which it is important to discuss at a period when they can be fairly discussed.
MR. BRUCE: The Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill has passed through the other House, which is not the case with either the Public Health Bill or the Military Forces Localisation Bill, and it is only right, therefore, that they should have precedence. The Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill will be taken on the first disposable day. It would have been taken for Thursday next had there not been a general desire expressed to devote that day to other purposes.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I beg to give Notice that if the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill is not proceeded with before the 28th of July, I shall move, on your leaving the Chair, Sir, to go into Committee, "That the subject is one of such importance that it cannot be satisfactorily discussed in Committee at such a late period of the Session."

ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS—THE REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, When he will lay on the Table the Rules for the Regulation of the Parks, and whether, considering that they have to lie on the Table for thirty days, he will allow that time for their consideration after the beginning of next Session?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, that the rules had been already laid upon the Table and ordered to be printed. Although it was not consistent with the views expressed when the Act was passed that the House should discuss the rules before they came into force, yet in order that his hon. Friend might have the utmost latitude he had laid them on the Table before they were put in force so that he would have more than his legitimate opportunity of perusing them.

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)
[BILL 215.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

SANITARY AUTHORITIES.
Clause 3 (Urban and rural sanitary districts).
MR. GOLDNEYrose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, believing it would be convenient at the outset to define the bodies to whom the sanitary authority should be relegated. If the sanitary authority were vested in a proper and efficient body, the rather meagre provisions of the Bill would, probably, succeed, but otherwise they could not. As to the Boards of Guardians, they had failed to discharge the duties imposed on them by previous statutes, no fewer than 23 or 24 of which were to be incorporated by the present measure, the principal being the Nuisance Removal Act and the diseases Prevention Act. Boards of Guardians had failed in carrying out the Cattle Plague Act, whereas the counties had effectively administered the objects of the Act. In this Bill, however, the lesson thus taught was forgotten, because it gave to Boards of Guardians more onerous duties than those which they had hitherto confessedly neglected, and put the Bill into operation by machinery which had proved very defective in similar work. A County Board would be a great advantage over Boards of Guardians. Its accounts would be regularly published, and its proceedings would receive greater publicity through the newspapers, and be more widely criticized than those of the Guardians, the only effectual check to whom would be the Local Government Board. The County Boards he proposed should be formed of county magistrates elected at Quarter Sessions, with an equal number of representatives elected by Boards of Guardians. These would have under their supervision the whole drainage, water supply, and sanitary arrangements of the county; and, in addition, there would be a great advantage to the ratepayers in the saving of a multitude of officials. Such an area prevented local quarrels and jealousies among rival and smaller jurisdictions. The details could be easily worked by committees and the surveyors on a sound and general principle. Possibly in boroughs these questions might not arise in the same degree; but with regard to rural districts, as the Bill stood, there would be no guarantee for a really effectual sanitary administration, and

1375
at the same time for proper local self-government. He begged to move in page 1, line 13, after "(1)," leave out "urban," and insert "county."
MR. CORRANCEsaid, he greatly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had refused his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order to ascertain what was the best possible form of rural sanitary authority that could be set up. A long time had since elapsed, during which opinion out of doors had hardened into conviction, but no progress had been made in the House. And what had taken place? It had been found that this question was, after all, the first they must decide, and that, in fact, it required a Bill to itself. That Bill was before them that night; part of it, for certain reasons, he was ready to accept, and part he trusted would, in an amended form, at last find favour with the House. One word as regarded that former part. It concerned the cities and boroughs; and although the organization was not such as, if they had to begin He novo, they would wish to set up, it was of a nature to admit of great improvements, and gradually and progressively it might satisfy their wants. It was not so in the second case; and of that he thought he could undertake to satisfy the House. Now, first, let them consider what were those rural districts which they dealt with? Were they purely country—green fields with nuisances, chiefly in the shape of muck-heaps? Certainly not; but they comprised towns of no inconsiderable magnitude, not yet afflicted with any very definite authorities, but whose other nuisances were on the increase. What was taking place was this—that these towns were poisoning every stream and the water from every subjacent place. Clearly, then, the problem to be solved was not quite so simple as it looked, and although they entered with great advantage into an open field, they must be just so much the more careful that they did not get into the difficulties which were recognized in the former case of authorities they could not get rid of, and law they could not unmake. How did the Bill propose to deal with this? 1. First they had the Board of Guardians and the union, as the largest area and the supreme Local Authority. 2. Then came the new provision for Parochial Committees, meant, he presumed, for the small towns and contributory
1376
places of that sort. 3. Then certain provisions for combining such areas for common purposes. He would first deal with the question of the first area and authority thus set up—the union. Was that as an area for sanitary purposes the best? What were the purposes? Prevention of contagious diseases; pollution of water; preventive medical aid; removal of nuisances; and many subordinate details, consequent upon this. Now, what were the special characteristics these things presented. Surely their universality and their general features, independent of locality and local interest. Of these the last only could be said to be local in any sense. And what followed from this? That it was desirable to take the largest common areas obtainable under effective local administrations—for he utterly disbelieved in the theory of Imperial interference in such matters as this. Surely the union did not satisfy any requirements of such a case. But the right hon. Gentleman had referred them to the 25th clause and others, which he quoted and seemed to think capable of remedying the defect. He would accept those clauses as an admission of the desirability for such an amalgamation—he could even contemplate the possibility of their taking practical effect in the urban districts; but of this he felt convinced—that once segregated into smaller rural co-operations, in ten, nay twenty years, they would not hear of an amalgamation taking place—much more likely of litigation and strife. Upon those grounds, then, he said that the union was not the common unit of administration which should be fixed. Then what were they to say of the smaller parochial administration? As a general thing nothing could be worse, for it would simply enable the central local administration to escape from disagreeable responsibility. In the instances alone which he had mentioned of the smaller towns, could they be of any practical use? And now of the authority set up—the Guardians. Now of them many things had been said, just and unjust; what they must ask themselves was this—not what may be their general capability for matters well within their practical knowledge and scope—but whether, in selecting such a body to administer sanitary laws, they were the best fitted for the task. Had they time, inclination, perfect independence? Let

1377
them bring a candid mind to bear upon this. Experience and authority were equally opposed to it. We knew they had not inclination both by experience and the testimony of able men, and as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had told them, they would only assume the authority with a view to limit, in their own fashion, the expenses. Well, but had they the time? He could, from some personal experience, assure the Committee they had not. Duties had been crowded upon them, until the burden had become too great. Remember this. As business men coming from a long distance, the calls upon their time were already too great, and he had often known six separate questions of great importance, which had to be dealt with before the question of relief commenced. Then, as regards their independence, they had heard something of the action of town councils and such local bodies in this respect—no doubt the influences brought to bear upon neighbours were very great. But if upon these points they were not satisfied by experience, surely testimony should have some weight. Of course the Report of the Royal Commission was deserving of great weight, and no doubt they duly considered this point; but he confessed that to him, as far as their written record went, it was evidently unsatisfactory upon that point; nor was it in accordance with the evidence they took—a thing which admitted of proof. In that Report, indeed, they seemed to reduce it to a sort of reduction and necessitation, but the reasoning was not to him convincing. There was one other point to which he desired to draw attention before he concluded. The Board of Guardians was, as they knew, composed of ratepayers, being occupiers, almost exclusively, and no direct representation of owners could be said to take place. The ex-officio element did not do this. This was a most important blot. In this respect the formation of the union authorities would be fairer in every respect, and to the provision of the Public Health Act of 1848 (sec. 12 and 13), it stood in marked contrast: and he must regard it as a great blot and objection to this Bill that it did not provide for any direct representation of this sort. For all these reasons he must object to the authority now proposed. He now
1378
came to the means they possessed of dealing in a more satisfactory manner with such a question as this, which, he trusted, might be found in the Amendment he should have the honour to submit at the proper time. In character it was simply this—a County Board for a special purpose; and in constitution it met all the known requirements of the case. It would be representative; it would be elective; it would represent owners as well as occupiers upon a common bench; its action would be direct and indirect; it would not be an intermediate authority, but possessing a distinct initiative through the various local committees of a subordinate class. It might be asked, what were the peculiar advantages it would possess? In the first place it would lend itself to amalgamation for various purposes far more conveniently—water-sheds, pollution of rivers, and the like. In contagious disorders it would secure uniform action throughout, and there could be no question that, as a borrowing power, the economy would be great of any money raised upon credit of the rates, for upon the larger arrears the security would be proportionately great. The principle proposed for County Boards and for Valuation Boards were instances in point, and he greatly regretted they had not been adopted; but they had actually an instance of the operation of such machines applied to sanitary matters in the Cattle Plague Act, and this would be found to form the basis of the proposal he should make, except that instead of the Justices alone there would be an element from the ratepaying class. The executive would, as in that instance, be the Board of Guardians acting as the local authority of districts, subject only to the Central Local Board instead of the Government office as they made it in this case. And now one final word as to this. It was against this system of centralization that he protested. They might say it would be strong—he said it would be weak. Was it an evidence of its strength that it dared not carry out the full provision of its own Bill, but shrunk from a show of opposition? Practical expediency determined its adoption; political dependency was stamped upon its action, and all the weakness of dependence upon popular support. Such an authority was not strong, but weak, and it was this he dreaded. Upon those

1379
grounds he asked the Committee to consider that question carefully that night, for upon its determination would depend all that they as sanitary reformers had hoped for or could hereafter expect.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEregretted the Bill had been divided into two parts, and he also regretted that it had been mutilated; but he thought it was hardly far to stigmatize those who sought to amend the Bill as opponents of sanitary reform. With reference to some remarks which had been made on a former occasion as to the power which the Bill would place in the hands of the medical profession, he expressed it to be his belief that without the aid of that profession sanitary reform would be nowhere. There were some hierarchies which were probably worse than a hierarchy of doctors. There was the hierarchy of engineers, who thought the earth was created that they might operate upon it, and it was even possible to have such a thing as a hierarchy of lieutenant-colonels. As to the Bill itself, he thought the Board of Guardians, who had quite enough to do as it was, and who were a fluctuating body, would not form a good sanitary authority. His second objection to the Bill was that there was to be under its operation no controlling authority except the Central Board, and that all the rest was to be done by Inspectors. His third objection was that although the Poor Law medical officer might be a very useful person to carry into effect certain portions of the Bill as a general rule, he was not the best person on whom to confer some of the powers which it created. His fourth objection was to the division of powers between the different local Boards, as if there was any difference in sanitary matters between urban and rural districts. Although the Amendments which he had placed on the Paper appeared to him, and those acting with him, to constitute a better Bill than that before the Committee, yet he felt he should be taking the wiser course in withdrawing them, and leaving with the Government the onus and responsibility of preparing at some future time a more complete and efficient sanitary measure.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that although he thought it was necessary that a line of distinction should be drawn, between the urban and rural districts, he felt that the proposals of the Government were very unsatisfactory;
1380
and he thought it would shorten the debates on the Bill, if those who agreed in that view took that opportunity of expressing their opinions. It was unpleasant for any Member to appear as the opponent of any measure calling itself a Public Health Bill, though it was only the mutilated fragment of a measure which never was perfect; and it was the more difficult because the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) had charged those who were opposed to this Bill with being enemies of the public health, and responsible for the lives of the people, and as at one time objecting to a Bill because it was too large, and at another time because it was too small. He had never objected to this Bill because it was too large, but would gladly have proceeded with it in the shape in which it was introduced; and if it had now become too small, the blame must be thrown on the Government, who preferred to take up the time of the House by the discussion of the Ballot Bill instead of by the consideration of a proper Health Bill. ["Question!"] But if nine-tenths of the necessary legislation was to be postponed—if the existing law was still to be left in a confused and inconsistent state, at least the little that was done should be well done. They were about to appoint authorities who would have to spend the next 12 months in endeavouring to unravel, with the assistance of lawyers, the meaning of contradictory Acts, and who would hardly have discovered the law before new powers would be thrust upon them. Then, were these town councils, Local Improvement Boards, and Boards of Guardians, the best authorities that could be appointed for sanitary purposes? True, the Sanitary Commission recommended that Boards of Guardians should be made the sanitary authorities, but only on condition that they should be elected for three years, instead of for one year, as without this it would be impossible to procure the proper execution of works which it would require a permanent body to superintend. But there was another point. The Sanitary Commission recommended that if these bodies were to be chosen for the sanitary authorities, their composition should be different from what it was at present. They had recommended that as their powers in relation to property were

1381
so stringent, there was good reason why the owners of property should have a more considerable voice in the election and-deliberations of the authority than they now had. Well, he failed to see in the provisions of this Bill anything which gave to the owners of property a fairer representation or more power in the deliberations of the Boards of Guardians than they had at the present moment. But it seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, even while proposing to institute these authorities, had distrusted their possible course of action, for by the 23rd clause they had taken powers over Boards of Guardians, which were of the most vexatious and stringent character. They would have been less vexatious if they had been still more stringent, because more absolute powers would have prevented that standing conflict between the central and local authorities which might be carried on under the clause as it now stood. The 23rd clause of this Bill was proposed by the Sanitary Commission simply with a view to convenience, and their idea was that there were certain central purposes which could only be carried out by a combination of adjoining districts; but the clause went far beyond that, and gave power to the central authority, by a provisional order, to unite districts for any of the purposes whatever of the Sanitary Acts. In the analogous case of the Poor Law Acts, the central authority had been invested with absolute powers of uniting or dissolving Poor Law parishes and unions. Such powers might very easily be abused; and the manner in which they had recently been exerted in the metropolis must before long command the attention of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman who formerly presided at the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen) had carried out these powers as if the ratepayers or Boards of Guardians in the metropolis were a set of wilful children. He had not only united or dissolved unions for proper and legitimate purposes, but to a far greater extent than was right and necessary for the purpose of proper administration. It seemed to him that often the unions made by him were simply for the purpose of controlling those who were thus placed under his power. Instead of "dividing and conquering," his motto was—"Unite and conquer." ["Question!"] This was the question, because the powers
1382
which this Bill proposed to give to the central authority were analogous to those of the Poor Law Board, and he was showing how they had been used. If any districts were recalcitrant, if they did not carry out their sewage or other works, the Bill gave power to unite them one with another. The power had been given in the case of the Poor Law Board because it was proved that the local bodies were neglecting their duty. But it was a strange thing, while appointing certain authorities as the best that could be selected, to show your distrust of them beforehand by taking such powers to enforce proper action upon them by the central authority. That was not only bad with regard to the local government of the country; but it was bad for the central authority, and bad for sanitary administration. It was bad for the central authority, because he believed it would give the central authority a great deal too much to do. If the Local Government Board was to be required to exercise such control over local authorities as would make it really a system of central administration, either that duty would not be done at all or it would give the Local Government Board too much to do. Again, it would be bad for sanitary administration. The Poor Law Inspectors at present had quite enough to do to look after the 650 workhouses of England and Wales. But the Bill proposed to put under their inspection the whole sanitary administration of the country, and as the work implied looking into the smallest details they could not do it. All they could possibly do was to receive reports from the locallnspectors—namely, the medical officers of health, who themselves were thereby called upon to report on those on whom they depended for a livelihood. He thus failed to see of what use Poor Law officers would be as officers of health. Besides, an Act of 1860 already required that they should report on the sanitary condition of their districts to the guardians. If these reports had been made, why were Inspectors also wanted under this Bill? What was required in the way of medical aid was advice rather than inspection. He believed that in cases of difficulty, where large sanitary questions had to be considered, Poor Law medical officers were not, as a class, capable of giving such advice. He had no more wish than the hon. Member

1383
who said—"Deliver us from the doctors" to be governed by them; but, if they were to control us, he would say—"Let us have an able and competent despotism; but don't deliver us over to the Poor Law medical officers, who either won't act because they will be afraid to do so, or if they do, will be likely to act ignorantly and without experience." If the Bill passed in its present form, it would be a misfortune rather than a blessing, because it would foster centralization, and that at the very time when we were introducing localization into the Army. The measure would institute a number of authorities who, being themselves too often incompetent or unwilling to act, would be puppets of the central administration, and they would be adding one more to the many futile statutes which this House had passed with a view to sanitary improvement.
MR. OSBORNErose to ask the Chairman what was the clause before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: The clause before the Committee is the 3rd clause, and a question has been raised on it as to the dimensions of the district—whether it shall be urban or country—which, of course, involves a wide area of discussion.
MR. OSBORNE: Then are you of opinion, Sir, that the speech which has just been delivered is relevant?
THE CHAIRMAN: Having listened to the debate and general tenor of the discussion, I think the remarks of the hon. Baronet were relevant.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the clause proposed to do that which no man in this Committee objected to—namely, that the local government should be divided between town and country; that the whole kingdom should be distributed into town districts and country districts. But, in a most irregular way, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had proposed an Amendment to this clause, which applied to the 5th clause, and which the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had given Notice of a good many weeks ago. The question raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham was to strike out the word "urban" and insert the word "county," and to strike out the word "rural" and insert the word "borough." The transposition in order of country before town seemed unimportant, but was really con-
1384
fusing, because powers of local government are chiefly required for towns, and in a lesser degree for country. But the object of the Amendment was to make uniform county government for all places except boroughs, and it ignored at least 600 non-corporate towns, already possessed of urban authorities in the form of elected local Boards. Probably no one else took this view. The only point disputed was what the authorities in rural districts should be, for they were all pretty well agreed that boroughs having their councils should be left as they were, and towns not corporate should have elected boards. The question really was, therefore, whether they would have a new country authority or use the Board of Guardians? The Guardians were already in existence, they were already charged with some sanitary duties, and the chief object of the Bill was to compel them to perform those duties. No one had sketched the constitution of the proposed County Board. It was not likely that gentlemen who met in Quarter Sessions could attend to small nuisances in villages distant from their place of meeting, and if they divided themselves into committees, it would come to the same thing as utilizing the present Boards of Guardians. Committees were proposed partly of justices and partly elected by parishes, but that was exactly the Board of Guardians. To say that Guardians were incompetent to sanitary work was to deny their ability to do what they had now to do, and to ignore the fact that they had always risen to responsibilities thrown upon them. The Poor Law had educated farmers to discharge the duties imposed upon them. In like manner the present measure would doubtless train them further in self government, and they would fit themselves for the work which Parliament was now about to intrust them with. He had heard it stated that Guardians were not sufficiently independent, and that they would not dare to take proceedings against their landlords in suppressing a nuisance. He did not believe, and in his own experience he had never found, that they would be deterred from doing their duty by any fear of great landlords around them; but if it should in any case happen that the Guardians were afraid to act, the central authority would, upon the Report of their Inspectors, intervene and say—"If you

1385
do not do so-and-so within six months we shall send men down from London to do it and charge you with the expense." The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had remarked that the Bill did not carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but this statement was only true to a certain extent. The Commission recommended that the Guardians should be elected for three years in order to make them a more permanent body, and to enable the same men to carry out large and long operations; but it should be borne in mind that they were even now almost invariably re-elected over and over again, and seldom practically changed. Consequently, they were not generally a fluctuating body; indeed, if a Guardian did his duty satisfactorily it was difficult for him to get out of his place. It had also been said that the Guardians had quite enough to do already. The answer to this objection was that they were already called on to perform most of the work which the Bill imposed upon them, and the additional work would be so slight that practically it would not add more than half-an-hour to special meetings of the Guardians about four times a-year. As to the objection to centralization he might point out that the function of the central authority was to guide, assist, and inspect the local authorities, but in no case to do the work for them, except in case of their default. There was, at at all events, nothing in this Bill to increase central authority. That subject had been dealt with, in the way of concentration and reduction, last year. It had been said that there would be more economy of officers if they had larger country districts; but if any union was found to be too small to bear the expense of a staff to itself there was power given to unite itself with some other union. This, in his opinion, would be a much better principle of enlarging areas of existing government than to constitute a a new body of officers. He denied also that this was a "mutilated fragment" of a Bill, and also that it was merely temporary and provisional. It was a proposition complete in itself, and a substantial and necessary complement to the Local Government Act of last year, and the two together made the best possible basis for a Consolidating Act of all the law opinions on the subject next year.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the advice of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), and that in the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) it would be understood they were voting on the question of the organization of the local authorities. [Mr. CORRANCE said, he could not for a moment accept as conclusive the issue now raised.] He (Mr. Stansfeld) was anxious to take the opinion of the Committee at the earliest opportunity on that question which formed an essential part of the Bill; but he should hardly be acting with due respect towards the Committee if he did not address himself to some of the remarks which had been made in the course of the debate. He would not discuss at any length the scheme that had been suggested for the construction of a County Board, because his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple) had said he would withdraw his proposal. He might, however, take this opportunity to remark that he never thought either his hon. Friend or any of the hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the discussion entertained any desire to impede the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chippenham objected to the scheme embodied in the Bill because he did not believe the Guardians would be a competent rural sanitary authority. Now, it was by no means correct to say of the Guardians that they had failed to exercise the powers they possessed, because hitherto there had been two classes of sanitary authorities. The Guardians were the nuisance authority, under the Nuisance Removal Acts, and the Vestry was the sewer authority, under the Sewage Utilization Acts. Therefore, the Guardians had laboured up to this time under the difficulty of a divided jurisdiction. He did not think, then, it was correct to say that they had failed, or that their failure must be taken as conclusive evidence of their unfitness to undertake the duties with which they would be in-trusted by this Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said the Guardians were incompetent and unwilling—[Mr. CORRANCE denied that he had said they were incompetent.] At all events, the word had been applied to them in the course of the discussion. He was prepared to state, as far as his knowledge

1387
went, that the majority of the Guardians in this country were undoubtedly willing and ready to accept the duties which would be intrusted to them by this Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not like either the Boards of Guardians or the Town Councils; but the hon. Baronet, who had expressed a preference to the county authorities, was himself the very person who objected to the clause under which he proposed to take power for enlarging the area where it might be deemed necessary. There was only one matter which remained for him to refer to. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire had objected to the mode of proceeding by provisional order, and had complained that the proceeding by that method would necessarily be a high-handed one. Legislation, however, which was founded upon provisional order, was invariably preceded by full inquiry and discussion, and the objections urged by the hon. Baronet on this point, therefore, were entirely founded on a misapprehension of the actual state of things.
MR. HUNTsaid, that since this Bill had been before the House he had found the opinion general that the Boards of Guardians were not the right authorities to intrust those duties to. He was anxious that they should pass a good Health Bill, and as this measure, when passed, was not to be temporary in its character, it was important that they should not hand the matter over to the wrong authority. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) for their selection was that they were existing bodies, not that, as existing bodies, they were qualified for the exercise of these powers. The fact was, that many of the powers which would be conferred by this Bill were already lodged in Boards of Guardians, and were generally ignored. It would be better that these duties should be in-trusted to a County Board, and the constitution of such a body was carefully framed in the Valuation of Property Bill which he had introduced some few years since, and which was then read a second time with the consent of the Government opposite. Boards of Guardins were elected for a particular purpose, and that purpose they had answered admirably. They were the persons interested in the administration of the
1388
Poor Law; but he denied that they had any special interest in the working of the Sanitary Laws beyond other classes of the community. In many instances they would very much be governed by a question of economy, which it was to be feared would militate against the adoption of sanitary measures. If powers of this kind were to be conferred he should very much prefer their being given to the Highway Boards, because those boards were always limited in their area by the limits of counties; so that if at any future time two or more Boards were joined together in jurisdiction, the new district would be all in the same county. A great mistake was made when they allowed Poor Law unions to go over the county boundaries, for this had ever since given rise to difficulty. The only limit which in this particular matter we should have should be the county—a limit which had stood and would stand the test of time. It would be an insuperable difficulty if the boundaries lay not in one but in several counties. The guardians, too, would not take an interest in sanitary matters, and would be subject to local influences—the influences of landlords, for instance—to such an extent that a feeling would grow up in favour of placing them under the controlling power of the head of the Local Government Board. The real power would then be in the hands of the central authority, the very thing it was so desirable to avoid. He, on the contrary, wished to have a County Board, to be composed partly of magistrates elected by Quarter Session and partly of ratepayers elected by the Highway Board, or by the Guardians of those parishes lying within the boundary they would have to control. This would be a thoroughly independent body. Much—indeed, almost everything—depended on the executive officers. They should be thoroughly independent of the district and of everyone within it, and should be subject to no influences calculated to prevent them giving information to the central authority. To secure such men they should devote their whole time to the work, and their position should depend upon their efficiency. These conditions could not be fulfilled unless the districts were large and the local body independent. It was because he was anxious to have a good Bill, founded on proper principles, that

1389
he objected to this particular proposition, and he trusted the Committee would pass the Bill with the provision impugned.
MR. WHITBREADremarked, that so wide a question could not be exhaustively dealt with in a fragmentary discussion. But what lay at the bottom of the whole, and had been very little touched upon, was this—that if they wanted to have an authority, far-reaching, and extending over all the counties, and to feel the wants of the rural districts, they must have a scattered, large, diffused body. Of course, it would be difficult to move such a body; that was a necessary defect which must be put up with. But how would a bran-new Board inform itself of what was being done in a remote part of the district? It was not a stink extending over the whole county, such as the Quarter Sessions might smell, that it was sought to remove. A nose was wanted in every corner to put an end to the little evils which, in the aggregate, did so much harm. Besides, this suggested County Board would be composed of the very persons who should first be called to account—the landlords and county magnates who sat at Quarter Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Guardians had failed to do their duty. This was unfair, because hitherto they had no power. Having the power he trusted they would awaken to the necessities of the case, and, without concerning themselves so much about the dribbling question of an extra 2d. in the pound, would seek to improve the health of their district, extend the working hours of a man's life, and prevent his children growing up the miserable weedy things that now fed the poor house.
MR. F. S. POWELLdeprecated the suggestion that this was a mutilated fragment of a measure. So far as it went it was complete and whole in itself, though it did not present the same aspect as the original scheme of the Government. It had the merit that the moment the Board of Guardians was constituted the authority, all confusion would cease. The local Boards which this Amendment would abolish, had, on the whole, discharged their functions admirably, and placed the country under deep obligation. It was necessary to retain them, because sanitary work was intensely local, as distinguished from
1390
that caused by cattle plague, for instance, and it could be done only by those intimately acquainted with the localities. It was imperative that combinations should be enforced, subject to local inquiry and Parliamentary sanction, because one or two parishes could often defeat a valuable scheme for supplying a district with water. He believed there was a strong feeling in favour of the Poor Law Guardians, and if the Bill were passed and they were invested with larger powers, it was probable they would save many lives during the autumn and confirm their title to public confidence before Parliament could again legislate on the subject.
MR. GOLDNEY, to enable the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) to raise the question more definitely, offered to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 amended, and agreed to.
Clause 5 (Description of rural sanitary districts and rural sanitary authorities).
MR. CORRANCEsaid, that the time was now come in which the Committee might conveniently divide on the subject which they had so long been discussing. For the purpose of enabling them to do so, he would move in page 3, line 3, after the word "district," to leave out the words to the end of the clause, and insert—
"For the purpose of this Act the respective districts, authorities, rates, or funds, and officers described in the Schedule to this Act, shall be the district, the local sanitary authority, and the local rate."
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 3, to leave out after the word "district" to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "For the purposes of this Act the respective districts, authorities, rates, or funds, and officers described in the Schedule to this Act, shall be the district, the local sanitary authority, and the local rate."—(Mr. Corrance.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 7: Majority 77.
Clauses 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 10 (As to officer of health and other officers of sanitary authorities).
COLONEL BARTTELOT COLONEL BARTTELOT moved, in line 25, after "nuisances," to insert—
"Whose several appointments shall be for a period not exceeding five years, but nothing in this Act shall prevent such officers from offering themselves again for re-election."
He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to agree to this Amendment, which in his (Colonel Barttelot's) opinion was a very important one, because it would enable Boards of Guardians to have some power over these officers of health, and would prevent them from doing as they pleased. Many of these gentlemen did their duty exceedingly well; but there were others who did not do their duty in a way satisfactory to Boards of Guardians. They were good servants, but bad masters.
MR. HENLEYsupported the Amendment, urging the importance of an efficient officer, and the difficulty of satisfying an external authority of the inefficiency of a permanent officer.
MR. STANSFELDacceded to the Amendment, on condition of its applying only to the first appointments under the Act. The functions of the officer being a matter of experiment, it was not desirable to make the first appointments permanent.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHobjected to the Amendment, thinking that a five years' officer, like an American President, would be afraid of displeasing those on whom his re-election depended.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was not satisfied with the modification proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Was it to apply to the first five years of every officer's tenure, or to the first five years after the passing of the Act?
MR. CORRANCEsaid, the Bill had been made almost worthless by entrusting its operation to Boards of Guardians, and the Amendment would reduce it to a nulity by impairing the independence of the medical officer.
MR. HIBBERTsupported the Amendment as modified as consistent with the provisional character of the clause.
MR. PELLalso approved the Amendment, which would facilitate the formation of united districts.
DR. BREWERthought the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) ought to be accepted.
MR. STANSFELDshould have preferred at this moment not to have legislated on this subject, but was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so modified as to make the first appointments under the Bill tenable for five years only, leaving the question of their permanency open for future decision.
MR. M. CHAMBERSthought permanent appointments frequently led to neglect of duty.
MR. CAWLEYwould prefer the Bill as it stood.
COLONEL BARTTELOTwould gladly accept the modification of the right hon. Gentleman if it were understood that the first appointments under the Bill were not to be permanent.
Amendment proposed to insert—
"The appointment of the medical officers of health first made after the passing of this Act, shall be for a period not exceeding five years."
MR. PELLsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment did not include nuisance Inspectors as well as medical officers, as originally proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot).
MR. HIBBERTsaid, it would not, and pointed out that inconvenience would result if such were the case.
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he hoped the Inspectors would be included in the Amendment.
The words "and inspectors of nuisances" inserted.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 (Appointment of committees by rural sanitary authority).
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that he wished to propose an Amendment to the effect that the committee should be appointed in the same manner as the assessment committee under the Act of 1862—namely, that one-third of the members should consist of ex - officio Guardians. In the first instance he would formally propose, with that object, in line 17, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."
MR. MONKobjected to the whole clause, and hoped that it would be struck out of the Bill.
MR. STANSFELDsaid that, in his opinion, this was a clause of considerable value, and, although it was not in the Bill as first introduced, it had been prepared in accordance with suggestions made to him. It was suggested that Boards of Guardians might be too much occupied to transact sanitary business, and that some of their members might be disinclined to undertake such duties, and that, therefore, it was advisable to enable them at the beginning of their year of office to select some of their own number, those who were disposed to undertake and were capable of performing duties in connection with sanitary matters. That he considered a wise proposal; but he was not able to concur in the first Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member by which the sanitary authority would be compelled to delegate their power to a committee. The second Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member he should be able to accept.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was willing to leave an optional power to the sanitary authority, and would, therefore, withdraw his first Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in line 20, before "and," insert—
"Provided always, That one third at least of such committee shall consist of ex-officio guardians, but in case an adequate number of such ex-officio guardians shall not exist, then the numbers so deficient shall be made up of elected guardians,"
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
Clause 13 (Powers of inspectors of Local Government Board).
MR. MONK, who objected to unnecessary interference with the local authority, moved, in line 20, after "board," insert—
"Upon the application to such board of one-third of the members of any local board or sanitary authority or of one-twentieth of the persons rated in the district."
This would assimilate the clause to the provisions of the Local Government Act.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, the Inspectors were depositaries of valuable information which would be very useful at the Board, and their presence should be encouraged.
MR. EYKYNdesired that it should be made clear as to whether the Inspec-
1394
tors would have authority to attend meetings of town councils. His objection to the clause would be met if the Inspector attended only when the sanitary authority was summoned to meet such Inspector.
MR. STANSFELDbelieved the Poor Law Inspectors were always favourably received by Boards of Guardians, because they were able to give valuable information; but as town councils were municipal as well as sanitary authorities, the Inspector would not necessarily have any business at their meetings, and he had so drawn the clause that they would have no right to attend town council meetings.
MR. MONKwas satisfied with the explanation which had been given, and would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, the exclusion of town councils from the operation of the clause would cause dissatisfaction.
MR. STANSFELDwas sure no Inspector would be refused admission to a town council when it was dealing with sanitary matters.
MR. CAWLEYwas of opinion that it would be very difficult to interpret that part of the clause giving power to the Inspectors to examine witnesses.
MR. STANSFELDexplained that Poor Law Inspectors could hold inquiries, examine witnesses, call for the production of papers, and inspect works, and it was intended to give Local Government Board Inspectors similar powers.
MR. HIBBERT MR. HIBBERT moved the insertion after the word "shall," in line 23, of the words "for the purpose of any inquiry directed by the Local Government Board.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, the Committee were quarrelling with plain words. The clause meant that whenever the Inspectors went to a town they had powers with reference to Sanitary Acts similar to those which they had under the Poor Law Inspection Acts. If the Committee inserted too many qualifying words they would produce difficulty. The clause, as it stood, was very well framed.
MR. C. S. READconceived that the insertion of the proposed words would make the clause better understood.
Amendment (Mr. Hibbert) agreed to.
MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved to insert, in page 7, line 27, after "Acts," the words "the sanitary authority of the district of Oxford shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a Local Board."
Amendment agreed, to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed, to.
Clause 15 (Expenses of rural sanitary authority).
COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to know what was intended by the "expenses in relation to disinfection." If one part of a parish was excessively dirty, was the whole district to bear the expense of cleansing or disinfecting it?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, those expenses were so small he did not think that the matter need be considered.
COLONEL BARTTELOTthought the right hon. Gentleman, by such a provision, was putting a premium on dirt.
MR. HENLEYhoped that in the Interpretation Clause some sound construction would be given to the word "disinfection." It was a very wide word. If a cottage was whitewashed, was that "disinfection?"
MR. HIBBERTobserved that the local authority under existing sanitary Acts was empowered to disinfect premises and charge the occupier or owner.
MR. HUNTsaid, the question was, whether this clause did not override the provision in the existing Acts so as to remove the charge of whitewashing from the owners or occupiers, and place it upon the ratepayers at large.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), and would introduce such a definition of the word "disinfection" as he hoped would meet the views of the Committee.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in page 8, line 9, to leave out "providing hospital accommodation." The question was, whether the ratepayers were to provide hospital accommodation for all people who were not paupers? To say the least, this was a question for grave consideration.
MR. STANSFELDobjected to this Amendment. Under existing Acts the local authority had power to provide hospital accommodation. The expense must either be general or special. It could not be special because the hospital
1396
accommodation would be provided for the whole district. The omission of the words would make no practical difference in the working of the clause, and he resisted, not so much the Amendment as the inference which had been drawn from their presence.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, all his anxiety was to prevent a wrong inference being drawn.
Amendment agreed, to.
Clause, as amended, ordered, to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 (Mode of raising contributions in rural sanitary district).
MR. CORRANCEsaid, he proposed to raise an important question by moving an Amendment. In the debate on the question of local taxation it had been agreed, by nearly all on that side of the House, that with respect to new rates, there could be no objection to their division between owner and occupier; and thought that the rate here contemplated might be so divided very fairly, and that its division would promote improvement, because it would do something to supply the lack of interest felt in property by an occupier holding under a short tenure. The Cattle Plague Act, he might remark, contained a similar provision, which was introduced at his suggestion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving at the end of the clause to add—
"Any person who is not the owner of the premises in respect of which he is rated under this section of the local rate, may deduct from the growing rent due to the owner of such premises, one half of the rate payable by him for the purpose of this section, and every owner shall allow such deduction accordingly. The owner for the purposes of this Act shall be the person for the time being entitled to receive the rack rent of the premises, in respect of which the rate is made on his own account, or who would be entitled to receive the same if such premises were let at a rack rent, including under the term any rent which is not less than two thirds of the net annual value of the premises out of which the rent arises."
COLONEL BARTTELOThoped the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman having stated this evening that he thought local taxation would be one of the first things to be considered next year, it would be most unwise to enter into a discussion of the present proposal, which dealt only with a small portion of the subject.
MR. STANSFELDthought the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) was quite conclusive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Port Sanitary Authorities.
Clause 18 (Sanitary authorities of ports).
MR. GOURLEY MR. GOURLEY moved that the Marine Board of the Port of London, with the addition of four members elected by the Corporation of Gravesend, and the deputy-chairman of the Trinity Board should be the sanitary authority for the said port.
MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said that several Amendments had been put on the Paper bearing on this question; but neither the Amendment now proposed, nor that of which notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), proposing the "Conservators of the River Thames," made provision for meeting the expenses of the port sanitary authority, because the two authorities they proposed had no rating powers. Another proposal to insert the Metropolitan Board of Works had been made by the Chairman of that body (Colonel Hogg), which had rating powers over the whole metropolis. Then there was a fourth proposal, which he should now have the honour of submitting to the Committee. It was to the effect that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of London should be the port sanitary authority, and should pay out of their corporate funds all expenses of such port sanitary authority. He made this proposal on the strength of a letter he had received from the Common Council of the City of London. It was dated Guildhall, July 11, and was to the effect that at a meeting of the Common Council, held that morning, it was unanimously resolved to undertake the duty of acting as the sanitary authority of the port of London under section 18 of the Public Health Bill, and to pay all the expenses of carrying the Bill into effect out of their corporate funds. The letter communicating these resolutions to him concluded with a statement that the Court of Common Council, by the course they had taken, would secure the rate-
1398
payers—the riparian ratepayers—from any addition to the rates for the purposes of this Bill.
SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDhad no reason to suppose that the inhabitants of Gravesend would be otherwise than satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
COLONEL BERESFORDobjected to the proposal, on the ground that a new authority would be constituted for the port of London.
Amendment (Mr. Gourley), by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved that the Corporation of London be the central authority in the Port of London, and pay out of their corporate funds all the expenses thereof.
COLONEL BERESFORDthought the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was merely to save a small sum of money. There was already a very able authority who could deal with the sanitary requirements of the port, and who had, in fact, exercised a sanitary jurisdiction for a long time. He moved as an Amendment, that the Thames Conservancy Board be the riparian authority.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he had given Notice of a proposal that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be the authority; but he joyfully accepted the offer of the Corporation, and thought their funds would be very properly applied to this purpose.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the Thames Conservancy Board the proper authority.
Amendment (Mr. Stansfeld) agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
MR. PELLasked what the sanitary authority meant, as there were urban and rural sanitary districts mentioned in this Bill?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that this would be regulated by provisional orders, and he would take the necessary power also to decide about the expenses.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 (Alteration of areas and local authorities).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the effect of the clause as it stood would be that a rural district might be com-

1399
prised in an urban district, and subject to all the rates of the urban district against its will. It was no doubt provided by a later part of the Bill that an Inspector must first go down and make inquiry as to whether the rural district should be included or not. But the Report of an Inspector on the subject would be very different from the spontaneous act of the people themselves. The clause would give power to the Local Government Board to impose rates on the ratepayers without their consent, and that certainly required some explanation. He begged to move in page 12, line 30, and the following lines, to leave out the words "or it may, by a provisional order, declare any portion of" &c.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the case which it was proposed to meet was this—An urban population had availed itself of the Local Government Acts. Outside that district another urban population had grown up which rationally ought to be included within its limits. The ratepayers of the urban district might be desirous of taking in those outside, but the latter might be unwilling. It was not proposed to override the opinion of the inhabitants either of the one or the other by the ipse dixit of the Local Government Board, but by legislation according to the forms of procedure best adapted for securing a fair hearing. That would be done by means of provisional orders, so that any one interested would be entitled to be heard in opposition.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it might cost £1,000 to fee counsel and come to Parliament to oppose, and the population of the outlying districts might not be a corporate body having funds at their disposal, but the money might have to be subscribed out of the private purses of individuals if they wished to come to Parliament.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHregarded the system of provisional orders with considerable distrust. It was perfectly possible that a Bill grossly unfair to a small district might slip through the House. It would no doubt be right, in the case of a portion of a rural sanitary district adjoining to an urban one, which had so far increased in population as to have become a really urban sanitary district, that it should be joined to the urban district, whether it wished
1400
it or not; but in the case of a really rural district there would be no just reason for such a course. He suggested that some limit of population might be mentioned in the clause, beneath which limit it should not come into operation.
MR. GOLDNEYthought that there would be hardship in imposing all the expenses connected with the provisional orders upon the locality. Clause 43 seemed to say that the sanitary authority should pay them.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the provisional orders would be brought forward by a public Department, and therefore the expenses would not be very heavy.
MR. GOLDNEY: But who was to pay them?
MR. STANSFELD: The locality interested.
MR. GREGORYobserved that the words in the clause were at present very wide, and he suggested that some qualifying words should be inserted to prevent any injurious operation of them.
MR. STANSFELDthought that such words would not be of much avail. The criticism of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) seemed to be placed upon a wrong basis. There would be no object in oppressing any particular locality, and the sensible thing to do would be not to distrust a Government Department in a matter of this kind.
MR. CORRANCEfeared that the object of the clause was to throw a part of the burden of the towns upon the rural districts.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it seemed to him that the clause did not provide that sufficient notice should be given to the parties interested, in order that their case against the making of a provisional order should be heard. But he was quite sure it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that due notice should be given to those parties.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he intended to accept an Amendment which had been proposed by an hon. Member for the purpose of providing that no provisional order should be made without previous inquiry in the locality concerned, which inquiry should not be held without at least two weeks' previous advertisement in the local paper of the intention to hold such inquiry, and the parties interested should have an opportunity of being heard before a Com-

1401
mittee upstairs against the making of a provisional order.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKthought that if a quasi-urban population objected to joining the opposition to the making of a provisional order, it would be a hardship on that district to make it pay the expenses of such opposition.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that it would create confusion if a rural district should be attached to an urban population for the purposes of this Act, and should not be so attached in reference to highway matters.
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the rural districts adjoining urban districts would be placed in this position: It would be proposed to place their holdings under the higher rating of the urban localities, and if they resisted they would have to pay the expense of that resistance, and would be rated afterwards. What justice demanded was that the district in which it was sought to include them should be burdened with the expense of opposition, whether it was successful or not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GOLDSMID MR. GOLDSMID moved in line 27 the insertion of the words "on the application of the authority of any sanitary district."
MR. F. S. POWELLhoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.
MR. DODSONthought that the Amendment would lead them to an absurdity, inasmuch as it would authorise the application to be made by any rural district who might have no concern in the matter.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Union of Districts.
Clause 24 (Formation of united districts).
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in line 23, to leave out the words "for any other purposes of the Sanitary Acts."
MR. STANSFELDcould not accept the Amendment.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought it would be a very gratuitous and useless limitation of the Act to say that the districts themselves might not even apply
1402
provisional orders for purposes of general utility.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 39 (Repeal of Section 151 of Public Health Act, 1848).
MR. STANSFELDexplained that this clause was proposed to repeal the provision in the existing law which relieved local Boards or other parties from the necessity of putting a stamp on any agreement, mortgage, or other document whatsoever to which those Boards were parties.
MR. MUNTZobserved that this clause was not in the original Bill. He would divide the Committee against it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the exemption would be extremely unequal even in the sphere within which it would operate. It would grant to towns what was refused to the country.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 30: Majority 111.
MR. J. G. TALBOT MR. J. G. TALBOT moved that the Committee report Progress. There were Amendments of importance on the Paper, and it was too much to expect the Committee to proceed further at that time of the morning.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 121: Majority 76.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 (Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to sanitary authority on security of rates).
MR. RUSSELL GURNEY MR. RUSSELL GURNEY moved, in page 20, line 40, to leave out "thirty" and insert "fifty."
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 102: Majority 46.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYhad no objection, if it would facilitate the Progress of the Bill, to withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again on the Report.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 103: Majority 56.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL BOARD LOANS) BILL.
Resolution [July 17] reported;
"That it is expedient to authorise Advances, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, to enable the said Commissioners to make Loans to School Boards, under the provisions of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"
Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, and Mr. BAXTER.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL— [BILL 93.]
(Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Andrew Johnston, Mr. Mundella.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present:
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* (228); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (229).
Second Reading—Municipal Corporations (Wards) (199), negatived; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment (211); Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (212).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*.
Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (202), appointed.
Committee—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4)* (146); Summary Jurisdiction* (200).
Third Reading—Education (Scotland) (222): Registration of Births and Deaths* (223), and passed.
Royal Assent—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [35 & 36 Vict. c. 33]; Review of Justices Decisions [35 & 36 Vict. c. 26]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 32]; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 27]; Bank of England (Election of Directors) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 34]; Chain Cables and Anchors Act (1871) Suspension [35 & 36 Vict. c. 30]; Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure [36 & 36 Vict. c. 28]; Colonial Governors Pensions [35 & 36 Vict. c. 29]; Act of Uniformity Amendment (1872) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 35]; Baptismal Fees [35 & 36 Vict. c. 36]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 31]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. xciii]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. xcii],

IRELAND—PARISH OF CALLAN—CASE OF THE REV. R. O'KEEFE.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYpresented a Petition from the Rev. E. O'Keefe, Roman Catholic parish priest of Callan, Ireland, praying for redress against the action of his Bishop, the Papal Legate, and the National Education Commis-
  1344
  sioners, who had removed him, without a hearing, from the patronage and management of certain national schools in that parish, in consequence of his having been suspended by the Roman Catholic coadjutor Bishop of the diocese of Ossory and the Papal Legate in Ireland, which suspension he (Mr. O'Keefe) contended was in violation of the canon law of his Church. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord opposite would offer some explanation of the action of the Education Board. If the Board had acted upon any fixed rules, those rules should be clearly stated. Of course, he did not suppose that his noble and learned Friend would make any reference to the disputes between Mr. O'Keefe and his ecclesiastical superiors.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, his noble Friend was quite correct in supposing that he should not at all enter into the question between Mr. O'Keefe and his Bishop. Their Lordships had nothing to do with it. The question before them was, under what circumstances the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had found themselves coerced to deprive Mr. O'Keefe of the patronage and management of certain national schools in the parish of Callan. The facts were these—The rev. gentleman had been parish priest of Callan, in which there were five national schools, of which, not in his individual capacity, but solely as parish priest, and by tenure of that office he became manager; some disputes arose between him and his Bishop, and it was certified to the Board of Commissioners by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which Callan was a parish that Mr. O'Keefe had been suspended in all his ecclesiastical functions, and had ceased to be parish priest of Callan. On receiving that certificate, the Board, by a majority, felt itself compelled to remove Mr. O'Keefe from his various managerships, and to substitute for him the clergyman who, by appointment of his constituted ecclesiastical superiors, had become parish priest of Callan in his stead. In thus acting upon the certificate of the rev. gentleman's ecclesiastical superiors and declining to enter into the merits of the dispute regarding the legality of his deprivation under the canon law, the Commissioners had taken the course they had invariably pursued under similar circumstances. If the clergyman who was manager of a

  1345
  national school—whether a clergyman of the Church of England, a Presbyterian minister, or a Roman Catholic priest, as the case might be—ceased to fill the position by right of which he had been appointed to the managership, the invariable rule of the Board had been to transfer it to his successor. This practice was founded on the view that the clergyman did not become manager for his own benefit, but as a trustee. The trust deed for Catholic schools, which was approved by the Committee of Council in 1851, contained this recital—
  "… And the said school and premises, and the funds and present endowments thereof, and such future endowments in respect whereof no other disposition shall be made by the donor thereof, shall be directed, controlled, governed, and managed in manner hereinafter specified—that is to say, the priest or priests for the time being having care of the congregation assembling for religious worship at the Roman Catholic church or chapel of St., in the parish of aforesaid, under or by virtue of faculties duly received from or confirmed by the said Roman Catholic Bishop or his successor, so long as such faculties shall be subsisting and un-revoked."
  The senior member of the Board, Dr. Henry, who was President of the Queen's College, Belfast, and a distinguished member of the Presbyterian communion, was unable to be present at the meeting which decided on Mr. O'Keefe's removal; but he had since written a letter on the subject, in which he said—
  "I believe the Commissioners have no course left them but to recognize Mr. Martin as manager of the schools, now under the management of the Rev. R. O'Keefe, whose ecclesiastical suspension is notified to the Board by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossory, and also by the Inspector, Mr. Harkin. The uniform practice of the Board has been to recognize in the case of any deposed clergyman, as his successor in the office of manager of schools, the clergyman who may have been ecclesiastically appointed in his place to exercise spiritual functions. The Commissioners having before them official notification on these points in the present case are, in my opinion, bound to accede to the request of Mr. Martin, unless they are prepared to involve themselves in investigations (ultra vires) of the reasons, grounds, justice, or injustice of ecclesiastical censures. Mr. O'Keefe may have appealed to legal tribunals, but that does not alter our position as Commissioners; for it is clear that no legal decision or any issue that would be sustained in a court of justice could reinstate him as parish priest contrary to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The simple fact of the notification of deposition by the Moderators of the General Assembly or of its Synods has always been held by the governmental and legal authorities as deprivation of official standing."
  1346
  There had been more than one precedent for the course pursued by the Commissioners in this case. It was perfectly plain that the rule universally acted upon by the Commissioners was reasonable; and it had the approval of such eminent members as Lord Monet; Mr. Gibson, the Queen's Counsel; Judge Longfield, and Baron Fitzgerald. It was not to be supposed that such men would do anything but what was reasonable and just—and right or wrong, the Commissioners of National Education, in deposing Mr. O'Keefe from the managership of the national schools in his district, without fear or favour, endeavoured to discharge their duty. Supposing that a Roman Catholic became a Presbyterian, or a Presbyterian became a Roman Catholic, was the trust reposed in him in the former circumstances to be continued in the latter?
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (WARDS) BILL—(No. 199.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it had been sent up to their Lordships from the House of Commons, where it had been fully discussed; and he was therefore sorry to find that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had given notice of his intention to move its rejection. The object of the Bill was to facilitate the division of municipal boroughs into wards, to increase the number where wards already existed, and to re-arrange their boundaries; it proposed also to give power to alter the number of aldermen and councillors for the borough, or for the several wards; and to make regulations as to their continuance in office—and other similar purposes. The Bill provided that this might be effected on specified application and inquiry, and upon such conditions as might be thought fit by means of an Order in Council;—the order was to be laid before Parliament as soon as might be after it was made. The ground of objection he understood to be that, in the opinion of the noble Marquess and those who acted with him, it would lead to a principle

1347
known on the other side of the Atlantic as "jerrymaundering"—in other words, readjusting the boundaries of wards in order to suit the purposes of political parties. But the Government disclaimed anything like a political or party feeling in connection with, the measure.
Moved, "That the Bill he now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the case against the Bill was simply this. By the Municipal Corporations Act, passed in 1859, the machinery for altering the boundaries of wards could not be set in motion except by the vote of two-thirds of the town council; and upon application the boundaries were arranged by a barrister appointed by the senior Judge on Circuit. Under such a system the boundaries were constructed in a judicial spirit, and not in furtherance of any political motive or object, and could not be altered without the consent of the majority of the governing body of the borough. The Government said this system did not work—if it were so, the reason was that two-thirds of the town councils had never been of opinion that it was desirable to put it in motion. But the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley), who had confidence in everything—even in the Privy Council—thought that a minority of the town council and the Privy Councils would be better judges in the matter than two-thirds of the town councillors—for by the Bill a minority of one-third of the town council could set the Privy Council in motion, and the Council would have uncontrolled power to alter the boundaries of the wards. If this was not a political matter, it was a very strange thing. To give the Secretary of State, at the instance of one-third of that body, power to re-arrange the boundaries in opposition to the wish of the majority, would be a dangerous increase of the power of that functionary, and a perilous step in the direction of centralization; but, considering how thoroughly political these municipal contests were, it was obvious that this power would be made use of to alter the boundaries of wards in such a way as to increase the power or to meet the views of one or other political party. Then if the principle of Government control in the arrangement of ward boundaries were admitted, why should it not be adopted in Poor Law matters and in the
1348
affairs of Quarter Sessions? If municipal elections were a mere matter of local interest, why was it that political organizers gave an attention to them but little inferior to that which they bestowed on Parliamentary elections? The fact was that municipal elections had an important bearing on Parliamentary elections. It was not necessary to prove this just after the passing of a drastic measure for the suppression of intimidation and bribery, in which measure Parliamentary and municipal elections were bracketed together. The Emperor of the French, by so arranging boundaries as to bring in rural populations, had been able to obtain majorities in towns which were known to be opposed to his dynasty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had made use of the word "jerrymaundering," which, owing to our smaller experience in political corruption, had not come into general use in this country—but he was afraid that this Bill would lead to "jerrymaundering." He had a high opinion of the political purity of his noble Friend the President of the Council (the Marquess of Ripon); but his noble Friend might not be an eternal institution, and some future Government, which, unlike the present, might not be free from all the weaknesses and prejudices of humanity, would perhaps yield to the entreaties of a minority of the town council and make a change of boundaries which would be particularly favourable to its own party. The consequence would be that the successors of such a Ministry would feel it to be their duty to redress the vitiated constitution of the borough. In that way a redistribution of ward boundaries would become as regular as a change in the Lords of the Treasury whenever a new Government took office. The result of this Bill would be to expose our municipal institutions to manœuvres which would bring scandal upon them. There was no grievance complained of under the existing system, and their Lordships ought to oppose the Bill because it would extend the system of centralization so as to make it interfere with our local institutions in a manner wholly at variance with the Constitution of this country. The noble Marquess moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that some such measure as this had become necessary in consequence of the shifting of the population in many towns. It was well nigh impossible to obtain such a rearrangement under the present law, because the representatives of the wards, whose influence would be diminished if their boundaries were enlarged, always voted against any proposition in that direction. For that reason the requisite majority of two-thirds could never be obtained, however much the rearrangement might be desired by the majority of the inhabitants of the borough. He was personally inclined to agree with his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) in one part of his objection. He had no desire to have the responsibility of rearrangement of borough boundaries thrown on the Privy Council Office. He could assure the noble Marquess that the Government had no political object in view—no such object lurked behind this Bill; and if the noble Marquess wished, the Government would substitute the Judge of Assize for the Privy Council, and have the rearrangement made by a person appointed by the learned Judge.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that while he fully acquitted the noble Marquess of any sinister object, he ventured to doubt whether any large number of boroughs desired this Bill. He could not help thinking that the Bill, although it had the form of a public measure, really savoured of that class of Bills called "local and personal." He should like to know what number of boroughs had asked for the Bill? He thought the Preamble of the Bill might have been made to run in some such words as these—"Whereas a rearrangement of municipal wards in the borough of B"—he would call it by a letter—"would add greatly to the strength of the Liberal interest within this borough; and whereas, by the present law, before such rearrangement can be made, the consent of two-thirds of the Town Council is necessary; and whereas in the said borough of B the consent of two-thirds of the Town Council cannot be obtained; be it enacted that Her Majesty's Government, at the instance of one-third of the Town Council of the said borough of B may proceed to the redistribution of the wards of the said borough of B." That might represent the truth of the circum-
1350
stances which, in the present case, had led to the introduction of the Bill; although the noble Marquess opposite might be ignorant of those facts. The noble Marquess said that while in many cases the majority of the inhabitants of boroughs were anxious for a change in the boundaries, the majority of the Town Council would not consent to alter the existing state of things. On the contrary, he (Lord Cairns) maintained that if the majority of the inhabitants of the borough were of opinion that a redistribution of the wards would be of public interest, it must inevitably follow in the course of a very few years that a majority of the Town Council would hold that opinion, because, generally speaking, the persons elected would hold the opinions of their constituents. This Bill raised the very same questions as those to which so much importance was attached during the discussions on the Reform Act of 1867. Bearing in mind the close connection which always existed between the municipal and the Parliamentary elections this was nothing less than a Boundary Bill; but a Boundary Bill to be worked at the instance of a minority. He would ask their Lordships whether they thought such a power should be left to be worked by the political party that might happen to be in power?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood almost the entire of the argument of the noble and learned Lord to be against the machinery of the Bill, and therefore the offer made on behalf of the Government by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) seemed to him to have made the argument of the noble and learned Lord scarcely necessary. The noble and learned Lord said that if the majority of the inhabitants of a borough desired a change of the ward boundaries, their opinion must prevail before long, because they would elect the majority of two-thirds of the Town Council necessary to represent their views. But that would not be the case, because under the present system the same councillors would be elected by the wards. He must say that if the offer made by his noble Friend behind him were not accepted there would be some reason for suspecting that noble Lords opposite were actuated by the same political motives which the noble Marquess had attributed to the Government.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Not-Contents 77: Majority 21.
Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 211.)
(The Lord Egerton.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD EGERTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that under the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act of last year clergymen were obliged to put their houses in perfect order to enable them to get a five years' certificate of freedom from dilapidations from the surveyor. In pursuance of that Act many applications had been made to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and loans obtained for the purpose of executing the necessary repairs. It would be obviously unfair that the repayments of such loans should be spread over the long period of 31 years, because it would throw on future incumbents of livings charges which ought to be defrayed by their predecessors. It was with a view to remove that defect in the Act of last year, and to give power to have the period of payment shortened, and the conditions of repayment of advances modified, that he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Lord CAIRNSAfter a few words from Lord CAIRNS,
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)

(No. 183, 210, 222.) THIRD READING.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, at end of Clause 64 (Removal of principal teachers) to insert—
("And within ten days after receiving the copy of such report the teacher may apply to the Board of Education to allow him to be heard before the said Board in defence, and the Board may thereafter allow such further inquiry as they may think right: Provided also, that in the case of teachers of parish schools appointed previously to the passing of this Act the school board may
1352
grant to any such teacher so removed a retiring allowance payable during the remainder of his life; and that where such removal shall be occasioned by the infirmity or old age of the teacher, and not by any fault on his part, the school board shall grant a retiring allowance, the amount whereof shall not be less than two third parts of the amount of the salary pertaining to his office at the date of such removal, and shall not exceed the gross amount of such salary, which retiring allowance shall be payable in all respects in like manner as the salary of the teacher: Provided likewise, that it shall be lawful for the school board, if they see fit, to provide for any such teacher, in addition to such allowance and in like manner, a further yearly sum equal in amount to the annual value of any dwelling house and garden to which he was entitled as such teacher, as the same shall be valued by the assessor for the county.")
Duke of BUCCLEUCHAfter a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH,
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished it to be understood that the effect of this Amendment would be simply to keep alive the present provision of the law on the subject referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond).
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIAN MUTINY—THE EX-ROYAL FAMILY OF DELHI.

  PETITION OF MIRZA ALI KADIR.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the Petition which I hold in my hand is from Mirza Ali Kadir, a member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, who is now, and according to his own statement has been for the last 12 years detained as a political prisoner in British Burmah. I have undertaken to bring forward his case, and I shall best do so by merely putting before your Lordships the material facts contained in his statement, not going into detail more than is absolutely necessary. The Petitioner states that as one of the Royal Family of Delhi he received a stipend from the East India Company of 3,200 rupees monthly, or something less than £4,000 a-year; and that like the rest of the Royal Family he resided at Delhi within the walls of the Royal Palace. He was there at the time of the Mutiny in May, 1857, when the Sepoys and other insurgents took possession of the city. He affirmed that he took no part, directly or indirectly, in the insurrection and committed no act of hostility against the British Government—pointing with some show of reason to his position as a pensioner of the Com-

  1353
  pany, as primâ facie evidence of the probable truth of his assertion. In September, when the British Army retook Delhi, various acts of severity were committed against members of the Royal Family; it being in their name and on their pretended behalf that the insurrection had been got up. He does not go into details on this point, and it is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that two members of the family were summarily and without trial shot by the officer who had captured them, upon the ground that a rescue was imminent. He asserts that in consequence of these acts, although conscious of his own innocence, he felt alarmed for his personal safety—an apprehension obviously not unnatural. He accordingly withdrew to Paniput, where he remained a few days; but on the proclamation of the amnesty he at once surrendered himself to the British authorities. He further says that no charge was made against him, either then or afterwards, and that the officer conducting the inquiry before whom he was examined admitted as much, but said, that as a relation of the ex-King of Delhi it was necessary that he should be sent out of India. He was accordingly kept in strict confinement in the gaols, successively of Agra, Allahabad, and Alipore. He was thence sent to the Andaman Islands—where, he says, several of his companions died on the way from the rigour of their imprisonment—and subsequently to British Burmah, where he now is. He further affirms that he has never been informed of the nature of the offences imputed to him, and believes that there is nothing against him beyond the facts of his being the nephew of the ex-King and being in Delhi when the rebels held it. He states that with regard to his not leaving Delhi when held by the mutineers, he could not have done so, nor avoided submitting to the insurgent Government without incurring imminent personal danger. He urges, therefore, that his imprisonment is unjust, and that it has been attended with circumstances of great severity. He complains of the unhealthy climate of the place where he is detained, and says he has appealed unsuccessfully to the Indian authorities for redress. He now asks for an inquiry into his case, and into that of others similarly situated, that he may receive a pardon, and have his confiscated pro-
  1354
  perty restored to him. I have recapitulated the leading facts or allegations of the Petition, and I may safely leave them to tell their own story. At this distance of time and place, and having no access to official information, it is of course impossible for me to verify in detail the statements, or to say whether they are wholly accurate or are to any extent coloured by the Petitioner's position and feelings. That, however, is less material, since his demand is only for an inquiry, not for a definitive settlement. I am bound to say that unless the noble Duke the Secretary for India is in possession of some facts not known to me which alter the circumstances of the case, I think his claim for inquiry is made out. We are all aware, and must all regret, that in the excitement and confusion which attended the suppression of the Mutiny, many hasty and violent acts were done which in calmer moments would not have occurred—it was not a time when nice distinctions could be made, and anyone conversant with Indian affairs at that time must have come across many painful cases in which the innocent suffered with the guilty. I do not deny that the removal from Delhi of all the members of the Royal Family, whose presence was a perpetual incentive to insurrection, was a measure of political expediency. I do not blame that—indeed, I am bound to say that the authorities could not have done otherwise. Precisely, however, on that account it is not very likely that the circumstances of each particular case were examined with minute attention. It is possible, therefore, and far from improbable, that the story placed in my hands may be literally true. If it is so, I am quite sure your Lordships, and the noble Duke himself, would be the first to admit that the case is one of great hardship and even of great injustice. Even if it is not entirely accurate, even if this unfortunate person showed more sympathy with the insurrection—it is not alleged that he took an active part in it—than he is willing to admit, unless any act of open hostility can be proved, exile and confinement for 14 years in an unhealthy climate are surely a sufficient penalty for an offence which, considering all the circumstances, did not involve grave moral guilt. Pardons have certainly been granted to far less excusable offenders nearer home; and unless some exceptionally criminal act

  1355
  is proved—such as participation in the murder of Europeans—it is monstrous to detain men now for an obscure and doubtful share—even if they had a share—in a civil war 16 years ago. The amnesty proclaimed at the time was certainly intended for all acts which would have been legal in ordinary war. As to any political danger, that is a consideration that has long ceased to operate on men's minds. I now leave the matter in the hands of the noble Duke. I have no other wish except to see such a policy passed as may be consistent with humanity and justice. I do not fear a vindictive feeling after this length of time—the only danger is lest injustice should be done through mere forgetfulness and neglect. The circumstances, as stated, call for inquiry, and in the present state of the matter I ask for nothing more. The noble Earl then presented a Petition of Mirza Ali Kadir, one of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, at present at Shôaygqueen, British Burmah, complaining of wrongful imprisonment and exile, and praying for inquiry.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the noble Earl's appeal, which he thought was based on good policy as well as on justice. He trusted that the noble Duke would make inquiry into the case not only of the Petitioner, but also into those of the other members of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, who were detained as prisoners in a most unhealthy climate. A son of the ex-Emperor of Delhi, named Jewan Bakht, was now imprisoned in Burmah, although he could not be held responsible for anything done during the Mutiny, since at that time he was only 11 years old. The ex-Emperor himself, from his dotage and extreme old age at that time, could not be held responsible for that which had been done in his name; and the manner in which he had been treated by England had been most severely commented upon by French and other writers. Taking into consideration the length of time these persons had been imprisoned and the present state of India, he saw no good reason why they should not be released—especially as they denied that they had taken any active part in the Mutiny. If the noble Duke would grant the prayer of the Petition, and would cause due inquiry to be instituted into the cases of all the members of the ex-Royal Family of
  1356
  Delhi who were now suffering detention as political prisoners, such a step would be fully appreciated by the people of India.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that every endeavour had been made at the India Office, without success, to find some trace of the process under which the person on whose behalf the Petition had been presented by the noble Earl had been sentenced to imprisonment—nor, indeed, was he even acquainted with the name of the person petitioning. Among the list of persons who were receiving small pensions from the Indian Government was a name similar to that of the Petitioner, but he did not think under the circumstances that name related to the individual in question. He only learned the facts connected with the Petitioner from the noble Earl's statement. As it was impossible for him at a day's notice to communicate with the Indian authorities on the subject, he would content himself with stating that he would forward the Petition to the Government of India, with directions that suitable inquiries should be made into the merits of the case to which it referred. The noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, had made use of the argument that, inasmuch as the Petitioner had been a pensioner upon the Government of India before the outbreak of the Mutiny, it was unlikely that he should have joined in the insurrection, and thereby hazarded the loss of his income. He must, however, remind the noble Earl that the whole Royal Family of Delhi were pensioners of the Government of India, and that that fact was no evidence that some of the members of that Family did not take a part in the insurrection. He was now speaking from memory, having no documents before him; but he would appeal to his noble Friend near him, who had been recently Governor General of India, and who was, of course, much better acquainted with the facts, whether a considerable number of our countrymen and countrywomen were not cruelly slaughtered in Delhi, and even in the Palace in that city, and that not one of the members of the Royal Family, although they were all pensioners of the Government of India, extended his hand for their protection. There were many instances in which Indian Princes who had a general sympathy with the objects of

  1357
  the insurrection nevertheless possessed sufficient humanity to protect those individual English ladies and gentlemen who were entirely at their mercy at the time; but no evidence existed to show that such had been the conduct of the Royal Family of Delhi. Indeed, as he was informed, they were universally believed to have evinced a sympathy with the murderers. They were not, then, in the position of ordinary political offenders; but there was strong ground for the presumption that they had really taken an active part in the insurrection, and had given their concurrence to the organization of plans resulting in the outrageous cruelties that had been committed in the city in which they lived.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that the Royal Family of Delhi, down to the day of the Mutiny, had received nothing but good from the East India Company, from whom they enjoyed in the shape of pensions £120,000 per annum. It was impossible to say what precise part any one of them had taken in the Mutiny; but there was plenty of evidence to prove that, with few exceptions, they had all taken a more or less active part in it. The old King of Delhi, on his trial, was shown to have been unaware in the first instance of what was going on, but that from the time when insurrection had spread over a large part of the country he had taken a leading part in everything connected with it that went on in and about Delhi. He (Lord Lawrence) had seen with his own eyes rough copies of the old King's instructions during that period. In fact, it had been proved beyond all doubt that almost every member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi had taken an active part in the Mutiny. There were certainly two or three exceptions, and those cases were fully inquired into and dealt with accordingly. Indeed, every prominent case was investigated and reported to him. He could not, therefore, understand how this particular member of the Family who had petitioned their Lordships could have been imprisoned without just cause. In dealing with these cases it was only just to remember the horrid atrocities that were committed. He should, however, be glad of an inquiry into the matter. In conclusion, he begged to deny the accuracy of the statement that the places in which the members of the Royal Family of Delhi had been imprisoned
  1358
  were especially unhealthy. Bearing in mind what those men did, and what would be the evil effects of allowing them to come back to Hindostan, he thought it would be an unwise and injudicious course to permit them to return to India.
  LORD CAIRNSunderstood the complaint on behalf of the Petitioner to be that he had received no kind of trial, that no charge had been made against him, and no inquiry instituted into his conduct. No general presumption of the guilt or complicity of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi as a whole, and no horror which was naturally entertained at the acts committed at the time of the Mutiny, ought to deprive that person of the ordinary right of having an investigation made into his case if none had been made already. He did not know what the practice of the India Office might be; but it seemed to him somewhat strange that a member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi should have been confined in prison or placed under surveillance, and that the fact should not have been communicated to the Government in this country.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that the Royal Family of Delhi at the time of the Mutiny were in receipt of a large pension from the East India Company, and yet at that period the greatest cruelties were committed by order of the King. There could be no doubt that the King and two of his sons had been instrumental in bringing about the massacre of our countrymen and countrywomen; and he thought it would have been justifiable if the utmost severity of the law had been exercised towards the King of Delhi and his two sons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, without venturing in the least degree to question the accuracy of the facts stated by the noble Lord who had just spoken, hoped that a prejudice would not be created in the mind of the public—he was aware none would be created in the mind of the noble Duke opposite—against that unfortunate man until it was proved that he had been implicated in those acts. He had heard that, in fact, he had had nothing to do with the atrocities referred to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas understood to say he was in the Palace of Delhi when they were committed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked that the Palace of Delhi was a large place.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.