Page images

men nothing of the kind was required. | happiness and comfort depended. He was Then, with respect to the organization of prepared to maintain that the landlords of the force, great stress had been laid upon Ireland, as a body, were worthy of their the necessity of its being placed under a military commander; but, in his opinion, however desirable it might have been to place the force under a military commander during the time of its organization, he did not see the necessity of it at present. He said nothing whatever against the military officers at present commanding that force. On the contrary, he wished to pay them the highest possible compliment for the admirable way in which they performed their duties. Still, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that it was a sort of compensation for promotion in their own service, while at the same time it was detrimental to the efficiency of the force itself, because it deprived the constables themselves, who had important duties to perform, of all the chances of promotion which existed in ordinary police establishments. The plan adopted in Ireland had been to assimilate the police force as much as possible to the military service, and they even went so far as to keep a reserve in Dublin at great expense. What necessity, he would ask, was there in times of railways to keep a reserve in Dublin, when men might be brought from all parts if any district of the country were in a disturbed condition? He would now pass to the state of the country, which was rather a ticklish subject; and he hoped on that occasion he should neither be misrepresented nor misunderstood, and that the right hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to pass upon him the undeserved rebuke he had inflicted the other evening. He was sorry to say that noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House had joined in that rebuke, while their precious ally, the Dublin Evening Mail, utterly regardless of the services which he had rendered to the party of which it professed to be the organ, in an article replete with audacious mendacity and virulent scurrility, held him up to the country as parleying with assassins, and making the coffins of his friends the platform on which he sought a miserable and despicable popularity. As a landlord himself, he was not likely to advocate any diminution of landlords' rights; he had never, like some of his right hon. Friends, concurred in the utopian scheme of fixity of tenure; nor should he be advancing the interests of the tenants by setting against them that class on which their

possessions, and that in the performance of their duties they would bear comparison with their peers in any other portion of the Queen's dominions; but if they were to investigate the truth, they would find that there was a peculiarity in the condition of the people which did occasionally affect the relationship of their dependency on each other for their mutual support. The tenants of the murdered gentlemen were actually in gaol for the offences; and when they saw the terms in which the threatening notices were crouched, if he said that the great majority of those crimes did arise from questions concerning the land, he was only enunciating the truth, which neither his noble and right hon. Friends, nor an ignorant and prejudiced scribbler could deny. The subject deserved the highest consideration on the part of the Government, and that consideration might be the means of bringing about a far more wholesome state of affairs than then existed. He did not wish the police to be disguised or used as spies, because that system would be fraught with evil repugnant to the feelings of everybody, and wholly unworthy of the Government; but he thought the less of a military character they possessed, the more they were separated from the centralizing system in Dublin, and the more they were placed under the control of the local ma gistracy, the greater respect they would receive from the people, and the more efficient they would become as police constabulary. They all knew that where a system of terror was established in the country, the farmers of Ireland were as much under the feeling of intimidation as the landlords themselves. He did not bring the subject forward from any hostility towards the police. So far from having any such feeling towards them, he believed that they generally discharged their duties as efficiently as their position allowed them. He simply complained of the duties that were imposed on them. He wished to put an end to their military organization, and to their military style of arms. judges of assize had already expressed their opinions upon the subject. He felt he had now done his duty, in submitting the question to the House, and he hoped that he had said enough to induce the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland to take the matter into his most


serious consideration, with a view to reme- those streams, the navigation was impeded. dying the evils which were so generally It was possible that might be so; but he complained of. The hon. and gallant Mem-apprehended it was the duty of the Naviber concluded by proposing his Motion.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, that the people of Ireland were much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member who had brought forward the subject.

gation Company to remove those obstructions. In any case, however, it was no reason why the Mersey and Irwell navigation should be placed in a different situation from other navigations. Those streams flowed through a large manufacturing dis

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Mem-trict, and he could not understand why the bers not being present,

Ilouse adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday next.

Monday, June 2, 1862.


Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Mersey, Irwell, &c. Protection Bill, read.

Then it was moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.

LORD KINGSDOWN said, he had to present a petition with respect to this Bill. By a recent Standing Order it was provided that when a Private Bill, which passed through a Select Committee, appeared to partake of a public nature, it should afterwards be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. The present Bill was the first case which had come before their Lordships under that provision. Its object was to inflict severe penalties on any person who should throw refuse into the streams to which it related, and it had this peculiarity-that he could not make out whether it was a Public or a Private Bill. The petition which he had to present against the Bill was signed by about 100 persons, owners, lessees, manufacturers, and proprietors of works on the streams of the rivers Mersey and Irwell and their tributaries. In all cases where a Private Bill affected private interests, the Standing Orders required that notice should be given to the parties whose rights were prejudiced. This Bill, the powers of which extended over an area of 400 square miles, was promoted by the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company; and they rested their case on the fact, that in consequence of the rubbish thrown into VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

millowners and other occupiers of their banks should be subject to penalties which were not imposed upon persons connected with other rivers. Why was the common law of the land to be altered for the benefit of one particular company? If it required alteration, it should be done for the benefit of all navigable rivers. A curious circumstance connected with the Bill was, that the only part of it in which he found the names of the promoters was a clause which exempted them from the operation of the measure. The petition, which was signed by Mr. Rideout, Mr. S. Blair, and, as he had already said, by about 100 individuals, prayed that the Bill should not be passed into law. Under its provisions, any man throwing rubbish into the streams named, over a distance of twenty-five miles, could be taken before a magistrate and fined £5 for the first offence, £10 for the second, and £20 for every subsequent offence; and the worst part of it was that half the penalty went to the common informer. Now, the majority of the occupiers had, probably by prescription, or in some other way, the right to throw rubbish into the rivers, and, under the circumstances, he did not think that the Bill, which so seriously interfered with that right, was entitled to the favourable consideration of the House.

LORD REDESDALE said, that when the Bill came before him he had considerable doubts whether it should be proceeded with as a Private Bill; but it was then a much larger measure than as it now appeared. Being a Bill of a novel character, he watched it with great jealousy; but it was a strict rule of the House that no Bill which only affected a particular locality should be treated as a Public Bill. It was his duty to see whether the evil complained of demanded legislative interference, and whether it was a general one or only confined to a particular locality. From the evidence brought before him it appeared that the evil was a very great one, and that large deposits, which were very detrimental to the navigation, had accumulated


in different parts of the streams, in conse- Bill. No doubt the powers sought for were quence of the practice of throwing rubbish very large, and he believed that every into them. The whole district was covered Member of the Committee expressed an with mills, a large number of which origi- opinion that it would be right that the nally used water power; but in many there noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was now steam power also, and it was a should bring the Bill under the notice of common practice to throw the ashes into the House. But he was the more satisfied the stream. This was not only objection- with the course which the Committee on able as regarded navigation, but it inju- the Bill had pursued, from the circumriously affected the drainage of some of stance that the counsel for the opponents the towns. The promoters of the Bill said, had called no evidence. He had, however, that notwithstanding all the dredging the cited two cases with regard to user. To evil was increasing, and that some restric- these cases the counsel for the Bill replied, tion ought to be imposed in order to pre- and commented on them; for no evidence worse nuisance ensuing. With having been called against it, he had no regard to notice, he thought that ample right to a general reply; and, in his (the notice had been given by the public adver- Earl of Belmore's) opinion, it was shown tisements, and, besides, the different parties that one of these cases had nothing whatinterested appeared before the Committee, ever to do with the question, and that the by whom the whole subject was fully inves- other had rather told against it. tigated-in point of fact, the Bill was very severely fought in Committee. The Bill had been considerably amended, so as to remove some of the objections which were first entertained to it; and he was dis posed to think that it ought to be allowed to proceed.

vent a

LORD OVERSTONE said, that it was of extreme importance that these Private Bills, which really affected great public interests, as well as vested rights, should be closely watched in their passage through Parliament; and that the most minute examinations should be made of the details, whether the measure happened to be opposed or not. He thought this Bill affected numerous private interests very closely, and should not be passed without careful consideration.

THE EARL OF BELMORE said, that he thought it better, as a Member of the Select Committee which had sat on this Bill, to state to the House some of the facts connected with it. It had been proved in evidence, that in 1849, when the inconvenience caused by the deposits in the bed of the navigation first began to be felt, borings had been made in the deposit. These were repeated in 1856 and again in 1862; and it was found that the rise in the bed of the river-not in all places, for in some it was actually now deeper than it was in 1849-but on the average, was about twenty-two inches, and that it was much more rapid in the latter part of the time than in the former; so that if the present state of things continued, in five years there would be no navigation at all. Under these circumstances the Committee considered themselves bound to pass the

LORD CHELMSFORD said, that the objection to this Bill was raised by those who thought their interests would be affected by it. He contended they had sufficient notice to appear before the Committee by counsel, and might have produced evidence and cross-examined witnesses: but they had not thought proper to do either. It was clearly shown to the Committee this practice of throwing rubbish into the stream had been carried on for some time and to a considerable extent, and even that the manufacturers had produced machinery at their different works to facilitate the conveyance of material into the stream. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Kingsdown) had unintentionally stated that the provisions of the Bill would enable any common informer to make a property out of the infringements of the law which would be produced by the acts done after the passing of the Bill. That could hardly have been a correct representation, because the only persons who could lay informations were the corporation, the Mersey, Weaver, and Irwell Company themselves, or the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining one of those streams. He apprehended the present Bill was one which their Lordships should entertain, because it had already received the consideration of a Select Committee, who had unanimously expressed their opinion. in its favour.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said, the object of the Bill might be a very right and proper one, but he was very much struck with what had been said by the noble Baron who presented the petition.

It seemed that the Bill was originally introduced as a Private Bill, and was treated as such, and that in consequence no notice had been given to any parties whose interests were likely to be affected; but it was now proposed to be treated as a Public Bill. He thought they ought to pause and hesitate before they went on with the measure, and therefore he should move that the Bill be committed that day three three months.

had never had an opportunity of considering its principle on the second reading, from the fact that it had been brought forward as a private measure. He would suggest that any further proceeding in the matter should be deferred for a short time, in order that they might be enabled to inform themselves more accurately in respect of its merits or demerits.

EARL GREY said this, Bill differed in no respect from the ordinary Bills for the Amendment moved, to leave out "now," protection of harbours, except that it apand insert "this day three months." plied to a larger district of country. Shipowners were not allowed to throw ballast LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY | into the Tyne; and the only hardship to thought, that although the present Bill had been introduced and treated as a Private one, it was to all intents and purposes a Public Bill, since every manufacturer and every landowner and occupier over the districts affected by the measure was liable to the penalties inflicted by it. He believed this was the first time that powers of such a kind had been sought to be obtained by means of a Private Bill, and he considered their Lordships ought to have an opportunity of discussing those powers before the Bill was finally disposed of.

the millowners in this case was that they would be deprived of a cheap and easy mode of getting rid of their rubbish at the expense of the public. The Bill had been before a Select Committee, counsel had been heard on both sides, and an unanimous conclusion having been come to by the Committee in favour of the Bill, he saw no reason for refusing to consider it in Committee of the Whole House.

LORD CRANWORTH said, he would propose that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed for a fortnight.

THE EARL OF DESART concurred with the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that they should so far adopt the recommendations of the Committee as to proceed to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill.

LORD PORTMAN was of opinion, that if their Lordships refused to go into Committee on the Bill, they would make it a very difficult matter for Committees in future to recommend measures to the consideration of the House. He would strongly urge upon their Lordships to go into Committee, when he intended to propose amendments upon some of the clauses.

THE EARL OF DERBY said, there was no similarity between the case of the Committee for which he had formerly moved, and the question now before their Lordships, because in the former instance he had received applications from almost every part of England, and the Motion had a general application; whereas in the present case a particular locality was referred to. The evil, however, was one of growing magnitude. The manufactories on the banks of those rivers had year after year seriously affected the navigation and drainage, and the matter was now becoming so serious, that unless some legisla- LORD TAUNTON said, that harbour tive interference took place shortly, it was Bills did not go to Select Committees impossible to calculate the amount of in- till all the questions raised by them jury which would result. The manufac- had been considered by the Admiralty turers themselves admitted that some or the Board of Trade; and the Commitsteps should by taken, and the members tee were guided very much in their de of the Committee were unanimous upon cision by the opinion of an inpartial and the subject. The Bill had already gone responsible Government officer. through the Select Committee as a Pri- no way in which questions of this nature vate Bill, and it was now proposed to com- could be satisfactorily determined upon mit it to the investigation of a Commit- by the House; and he thought it would tee of the Whole House; but the propo- be well if the practice in the case of harsition of the noble Earl would reject the bour Bills was followed in regard to such Bill altogether. Bills as the one now before their LordLORD CRANWORTH said, that al- ships. He did not think they would be though their Lordships were then asked in a bit better position to decide upon to go into Committee on the Bill, they the question a fortnight hence thad they

He saw

were now, and therefore there was no advantage in postponing the Committee.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he regarded this as a very objectionable measure. A very great public question was brought forward in the guise of a Private Bill, for the protection of the rights of a private company. It was a very serious question, whether there ought not to be some alteration in the law which should prevent the obstruction of tributary streams to navigable rivers. He was not aware of any enactment at present by which the public interest in a navigable river could be protected from having its supplies cut off by the acts of proprietors on the banks of its tributary streams. But, although that great evil was quoted as a reason for the introduction of this Bill, its provisions left the general question entirely untouched, and would amount to nothing more than an invasion of private property. There were a vast number of tributary streams flowing into these navigable rivers, the banks of the streams being the property of private individuals; and the only obligation upon the owners of the property by law was that they should not prevent the flow of water going down to other proprietors of land below them. The law had never gone to the extent of holding that a navigable river fed by the stream should be protected in any manner by the intervention of the Attorney-General. This Bill proposed not to legislate in such a manner as to secure the flow of water down to the navigable river, but to prevent the proprietors from dealing at all with the banks of the river; and throwing anything-even a stone-into the river was made a penal offence. He thought it might be expedient to give power to a court of justice to restrain by injunction any act that might impede the flow of water so as to interfere with the navigation; but their Lordships should be careful not to declare that an offence, which, might not in any degree contribute to the evil which they wished to remove. He thought legislation upon the subject necessary; but he considered that the evil should be met by a general comprehensive measure, instead of by a Bill dealing with a particular interest, and which would prove a petty, trifling, and vexatious procedure, without accomplishing the object in view.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE thought this measure a very one-sided one, and that it ought not to be agreed to.

He quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord, that the question involved was a fit one for general legislation.

LORD BROUGHAM thought there were already in existence powers to prevent the gradual filling-up of navigable rivers. If he were the owner of a stream, and chose to deepen it, throwing the rubbish he dug out into the river, he would be indictable for a nuisance; and the same remedy was open against a person who filled the river in by any other means.

LORD CAMPERDOWN said, he should be satisfied with the postponement of the consideration of the Bill in Committee, and would withdraw his Amendment.

LORD REDESDALE said, no doubt the remedy referred to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), of indicting a person who filled the river in for a nuisance, existed, but it could not be carried out, as it was impossible to find out whose rubbish filled the river in. Ile should suggest that the Bill be postponed till that day fortnight, and that in the mean time the evidence taken before the Select Committee be printed.

Amendment and original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; and instant. Committee put off to Monday the 16th


LORD RAVENSWORTH asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any steps, or intended to take any steps for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House in 1860 upon floating breakwaters, &c., which was reported in the following terms:

[ocr errors]

The Committee are not prepared to recommend that the Government should undertake the task of constructing breakwaters on these principles; but looking to the vast cost of harbours they are of opinion that a moderate sum may be constructed upon the systems hitherto in use, advantageously expended by the Government in testing any plans which may offer a probability of important results in great future saving of money various localities. To carry this object into effect and in giving protection to life and property in the Committee recommend that a sum not exceeding £10,000 be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty."

To show the importance of the subject, he might observe that the Committee stated in their Report that the annual loss of property off our coasts arising from casualties-that was shipwreck-had been, on

« PreviousContinue »