Page images

right hon. Baronet felt he could not carry any of them. He thought the House would feel obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having relieved their minds of the apprehension that any of his unfortunate measures would become the law of the land.

and the Bastardy Bill, which had not been read a second time, because he was desirous, if possible, of first passing the Poor Law Amendment Bill. He was desirous, if possible, of proceeding with the Fairs and Markets Bill, and he hoped the Irish Members would support him in his endeavour to pass it during the present Session. He hoped to pass the Poor Law Amendment Bill. With regard to the subject of registration, he should observe that he had intended to introduce a Bill for the registration of marriages, but he had rcfrained from doing so in deference to the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), who had a Bill for that object before the House. If the Irish Members wished it, he did not see why he should not be able to send the Births and Deaths Registration Bill up to the Lords by the beginning of next month. The Registration of Assurances Bill had been hands. If the Session was to be thrown read a second time on the understanding away as far as Irish measures were conthat it was to be referred to a Select Com-cerned, the fault would not be with the mittee. After consultation with his hon. Chief Secretary. The failure arose from and learned Friend the Solicitor General, other causes. and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he thought it would be impossible to proceed further with that Bill this Session. The Poor Law Superannuation Bill was one of great importance, and he did not see why it should not pass this Session. He also hoped to pass the County Surveyors Bill and the Weights and MeaBures Bill. During the recess between August and February he had applied himself, almost without intermission, to a consideration of this subject; and, whether in office or in opposition, he should lend his cordial aid towards passing those measures which he believed to be of importance to Ireland.

MR. DAWSON said, he did not hold the Chief Secretary for Ireland responsible for the present state of things. The period of the Session when several of those measures were introduced, was a proof of the earnest intentions of the Government; and the House would recognise the assiduity and attention of the right hon. Baronet to all Irish measures. He did not approve of all of them; and, looking at the little progress made in them, and the number of Amendments proposed, he augured unfavourably of the disposition to accept any legislation at the right hon. Baronet's

MR. WHITESIDE thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member who had put this Question, as they were now likely to be relieved of a great amount of labour. The upshot of the reply of the right hon. Baronet was this-that with the exception of the Fairs and Markets Bill, all the Irish measures were to be withdrawn. He gave credit to the right hon. Baronet for industry; but the real cause of his failure was, not any want of a disposition to do what was useful, but that he had no support-no party to back him. This was not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but that of the Ministry he served. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in withdrawing those Bills; for he inferred that the Sir Robert Peel

MR. HENNESSY complained of the waste of time caused by the discussion of measures which, he believed, the Government never intended to pass. He did not, however, attribute the blame to the right hon. Baronet-he thought that the failure of the Irish legislation was due to the unprecedented position of the Chief Secretary, who was without any legal assistance from the Law Officers for Ireland. The anti-Irish policy of the Government was so unpopular that they could not secure the return of any Irish Minister. It was the Irish policy of the Government that had caused the delay and complication of the Irish business.

COLONEL DUNNE thought, though the Fairs and Markets Bill was opposed by the agricultural population as well as by the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin and Waterford, that the weights and measures clause was a good one. He also approved the object of the Registration Bill. As to the Superannuation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to pass it, for the people of Ireland could not and would not submit to it.

MR. MONSELL said, that last year something like a pledge was given by the Government that in the present Session an attempt would be made to pass an Irish Poor Law Bill. This was a subject which ought to be dealt with, and which did not admit of any delay, and he should regret

if the Government did not redeem their | observance of international obligations; or, on the other hand, it might be intended to have a bearing on the proceedings of Garibaldi and his friends, of which intelligence had been received within the last few days. A manifesto or proclamation, signed by Mazzini, had recently been published in Naples, the Italian text of which he held in his hand, in which Mazzini stated, that having tried the experiment of an Italian monarchy under the House of Savoy, and having found it a failure, he was determined to resume his old course of agitation. A letter recently published under the name of Garibaldi appeared rather to point to the direction which the projected expedition was intended to take; for it had been clandestinely circulated through the Venetian provinces, and it stated that 100,000 valiant men were at the gates. He wished therefore to know, Whether the noble Earl had received any information from Sir James Hudson on the subject; and whether he was prepared to lay the despatches containing it on the table of the House. Also, whether he had received any report from our English Commissioners sent to examine into the state of the Neapolitan prisons; and, if so, whether he had any objection to lay it on the table?

EARL RUSSELL said, he had no objection to produce any despatches of a public character which had been received from Sir James Hudson. With respect to what had occurred recently in Northern Italy, he must observe, that there was a great deal of obscurity in the reports regarding those events. Her Majesty's Government had not as yet received an official account of them. There was no doubt, however, that persons either authorized by Garibaldi, or using his name, had endeavoured to get up an expedition, whether intended for the Tyrol, or for Rome, or to cross the sea, he could not say; but certainly intended against a foreign and a friendly State. Those expeditions has been frustrated by the Italian Government, and certain persons connected with them had been arrested and sent to a fortress. It was stated that they had since been liberated, but he had received no information on the subject. No doubt he should soon receive an official account of the facts. The Italian Government, whether in answer to the representations of Her Majesty's Government, or to those of the Government of the Emperor of the French, had stated that they would use their best endeavours to prevent any such

pledge. As to the other measures, he did not look upon them as of so much importance, though he hoped that the Fairs and Markets Bill would pass into a law.

MR. M MAHON thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a bad choice in resolving to proceed with the Fairs and Markets Bill, which was objected to by the Chambers of Commerce throughout Ireland. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) that the right hon. Baronet should have elected to proceed with the Bills for the amendment of the Irish Poor Law.

LORD NAAS hoped that whatever Irish Bills were pressed forward this year, some early day would be appointed for the discussion upon them. Irish Members could not be expected to remain in town much after the first week in July.

GENERAL UPTON hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would persist in proceeding with the Fairs and Markets Bill.

MR. COGAN looked upon the Poor Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill as much more important than the Fairs and Markets Bill.

SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE differed from the hon. Member, and thought the Fairs and Markets Bill much more important than any other Irish measure. House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.


Monday, June 16, 1862.
Market; Education of Pauper Children; Re-
tiring Pay, &c. (British Forces, India); Landed
Property Improvement (Ireland) Act Amend-



THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY rose to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Questions of which he had given him notice on a previous evening. His Questions related to certain recent extraordinary occurrences in Northern Italy. The recent liberation of prisoners in Naples might be regarded in either of two lights. It was either an indication that the Italian Government was desirous of maintaining the peace of Europe by the

expedition leaving their shores against any | noble Duke had received any despatches foreigu Power. His noble Friend said, from the Governor General of Canada on that a paper had been circulated by Gari- the subject, and whether he was prepared baldi in Venetia promising the inhabitants to make any statement as to the causes the aid of 100,000 men. No doubt it was which had produced this extraordinary act, the expectation of the persons who got up an act that had caused a great sensation this expedition that the Italian Govern- in this country. ment would be forced, willingly or unwillingly, to join in them, whether the expedition was intended to raise an insurrection in Hungary or the Danubian Provinces. He had not received any papers on the subject. No British Commissioner had been sent to inspect the prisons at Naples.

LORD BROUGHAM said, the proceedings referred to by his noble Friend near him were contrary not only to the peace of Europe, but to the best interests of the kingdom of Italy. Those attacks, or pretended attacks, upon Austria, whether designed for the Adriatic or the Tyrol, could only be conceived and could only be attempted by persons profoundly ignorant of the interests of the kingdom of Italy. His belief was that General Garibaldi's name was often used without his consent or knowledge. At the same time he must say that, great as was his admiration for that distinguished person in his military capacity as a great partisan warrior, and admitting that he had performed great services as a partisan, he had not the same respect for him as a statesman. As for Mazzini, he had not the least respect for him either as a warrior or as a statesman. As a warrior, he had never posed his person in any one way; and as a statesman, he was only engaged in conspiracies.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord should ask for any information which I may possess on this important subject; but I am not in a position to give any further information than the noble Lord has gleaned from the newspapers, nor is it likely that it should be so, because your Lordships must see that the motives which have produced this result can only be matter of speculation and opinion, and could not well be the subject of a despatch from the Governor General, Lord Monck. I may, however, briefly recapitulate the facts in relation to this matter. It is well known to many of your Lordships that a Militia Bill passed through the Canadian Legislature seven or eight years ago; but owing to certain circumstances the militia force has only existed on paper, the measure not having been carried into effectual working. In consequence of the events of last winter, and of the earnest recommendations forwarded to Canada, a commission was appointed three or four months ago for the purpose of considering the whole of the militia arrangements of Canada with the view of amending them. That Commission conex-sisted not only of Canadians but also of some British officers, who went over with the reinforcements in December, and the result was the introduction of a Bill, which was brought forward in the Legislature of Canada in the beginning of last month. The Attorney General, Mr. Cartier, moved the second reading of the Bill on the 20th of May, and a division was taken almost without discussion, which resulted in the rejection of the Bill by 61 to 54. The Ministers of the Governor General tendered their resignations on the following day, and they were accepted. The Governor General then sent for Mr. Sanfield Macdonald to form a Government, and he has succeeded in forming a new Administration. So far, I believe, the statements in the public prints are correct; but there is one incorrect statement. I have seen it stated in several papers that the result of this course


LORD LYVEDEN rose to ask the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, Whether he could give any information respecting a proceeding of an extraordinary nature which had recently occurred in the Canadian Legislature? That act was the rejection by the majority of that assembly of a Government measure for the embodiment of the Colonial Militia. Possibly the rejection of that Bill might be explained; but it appeared to him that this was a strange return for the promptness with which the mother country had sent out troops to Canada to support her interests was the dissolution of the existing Parat a time when they were seriously threat-liament. That is not so. Parliament has ened. He wished to know whether the not been dissolved, so far as I have the Earl Russell

means of knowing, and I believe there is no intention on the part of the new Government to recommend the Governor General to resort to that step. The noble Lord says that this event has caused a painful feeling in this country. No doubt of it. And I believe the Canadian people are aware of the unfavourable impression which that act of the Legislature has produced in this country. I cannot distinctly state the reasons which led to this Vote, but I believe they were very mixed-twofold, at least. In the first place, there was an impression among many Members of the Canadian Legislature that the Militia Bill was not one which would be found to work well in that colony. They thought it had too much of the character of a conscription, and that the adoption of the Volunteer principle would be a more palatable and effective measure. I will not express my individual opinion, but to that feeling I believe has been superadded a personal feeling against the late Ministry. I believe that the Vote was regarded as a Vote of want of confidence in the late Government. But, speaking only as an Englishman, and as an ardent friend of Canada, I can but confess my deep regret, that if this was one of the motives which prompted the rejection of this Bill, such an inopportune occasion should have been chosen for manifesting it. I will not say whether such an opinion was justifiable or not; but after the events of last winter, and after the display of noble English feel ing on the part of this country in at once sending out troops to Canada, I cannot help regarding this division as most inopportune and most unfortunate. At the same time I by no means despair of the disposition of the Government and Parliament of Canada to introduce and pass another Militia Bill as good and effective as that which has been rejected. Of this I am certain, that the Ministry and Parliament of Canada will not be acting in the spirit of the Canadian people if they do not pass such a Bill, for I am confident that both sections of Canadians-the French equally with the English population are most desirous that some measure should be passed before the coming winter for the effectual defence of Canada. So far as I am concerned I shall continue to give my earnest exhortation and advice to the Governor General and the people of Canada, both privately and officially, not to rest till some effective measure for the defence of Canada has been passed.


THE DUKE OF LEINSTER moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved as an Amendment that the second reading be postponed till that day three months. The Bill, he said, was a measure which, under the guise of a private Bill, dealt with great public interests and should be dealt with as a public Bill. It was proposed to establish another market in the east end of the city of Dublin, and to the site fixed on there was the strong objection that in order to reach it the cattle would have to be driven through the streets entirely across the city. The management of any market ought to be left in the hands of the Corporation, who were the proper parties to make regulations. There were many persons whose interests would be affected by the Bill, but who could not be heard before a Select Committee, and he thought that the best way would be that the whole subject should be inquired into by a Royal Commission in the same manner that a Royal Commission had inquired into the best mode of erecting markets for the metropolis. He had a petition, signed by 1,514 sellers in Dublin market, and fifteen other petitions, signed by 2,351 ratepayers of Dublin, against this Bill. He hoped such a strong expression of opinion on the part of those best acquainted with and most affected by this Bill would induce their Lordships to give their support to his proposal.

[ocr errors][merged small]

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY trusted their Lordships would not refuse the second reading, for to do so would render the inquiry into the subject by the other House of Parliament valueless. The Bill sought to remedy a great public evil and supply a great public want. The measure had been fully considered before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and entirely approved by them. The example of the inquiry by a Royal Commission for the metropolis was not analogous to the present case. In London the Committee of the House of Commons refused to name any particular site for the new markets, and suggested that a Royal Commission should be issued to make the necessary

[ocr errors]

any injury had resulted from the throwing of stones into the tributary streams of the Mersey and the Irwell.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the clause altogether, and wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the serious nature of the principle it involved. The clause proposed to alter the law by substituting a penal procedure for what, as far as it was the subject of law at all, had hitherto been met only by a civil proceeding. This was a very serious change to make in an obscure clause in an obscure private Bill. The clause under consideration proposed to make it a penal thing to throw an obstruction into a stream, although that obstruction might be of a nature which would neither pollute the stream nor in the smallest degree interfere with the flow of the water down to the navigable river. In common reason the thing to be prohibited should be described to be something done in such a manner as to produce one or both of the two evils the existence of which it was the object of this clause to prevent. He trusted the clause would be so modified as to make it an offence only when the thing done was productive of injurious consequences.

LORD CHELMSFORD said, the objection of the noble and learned Lord went to the entire Bill; but he was not quite accurate in stating that they were about to substitute a penal procedure for that which was, at the present moment, only the subject of a civil proceeding. Legislation had, in fact, been rendered absolutely necessary in the present case. It seemed there were a variety of tributary streams which poured their waters into the Mersey and the Irwell, and on those tributaries there where many hundreds of manufactories which had been in the habit of depositing near the adjacent streams, or throwing into them, certain refuse, to be carried in successive floods down to the navigable streams the Mersey and Irwell. The navigation had been very much impaired in consequence. In fact, the evil had increased to such an extent that in 1859 there were 27,000 tons of refuse



House in Committee (according to sent down to the navigation; in 1860, Order).

there were 63,000 tons; and in 1861, 92,000 tons. There could be no doubt that any person who sustained a private injury might bring an action against the party to whom such injury was attributed; but the difficulty in the present case was to ascertain to whom the injury was to be

inquiries. In the present case, however, the Select Committee had reported that the site proposed in the Bill was the best that could be selected. The Corporation of Dublin acted like the dog in the manger in this matter, because they neither could nor would effect this necessary improvement themselves, nor allow any other persons to do it. He hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time. It would remedy a great abuse, and supply a large amount of required accommodation in the best possible manner.

LORD REDESDALE said it was not their Lordships' practice to discuss private Bills on the second reading, and he thought they would not be disposed to depart from that course with regard to the present Bill from anything they had heard to-night. He did not mean to say that in no case should a Bill be opposed on that stage; but his noble Friend who moved the Amendment had stated nothing to take this Bill out of the usual rule. He trusted, therefore, the noble Earl who had opened the discussion would consent to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to go to a second reading.

EARL GRANVILLE, with reference to a suggestion which had been made to refor this matter to a Royal Commission, observed that he was not prepared at once to adopt that course; but if the Bill were now read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and if that Committee recommended the issuing of a Royal Commission, he should then be prepared to

accede to it.

LORD CLONCURRY believed the Bill, if passed, would be most disastrous to the agricultural interests of Ireland.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn; Then the original Motion, agreed to; Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

Clause 4.

LORD PORTMAN moved the omission of the words "stones, brickbats," and to insert "the refuse of any brickyard," there being nothing in the evidence taken before the Select Committee to show that The Earl of Clancarty

« PreviousContinue »