Commons Sitting of 26 April 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3.)*
First Reading—Salmon Fishery Act (1801) Amendment* [117]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [118].
Second Reading—Inns of Court[44]; Metropolitan Toll Bridges [47].
Referred to Select Committee—Metropolitan Toll Bridges [47]; General Post Office (Additional Site)* [94].
Committee—Locomotives on Roads [63]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [108]; Police Superannuation [109]; Land Drainage Supplemental* [110].
Report—Locomotives on Roads [63]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [108]; Police Superannuation [109]; Land Drainage Supplemental* [110].
Considered as amended—Local Government Supplemental* [58].

INNS OF COURT BILL— [BILL 44.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, he wished briefly to explain the Present state of the law, and the remedy which he proposed to apply to its defects. The Benchers of the Inns of Court exercised a very important jurisdiction of a criminal nature. They had a right to hear and determine complaints and charges against their own members; they had power to refuse admission to their Inn of Court to a person seeking such admission, and thereby of excluding him from a very lucrative and most important profession; they had the power, after a student had complied with all the regulations of the House, and so entitled himself to his call,

  1041
  to refuse upon charges against his character to call him to the Bar, thus inflicting on him very severe punishment and stigmatizing his character; they had also the power of expelling persons from their Inn of Court—a highly penal sentence. But the most important power they exercised was that of disbarring—that was to say, expelling from the legal profession barristers, even though they had the rank of Queen's Counsel. He need scarcely say what a severe punishment that was, depriving a man of the means of living by his profession, and casting a most grave stigma on his reputation. Such a jurisdiction, everybody would allow, ought to be exercised by a tribunal every way qualified to discharge such functions. Even the Judges themselves, with all the formalities of a jury and the procedure of the criminal law, often tried cases the consequences of which were not so serious as those to which he referred, and especially where persons of high standing in the profession might be disbarred. The jurisdiction in these cases was exercised by the whole body of the Benchers. He had no doubt that these gentlemen exercised their authority to the best of their ability for the purpose of administering justice properly and impartially; but he maintained that justice could not be well administered by such numerous bodies. He found that Lincoln's Inn had sixty-nine Benchers, the Inner Temple forty-five, the Middle Temple thirty-six, and Gray's Inn twenty. Cases heard before such numerous bodies as these could not be satisfactorily disposed of. In the first place, the tribunal was necessarily a shifting one. The same cases were heard by one set of Benchers on one day, and by another set of Benchers on another; so impossible was it to secure the attendance of the same Benchers on each day. The old saying of what was everybody's business was nobody's business held good there; and when they had a large body to hear and determine a case, some Members found it convenient to be present on one day and others on another. Not long ago it was shown that, in a case in which a Member of that House was concerned, on each day of the trial there was a great variation in the Court—A and B hearing it on one day, C and D the next, and so on all through the alphabet, and that some of the Benchers who determined the case were not present at all during the hearing. It was said, indeed, that the
  1042
  Benchers who were not present at the hearing had an opportunity of reading the shorthand writer's notes, and thus of making themselves masters of the proceedings that had taken place in their absence; but he submitted that that was not a satisfactory state of things. It would never be borne that one man on a jury should be absent from the trial, and that, having only become acquainted with the evidence by perusing the shorthand writer's notes, he should afterwards join in giving the verdict. But there were other objections to the present tribunal. One was that the Benchers, in cases of a highly penal and important nature, had no power to administer an oath, and consequently persons might go before them and tell any falsehoods they pleased without there being any remedy by a prosecution for perjury. Another was that the Benchers had no power to compel either the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents. An important case illustrating the necessity for the first of those powers occurred some years ago. Mr. Whittle Harvey was refused his call to the Bar, and his case was heard before the Benchers. Without going into the merits of the case now, it need only be stated that the Benchers determined not to call that gentleman to the Bar. The same case was afterwards brought before a Committee of that House, composed of very distinguished Members, some of whom were still alive, and that Committee came to a conclusion directly the contrary of that arrived at by the Benchers. The Committee held that Mr. Whittle Harvey was entitled to be called to the Bar, and they recorded in their Report the reason why they had come to a different conclusion from that of the Benchers—namely, because they had the power of compelling the attendance of a particular witness, whereas the Benchers had not. Again, when a charge was made against any one, the accuser went before the Benchers with his evidence and his case prepared; but the defendant must beg and request it as a favour that his witnesses would come forward on his behalf, as there was no power of compelling them to do so. Therefore the person defending himself was placed under great disadvantage, and might be subjected to very great injustice. A witness whose evidence was material to his exculpation, might decline to leave his business to attend the tribunal. Every Court ought to have the power of com-

  1043
  pelling the attendance of witnesses, and so also ought it to hare the power of compelling the production of documents material to the cases before it. Being devoid of both of those powers, the Benchers were, to a great extent, an incompetent tribunal. But another power essential to the administration of justice, which the Benchers did not possess, was that of committing for contempt, and maintaining the order of their proceedings. At present any one might go before the Benchers and commit any outrage he liked, and they had no remedy but taking him before a police magistrate. During a late important investigation before an Inn of Court (the Middle Temple) a witness having got possession of a document that was before that Bench, refused to give it up. The Benchers had no remedy. All they could do was to endeavour by force to get the document from him, but it so happened that the witness was strong enough to frustrate their endeavours. The police were called in, and the result was that the judges and the parties all went before the Inspector of Police at the station in Fleet Street. He asked whether such a state of things ought to exist? If the Benchers had had the proper powers of a Court, they would have simply committed the witness to prison, and obliged him to surrender the document of which he had so irregularly obtained possession. He now came to the remedy which he proposed by this Bill, for the evils he had described. He wished to apply to the tribunal of the Benchers of the Inns of Court the principle of the statute well known as the Grenville Act. Before the passing of that Act, all cases of contested elections were tried at the Bar of that House before the Whole House. That was a shifting tribunal, without the power of administering an oath, and the business wa3 often done in a very unsatisfactory manner. By the Grenville Act, the House had the power to appoint Election Committees for the decision of these cases, and the powers necessary for the administration of justice were given to them. He proposed to do something of the same kind in regard to the Inns of Court. He proposed that instead of cases being heard before the whole body of the Benchers, the Benchers should have power to select a judicial committee for their determination, and that such judicial committee should be armed with all the powers that belonged to a court of law—that it should be able
  1044
  to administer an oath, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and also to punish for contempt. Last year he introduced a Bill very similar to the present one; but he had sought to obviate the objections that were raised to the former measure. One of those objections was that he had made it necessary for the Benchers in every case of complaint brought before them to appoint a judicial committee to investigate and determine it. No doubt it might be inconvenient to interfere with what was called the forum domesticum by which the Benchers maintained due discipline among their own members; and, therefore, he proposed to leave it in the option of the Benchers to refer or not refer cases affecting discipline to a judicial committee. Therefore, in those cases they would be a sort of grand jury, deciding in the first instance whether or not the matter brought before them should be referred to the judicial committee. They would, of course, have the power of censuring members of their own society, even although they might not think that the case was sufficiently grave to undergo inquiry before the judicial committee. But he proposed that the Benchers should not be allowed to exercise the highly penal powers which he had mentioned—namely, that of refusing admission to the Inn, that of expelling from the Inn, that of refusing to call students who were entitled to their call, and, still less, that of disbarring, except through the medium of a judicial committee. The Benchers themselves would probably agree with him that that was a fair restriction. One very grave defect in the constitution of the existing tribunal was that its proceedings were invariably secret. Now, a secret tribunal was objectionable in principle, and altogether alien to the spirit of English law. When Mr. Whittle Harvey, then a distinguished Member of Parliament, had to appear before the Benchers, he was accompanied thither by twenty other Members of that House, many of them Members of great distinction, and one of whom, he believed, was the late Sir James Graham; but not one of them was allowed to be present during the proceedings. He did not mean to cast any blame on the Benchers for following a practice which they found established. There might, moreover, be cases in which it would not be right that the public should be present. His Bill, therefore, provided that if both

  1045
  parties concurred, the case might be heard in private; but that, unless both concurred, it should be heard in public, with all the guarantees which publicity supplied. When the measure went into Committee, he should be happy to listen to any suggestions for its improvement. He had brought forward the Bill, not in any spirit of hostility to the Inns of Court or the Benchers—far from it. He had no doubt that those gentlemen exercised their jurisdiction, such as it was, to the best of their ability, and with the intention of doing what was right. The Bill was a remedial measure. It was a Bill to enable the Benchers to do justice, to give them powers without which they could not administer justice safely and satisfactorily. The hon. and learned Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. ROEBUCK,in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the Bill an exceedingly good one. The former attempt of his hon. and learned Friend at legislation on that subject was of a different character, and he had been quite prepared to oppose it. The present measure, however, would give such powers to the Inns of Court as they now wanted, and as would render them what they ought to be—an efficient judicial tribunal. He was glad his hon. and learned Friend had not brought any charge against the Inns of Court. He must say that if they were merely to judge of the tribunal by its effects, it had as it stood attained all the ends for which any tribunal ought to be instituted. They ought to recollect that the Bar of England was overlooked by the Inns of Court, and he appealed to the House and to the world at large, whether there was anything in the result but honour to the Inns of Court. Two classes might be referred to in support of his assertion—the Judges of England—the advocates of England. He asked his hon. and learned Friend to look the world over and pick out any body of men superior, he might almost say equal, to the Judges in this country. As Judges they were above suspicion. He did not mean to say they had always been so; but they had kept pace with the growing improvement of mankind and the advancing march of civilization, and they stood unchallengable as far as both intellect and honour were concerned. So far as regarded the first-class; then as to the advocates, he said the character of the English Bar was such that no slur could be cast on it. There was no man, however
  1046
  weak or humble, he might say disgraced even, who could not find among their ranks some one thoroughly honest, able, and willing to defend him. That had been the result, and they need go no further for I what the Inns of Court had acomplished. But it was not sufficient to have justice | done; they must have the confidence of the public mind that justice was done; and no secret tribunal, as this had properly been described, could possess the public confidence. The trials in which he had exercised his power as a Bencher of an Inn of Court had been anything but agreeable. It was a jurisdiction which every member of the Court wished to throw off his shoulders; but when they were compelled to appear in public with all the dignity of a Court, a great deal of that painful sensation would be removed, and the Inns of Court would more willingly accept accusations than they now did. The consequences of this Bill would not, therefore, be altogether so soft as his hon. and learned Friend imagined. He believed the jurisdiction would be very much more severe, and the consequences to persons charged much more painful than they were at present. It very often happened that the Inns of Court had to try accusations which were felt to be not only a scandal to the profession but most disagreeable to the public at large, and they exercised their jurisdiction with most cautious, almost timid, consideration for the feelings of all parties concerned; but when the tribunal became an open one, when it exercised all the jurisdiction of a Court of Law, every publicity being given to their proceedings, they would almost necessarily bear more severely on the accused. While he willingly seconded the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, he must add that when the Bill came into Committee he should invite the consideration of the Attorney General to one of its clauses, by which it was provided that the Inns of Court should be allowed to choose five persons as a judicial Committee, power being reserved to the individual charged to challenge three of them. Now, that appeared an unwise thing. There were many eminent men among the Benchers; men of high character and renown would, no doubt, be selected by the Bench to act on this Committee, and it would not he agreeable to such men to be challenged. He would much rather the tribunal should consist of three chosen by the Bench, and that no power of challenge should be given. They would not sit as jurymen, but as

  1047
  Judges; and in no Court in England was any man allowed to challenge his Judge. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; in courts-martial.] Well, he really thought that courts-martial would be the last to be cited as an example of what would be proper in the administration of justice. With this exception he believed the tribunal, as it might be constituted, would conciliate the confidence of the public, and the judicial Committee, as high minded men, would administer justice honourably to all parties.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Sir George Bowyer.)
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he was not a little astonished at finding the Bill supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield. It appeared to him that no case whatever had been made out in favour of the measure. Indeed, both Mover and Seconder admitted that up to the present time nothing could be better than the existing tribunal. But there might be somebody or other not satisfied with it; and to soothe the mind of that somebody, who had not yet been pointed out, they were to adopt a totally different system. Why should they refer the powers of the Benchers of the Inns of Court to a Select Committee? If he were accused before his Inn he should prefer being tried by the whole body rather than by a selected few of them. The hon. and learned Baronet saw the impropriety of this, for he gave the accused the power of objecting to more than half of the tribunal. What, then, was the use of all this? Where any man was brought up before the Benchers and stated an objection to any of their number, that Bencher invariably retired. In a case which occurred in the Inner Temple last year objection was made to more than one of the Benchers, and they retired from the inquiry. He had thought this was a permissive Bill; but it was no such thing. By the third clause nothing of importance could be done except by this judicial Committee. That clause enacted that—
  "No barrister shall be disbarred or suspended from practice, no barrister or other member of any Inn shall be expelled from such Inn, and no student shall be refused to be called to the Bar, and no person shall be refused admission as a student to any Inn of Court, except by decision of a judicial Committee elected under the provisions of this Act."
  It therefore appeared that the whole powers of the Bench would necessarily devolve upon this Judicial Committee. Now, he
  1048
  maintained there was no necessity for this. The hon. Baronet was bound to show that there had been some want of justice, some impropriety and misconduct on the part of the Benchers of the Inns of Court. There had been no complaint, no petition from the Bar or from the public in favour of this Bill. No voice had been raised in its favour but that of the Mover and the Seconder. If it was to give satisfaction to the public, it ought to be to some section of the public that had a cause of complaint. Although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield had been longer at the Bar than he had, and although he had been much longer a Bencher of an Inn of Court, still he believed that he (Mr. Locke) had had quite as much experience of the Bar as his hon. and learned Friend. Well, he knew what the feeling of the Bar was. He knew how matters were regulated upon circuit, and how far offences were there investigated. The proceedings on circuit had been always in accordance with the system of administration pursued by the Inns of Court. Now he did not want to see those things altered, and a new tribunal introduced, unless a very strong case could be made out for it. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield did know something as to the general customs of the Bar, but the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had practised in a peculiar sort of court in a peculiar branch of the law, and therefore had never been thrown into contact with the general body of the Bar, had never gone the circuit, had never dined at the circuit mess, and never saw how charges made against the Members were disposed of. The hon. and learned Member had never seen that beautiful system for keeping men in order by word of mouth—not the cannon's mouth, as it would be, if the hon. and learned Member succeeded in bringing the principle of courts-martial into the Bar—the system of trusting one another, and looking to one another. They had their own circuit officers, their Attorney General, and their Solicitor General, and he was proud to say that he had had the honour to fill both of those positions. But they did not want this "dragooning" system, and trying everybody at the Bar of a Select Committee. In that House they had seen enough of Select Committees, and often had to spend day after day in correcting their proceedings. But what appeal did the Bill give from this Select Committee? [Sir GEORGE BOWYER:

  1049
  The Judges.] The Judges!—the overworked fifteen Judges!—so overworked that they wanted now to appoint five more. And these overworked Judges were to sit as a Court of Appeal from all the Select Committees that might be appointed by the Inns of Court. Since he had had the honour of being a Bencher of the Inner Temple, though it was rather a stirring period, there had during eight years been only three cases; but if this Bill passed he had no doubt there would be plenty of them. He also sympathized strongly with the objection that the new tribunal would be one which certainly would not tend to the benefit of the accused. He therefore felt it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. NEATEseconded the Amendment. He thought a sufficient case had not been made out by the hon. Baronet for any alteration in the constitution of the Inns of Court. The Benchers, as a body, formed a better tribunal than any Judicial Committee could be. If the subject were at all dealt with, it would be more desirable that the whole powers of the Inns of Court and the trusts reposed in or assumed by them should be inquired into in a full and comprehensive manner. He did not wish the House should in any way pledge itself, either by conferring new rights on the Inns of Court or by subjecting them to new restrictions, to recognize the expediency of continuing their powers.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Locke.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not inclined, as far as his own personal feeling and opinion went, to offer any objection to the second reading of this Bill; without, however, in any way committing himself as to the course he should take if it reached a later stage without amendment. At the same time he sympathized to some extent with the observation of his hon. Friend behind (Mr. Neate) that it was not altogether satisfactory to deal piecemeal with this, which was a portion of a larger and more general subject—the relation of the Inns of Court to the Bar, and the administration of justice in the country. But his hon. Friend did not appear to bear in mind what had already been done in the way of inquiry on that subject. He
  1050
  also felt considerable regret that the Inns of Court themselves should not have thought it desirable to take a clear and decided course in this matter in order to assist the House in coming to some definite conclusion one way or another. It would have been far more satisfactory that legislation, if desirable, should have taken place with the concurrence of these learned bodies, and with the assistance they could have brought to bear on the subject; and, on the other hand, if it were not desirable, that the House should have been informed by them of the reasons why they had come to that conclusion. It was not the fault either of the Government or of the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) that this had not been done; on two former occasions the question had been agitated, and upon one of these the hon. Baronet had at his request allowed the measure to stand over, because there was a prospect at that time of something being done by the Inns of Court, an expectation on his part which was undoubtedly well founded, so far as regarded Lincoln's Inn. He, however, ventured to impress on his hon. and learned Friend that it was not satisfactory this subject should be discussed on a Wednesday, when it was exceedingly difficult for many Members of the legal professions to make arrangements to be present, all of whom might give important information to the House. He therefore hoped, if the Bill passed its present stage, that care would betaken to fix both the Committee and third reading for days when all Members of the profession would have a full opportunity of being present. Having said this much he wished the House to bear in mind the position of this question in connection with the general inquiry which some years ago was made into the constitution and functions of the Inns of Court, and what had since been done. He owned it was not satisfactory that this matter should be divorced from other important questions relating to the same subject. In 1854 a Commission was appointed—
  "To inquire into the arrangements in the Inns of Court for promoting the study of Law and Jurisprudence, the revenues properly applicable, and the means most likely to secure a systematic and sound education for students of law, and provide satisfactory tests of fitness for admission to the Bar."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 147.]
  They reported in favour of erecting or re-erecting the several Inns of Court into a great legal University, with a senate or

  1051
  council, elected partly by the Benchers and partly by the outer Bar, but without superseding in all respects the separate powers of the different Societies; and they expressly recommended that the Inns of Court should not be compelled to call to the Bar even those persons who had passed the examination which it was proposed to require; but that they should—
  "Retain their present powers with reference to the calling of students to the Bar, and the disbarring of persons after their call, subject to the appeal to the Judges."—[Ibid.]
  He wished the House to understand what had since been done. They had not moved with very great rapidity; yet these learned Societies had shown, at least, a very sincere and zealous disposition to make important improvements in the direction pointed out, although they did not go so far as the Report of the Commission recommended. They had established a bonâ fide system of legal education, which gave advantages to the students who availed themselves of it, greater than any which prevailed at any former period; and at Lincoln's Inn the opinion of a majority of the Benchers, in a very full council, had been expressed in favour of the principle of a legal University; and he (the Attorney General) was glad to have the opportunity of stating in the House what he said at that meeting—namely, that he should be greatly rejoiced if all the Inns of Court would concur fully in the Report of that Commission. It was founded on a sound principle; he saw no solid objection to its adoption, and he thought that great public advantage might arise from it. In the hope that that might yet be done, he could not look with very great favour on piecemeal legislation, such as that proposed by the present Bill. With regard to this Bill all the hon. Baronet had said dealt with only one of four subjects comprised in it—the disbarring of barristers; that was, he admitted, a power of a penal nature; but he totally disputed the propriety of that observation as applied to the three other subjects dealt with by the Bill. They were not penal proceedings, and it was, he maintained, entirely inexpedient, unless the Inns of Court were to be abolished altogether, to supersede the authority, or interfere with the jurisdiction of the Inns of Court, as to the admission of students, as to calls to the Bar, and as to the exercise of discipline over the members of their own Societies. The case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey had
  1052
  been referred to. He applied to one of the Inns of Court to be called to the Bar, and the Benchers, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, thought fit not to call him. They did not take from him any personal means of livelihood, or deprive him of any advantage he already possessed; but they declined to give him the new position which he asked for, and the reasons on which they had acted were, no doubt, such as they deemed satisfactory. The gentleman whom they had refused to call subsequently obtained a seat in that House, and obtained the appointment of a Committee to sit as a court of review on the judgment of the Benchers. On that Committee sat two gentlemen whose names had been mentioned—Mr. O'Connell and Sir James Graham—no doubt very distinguished men, but politicians who might have entered that Committee with minds not altogether free from a political bias. He could not therefore look on the opinion of such a tribunal as entitled to the smallest weight as opposed to that of the Benchers. Then they came to the crowning argument of a Committee consisting of twenty Members of that House bringing their whole authority to bear against the decision of the Benchers. The House of Commons in its own place had great authority, but in this matter it had really none at all. He could not therefore admit that the argument from the single case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey had any force whatever. Still, however, speaking for himself, and separating the subject of disbarring from the rest, with great respect for his two hon. and learned Friends (Mr. Locke and Mr. Neate), he must say he agreed substantially with what had been said by the hon. and learned Mover and Seconder. He did not think the present constitution of the tribunal was satisfactory, or fit for the discharge of what was not undeserving the name of a criminal jurisdiction. He had himself sat when questions of a painful nature were brought before the Benchers, and he was struck by the anxious desire which every person evinced to do justice; but it was impossible to secure the uniform attendance of the same Benchers, and a difficulty arose respecting the evidence in consequence of the absence of any power to adminster an oath. Without pledging himself to the clauses of the Bill, he did think, as the Inns of Court had taken no steps to deal with the subject themselves, and had not informed the House of their opinions upon

  1053
  this Bill, that it would be wrong not to give it a second reading.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that he should be perfectly ready to consider, and if possible concur in any amendments that might be proposed in Committee by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He had referred to the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey for the purpose of showing that the Benchers could not satisfactorily administer justice without the power of compelling the attendance of witnesses. In that case a witness refused to attend before the Benchers; the Select Committee upstairs, however, compelled his attendance, heard his evidence, and recorded their opinion that probably the Benchers would have come to the same conclusion with the Committee if they had possessed the power of compelling his attendance, and had heard his testimony. The Attorney General had admitted that the Benchers were too numerous, and it was therefore difficult to secure in any case the attendance of the same Judges throughout. Admitting that no special complaint had been made against the present system, be contended there were strong arguments for some change. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had made a speech worthy of the days of Lord Eldon, and bad used the old Tory arguments in favour of the present system, He (Sir George Bowyer) believed he had made out a case for some alteration, and he was perfectly ready to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and to take into consideration the suggestion made by the Attorney General, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment, but allow the Bill to pass a second reading.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

METROPOLITAN TOLL BRIDGES BILL.

  [BILL 47.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS moved that this Bill be read a second time. He said he was willing to have it referred to a Select Committee, and thus neutralize any meditated opposition. The advantage of increased facilities for crossing the Thames must be obvious to every one, and
  1054
  to no class would this improvement be more favourable than to the working people, who now find great difficulty in obtaining houses and lodgings on the north side of the river. In the course of a century, while the population had greatly increased, the habitations for the working classes had not borne a proportional increase, but there was a tendency rather to diminish accommodation for them. In fact, the people were now cramped and confined to an extent which was most undesirable. Something should be done by that House in order to facilitate the means of crossing the Thames. It was necessary to try to purchase the existing toll bridges before projecting new ones. The Bill now before the House was permissive, and would give powers to the Board of Works and the City of London to treat with the proprietors of Southwark, Waterloo, Chelsea, and other metropolitan bridges, including Deptford Creek, upon which tolls were charged. There were some bridges across the River Lea which he thought ought to be included, but there was such a difficulty in dealing with so many jurisdictions that he had not ventured to bring them within the scope of this Bill. Since the question of tolls had been discussed last year there had been some attempt on the part of the corporation of London to treat with the proprietors of Southwark Bridge, and a temporary arrangement had been made by which the tolls had been stopped, and this arrangement would last for two or three months longer; but if powers were not given to the proprietors to make a permanent agreement with the corporation of London, the inhabitants would have the mortification of seeing the toll-gates replaced. He might mention that while over the Thames there were only three free bridges, there were twenty-seven at Paris over the Seine, and many of those twenty-seven had been opened during the last few years, while over the Thames there had been no new free bridge opened for nearly a century. Since the tolls on Southwark Bridge had been removed there had been a great increase of traffic, and the working classes were very anxious that the tolls upon all bridges should be abolished, so that they might have an opportunity of obtaining free access between the north and south sides of the river. On the south side land and house-rent were cheaper, and there was more room for the increasing population of the metropolis. There was scarcely a stronger instance of the crowded state of

  1055
  the poor population on the north side than that which was produced in the late discussion upon the site for the new law courts, when it was shown that upon seven acres of ground there was a population of 4,200 persons—a number equal to the inhabitants of a moderate-sized town. It was the duty of that House to enlarge the area for the free circulation of the working classes as much as possible. Eleven years ago a Committee had been appointed, of which Mr. Oliveira was chairman, to consider the question of tolls on bridges, and in the subsequent year another Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, reported upon the same subject, and both Committees were unanimously of opinion that the tolls upon the bridges should be abolished, and the accommodation for the working classes increased; but since that time nothing whatever had been done. He sincerely hoped that this Bill would lead to some practical step being taken. He believed the metropolis was rich enough to secure the accommodation required. It possessed rateable property of the value of £15,000,000, with a population of 3,000,000 daily increasing in numbers.
  MR. JACKSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Alderman Salomons.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there could be no doubt whatever as to the desirability of the object sought to be obtained by the Bill, which was to extend as far as possible the facilities for traffic between the north and south sides of the river, and to abolish the tolls. The whole question for consideration was as to the best means by which that object could be obtained. The Government had no objection to the second reading of this Bill upon the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee, which would have the power of inquiring into the whole subject. He hoped from the concluding sentence of the hon. Member that the City of London would be found rich enough to effect the object of the Bill without taxing their neighbours. The Government would object to the 6th clause by which an additional duty of 1d. per ton was proposed to be put upon coals brought within the metropolitan district. He should be very glad to see the whole subject inquired into, and he hoped the City of London would be found rich enough to purchase the tolls.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to make one or two observations, inasmuch as his name was on the back of the Bill. It had been placed there simply because it was on the back of the Bill of last year, which was a very different measure from that now before the House. He was not at all pleased with the present Bill, because it proposed to tax in an especial degree his constituents, who, while they would be very well content to pay a general rate levied throughout the whole metropolis for the abolition of tolls, objected to the extra duty of 1d. per ton upon coals coming into the metropolis, and the special tax proposed to be laid upon those ratepayers who resided in the neighbourhood of the bridges upon which the tolls would be abolished. The Bill of last Session was pure and simple in its object—namely, the removal of the tolls by the means of a uniform rate throughout the whole of the metropolis. No objection could be taken to that, because all who lived in London would be benefited by the measure. Placing an extra duty upon coals, he contended, was very objectionable. The manufacturing interests with which he was connected, as Member for Southwark, objected to that additional coal tax, because it would place them in a still more unfavourable position as competitors with manufacturers in the country, many of whom were enabled to obtain coals at 8s. a ton, whereas the price paid in London was generally 23 s. a ton. Waterloo Bridge afforded accommodation to the inhabitants of the whole of the metropolis as a means of access to the South Western Railway. Why should a special rate be thrown upon his constituents for the opening of that bridge, which came into a corner of the borough? He could not see that any particular advantage would accrue to those living at the ends of the bridges, beyond that which could arise to the metropolis generally by the adoption of any such measure as that before the House. Again, with regard to Southwark Bridge. It was to be opened in order to relieve the traffic on London Bridge, and the ratepayers complained most strongly of the proposal to levy a special tax for this object, and he had presented petitions from vestries and all the local bodies in his constituency against this extra rate. A Bill, he believed, had already passed during this Session giving the sanction of that House to the corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works purchasing that bridge, and it would therefore be taken

  1057
  out of the present Bill. When the twelvemonths expired for which the City had made arrangements for the stoppage of the tolls, the bridge, no doubt, would be purchased by the corporation. A Bill had also been introduced with reference to Chelsea Bridge by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley). Then there was Putney Bridge, for the purchase of which, by a now company, a Bill had passed that House last year, and an award had been made that the new company should pay the proprietors of the present bridge the sum of £40,000. If it were to be understood that the extra duty on coals, and the special tax on his constituents to which he had referred, should not be levied, but that it was to go to and come from the Select Committee pure and simple as the Bill of last year, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the course suggested by the Secretary for the Home Department. He believed it was the wish of the House that if the Bill passed a second reading, it would be on the understanding that they should not pledge themselves to a single clause in it. They merely desired to express a general opinion that it was extremely desirable that the tolls upon these bridges should be abolished, provided proper means were found for accomplishing that object without doing an injustice to any one. One objection to the Bill was that it was not sufficiently comprehensive. There was a bridge in the borough which he represented afflicted with such a toll that the collector felt it necessary to arm himself with a red-hot poker with the view of enforcing the money from those who might attempt to escape. Such a bridge as that ought to be included either in the present Bill or in any inquiry that might take place. Another omission was the toll upon roads. He could not discover the distinction in principle between the toll upon roads and that upon bridges. They were equally objectionable. Roads were found in the middle of London where poisons had to pay a rate of toll which caused a greater obstruction to traffic than that levied on the bridges. It was desirable, therefore, that in any further inquiry into this subject, the whole question of tolls on roads and bridges should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that it should be ascertained whether any means could be devised for
  1058
  the purpose of relieving the metropolis from all these tolls. If the House adopted this course, he felt confident that the inquiry would lead to some practical result. He would be sorry to see any increase made on the duty upon coal, or any unjust tax levied for the object of the Bill. Both the corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works had, he considered, neglected their duty with regard to tolls, because, instead of the inconvenience decreasing, it had largely increased, assisted by Private Bills. The question demanded serious consideration. He suggested that the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Westminster should also be referred to the Select Committee.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was afraid, by assenting to the second reading, that the House would be embarking upon a dangerous course of action in regard to the question involved. It appeared to him that it might be subsequently thrown in their teeth by the promoters of this Bill that the House, in assenting to the second reading, had sanctioned a principle which they considered an important step gained. The mode of obtaining the money for carrying out the objects desired was so mixed up with the main question that it was difficult to separate them. It appeared, therefore, to him that it would be a better course to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of metropolitan tolls, rather than to proceed as by this measure by piecemeal. As to the mode in which it was proposed to supply the funds which would be required in consequence of the abolition of tolls, he had to remind them that there was already levied on coal brought into the metropolis a tax of not less than 1s. 1d. a ton. The coal duty was originally imposed for the special purpose of building a coal exchange, which had been accomplished, but the tax still remained, and was now applied to metropolitan improvements. This should serve as a warning against imposing any additional tax, more especially as such a proposal was opposed to all the present principles of legislation. He had some objection to the Bill, but if the House thought that the whole question would be better considered by a Committee up-stairs he should not object to that course.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that the Bill fell short of the desired object. It did not embrace a sufficient area or include a suf-

  1059
  ficient number of the tolls already existing. It ought, in his opinion, to take in tolls of every description throughout the metropolitan area. A rate should be levied over the metropolitan area to purchase all these bridges, and everything else which was an impediment to free circulation in the metropolis. He presided over a Committee on this subject, and the unanimous opinion of the Committee was that a rate should be levied to buy the tolls and to improve the roads.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not see why the metropolis should not be placed on the same footing as the counties throughout England with reference to bridges, where the expense of building and maintenance was paid out of the county rate. By adopting the present Bill, though the tax of 1d. per ton on coals might not be a heavy one, the poor would be taxed for the advantage of the rich. It would be very desirable if the Committee would take this point of defraying the expenses by a county rate into their consideration.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it was agreed on all hands that it was advisable to get rid of tolls as far as possible, whether in London or elsewhere, and the question was simply as to how the object was to be carried out. It had been agreed that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, on the understanding that the House should not be pledged to any of the provisions of the Bill, and the Committee would simply consider how these tolls could be done away with. He had the greatest possible objection to an extra duty being put upon coals, or a special tax upon those persons who did not go about in carriages to relieve those who did. Nothing could be more absurd than the 9th clause of the Bill, which gave the Metropolitan Board of Works power to levy a special tax upon vestries and districts in which the bridges were situated. He had presented several petitions against this proposal from the inhabitants in the Strand, and he would ask how the Strand could be supposed to be benefited more than any other district in the metropolis from the opening of Waterloo Bridge to free traffic. To put a special tax upon the Strand ratepayers for such an object would be most unjust. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that a county rate ought to be levied, if necessary, for the object of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to inquire into the existing Tolls on Roads and Bridges within the Metropolis, and the best means of abolishing them.—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  And, on Wednesday, May 10, Select Committee nominated as follows:
  Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. JACKSON, Sir BALDWIN LEIGHTON, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. STANHOPE, Mr. ADAM, Sir WILLAM JOLLIFFE, Mr. COWFER, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. HANBURY, and Mr. TITE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL.

  [BILL 63.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Certain Sections of "Locomotives Act, 1861," repealed.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that on the introduction of the original Bill the promoters of the measure appeared to be very much in love with the Secretary of State, for in spite of his opposition to the plan the regulation of these locomotives had been lodged in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished for an explanation why the supervision of the use of locomotives on roads by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to be dispensed with and no other provision of a similar character made. He was opposed to the Secretary of State being made supervisor of the actions of the whole of the community, and he was glad that that part of the Act had broken down. He hoped that in future no Bills brought before the House would allow the Secretary of State to exercise a similar power. He should very much like to see some provision made with reference to the exceptional condition of the metropolis, where the horse and carriage traffic was so much greater than in ordinary towns. He should like, therefore, to receive from the hon. Member who had charge of this Bill an assurance of the introduction of some special clause referring to this point. The slower these engines travelled the greater obstruction would they offer to the ordinary traffic, and he almost believed that in the metropolis a speed of ten miles an hour would be better than two, as less obstruction would ensue.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he de-

  1061
  sired to call the attention of the House to one clause, as the purport of the whole Bill was virtually embodied in it. By the Act of 1861 for regulating the use of locomotives on the public roads, power was given to the Secretary of State, upon representations made to him of danger and inconvenience arising therefrom, to restrict their use in any district by prohibiting their use during certain portions of the day. Tie was not anxious to retain that power, but he thought it ought not to be abolished without substituting some other means of control. He was not aware that this legislation had broken down, or of the grounds upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets made that assertion. There was no law determining the hours at which these engines should run, but the power for regulating their time in different districts was intrusted to the Secretary of State, Since the passing of the former Act he had received several representations from the inhabitants of certain districts, backed by the magistrates of the petty sessions or of those districts, Those representations had been referred to the chief constables of the counties for examinations into the facts alleged in them, and though the use of these locomotives had in no instance been forbidden their employment had in several cases been restricted to certain hours—generally from ten or eleven o'clock at night until six or seven in the morning. Those restrictions, he had reason to believe, had given great satisfaction to the inhabitants of the district, though they had also led to what he regarded as a reasonable complaint on the part of the machine owners and of the agriculturists, who urged that such restrictions interfered with their operations, as the engines were required to be constantly travelling from one farm to another. At the same time it should be remembered that these engines were formidable affairs in narrow lanes. Instances of fatal accidents had occurred, and it was only when the representations had been shown to be reasonable that the order regulating the hours had been issued. He had no reason to believe that any complaint had been made of the undue exercise of the discretion vested in the Secretary of State. He should be glad to see some other mode devised by which they could provide for the safety of the public without any undue interference with the extensive use of these machines for agricultural purposes.
  1062
  The only restriction imposed by the Bill was that these machines should not travel faster than four miles in the country and two miles in towns. The hon. and learned Member objected to the power being vested in the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Ayrton) wished, however, that the use of these machines should be restrained in the metropolis; but if it was unsafe to use them in London, surely it was equally so in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other largo towns. He should be quite willing to resign the power that was lodged in his hands. The clause before the House, however, proposed an unconditional repeal of this power, relying simply upon the provisions contained in other portions of the measure.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, that during the last seven years locomotives had been used in the streets of Rochester and Chatham without any danger having arisen, and he had received a certificate from the municipal authorites stating that during the seven years they had been so employed no accident had occurred. They were used in the narrow streets of Rochester and Chatham, and also in what was called the "Khyber Pass," the very narrow street, which connected Chatham with Rochester, and no accidents had resulted therefrom. He had continually met them in the street, and they passed his own door day after day. Horses soon became perfectly accustomed to their appearance, and were much more liable to fright on passing underneath a screened bridge with a locomotive passing overhead than they were on meeting the engines in the streets. Leamington and Warwick were both famed for hunting, which was extensively engaged in in the neighbourhood of these towns. Consequently the number of high-spirited horses was much larger in these towns than would usually be found elsewhere, and yet the continual use of locomotives had only been attended, to his knowledge, by one accident, and in that instance the locomotive was passing over a screened bridge.
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved the postponement of this clause until the remaining clauses had been disposed of. As it was merely a repealing clause he thought it better it should be postponed until they could see what they could do with the body of the Bill to give facilities for the use of these locomotives on common roads. He believed that the general wish was that as much facility as possible in the employment of these engines should be granted to the agriculturists; but

  1063
  it was the duty of the House at the same time to protect the public from the inconveniences which might be caused by their use. High bred horses usually would not get frightened at meeting these engines because they possessed pluck enough to go ahead without caring for anything, but the low bred horses would generally become timid on seeing the locomotives. He hoped that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would agree to the postponement of the clause.
  MR. HOLLANDconsented.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 2 (Imposing Rules for the manner of working Locomotives on Turnpike Roads and Highways.)
  MR. HOLLAND MR. HOLLAND moved the insertion of the words "on foot." He said the effect would be that the man who accompanied the engine for the purpose of keeping a lookout would be compelled to walk, and would thus be able to perform his duty in a manner which would better secure the safety of the public.
  MR. FELLOWESsaid, he should be sorry to oppose so valuable a Bill as respected agricultural interests, but they had a duty to perform to the public, whose safety they had charge of. He thought that the man ought to walk some distance in advance of the engine, and that the safety of the public would not be insured by a distance of sixty yards between the attendant and the engine itself. He believed that 100 yards would be better, and he therefore moved an Amendment securing that provision.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he believed sixty yards to be far enough. The word "precede" would be quite sufficient. A man at the distance of 100 yards would often not be seen at all by the driver of the engine, especially near towns. It would therefore practically be of no advantage.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was glad to perceive a disposition on the part of the House to regard with some favour the interests of the agriculturists, who as a class did not generally receive that consideration from the House to which they were entitled. He believed that the safety of the public would be best secured by the attendant walking immediately in advance of the engine instead of at so great a distance as sixty yards. He thought the words "on foot" should be retained, omitting either the "sixty yards" or the "100 yards."
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that there appeared to be a panic with reference to the safety of the public, especially when it was borne in mind that these engines had constantly been travelling about the country for years. Horses were much more apt to take fright from seeing the heaps of stones which were usually kept at the sides of roads and the "guys" who were employed in breaking them up than they were at the sight of these engines. The locomotives generally travelled only from farm to farm, and he could not therefore see any necessity for compelling the attendant to precede the engine either by sixty or 100 yards.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought the attendant might as well he in the next parish as precede the engine by 100 yards. He believed it would be absurd to specify the precise distance at which the man should walk, and he should therefore move the insertion of the words "not more than sixty yards."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the word "less," and insert the word "more."—(Sir John Shelley.)
  MR. JOHN HARDYsaid, that 100 yards was not an inch too far, as a horse and carriage driving rapidly in a narrow lane would occasionally be upon the engine before its proximity could be ascertained in sufficient time to prevent an accident. He should certainly vote for the man's preceding the engine by at least sixty yards.
  MR. WARNERsaid, the real security to the public lay in the liability which the owners of these engines incurred in case of accident, and that the danger arising from noise in working and other similar causes might be obviated in the manufacture of the locomotives.
  MR. D. ROBERTSONsaid, that the best plan would be to postpone the Bill for the present. He thought that the regulation of the locomotives should be left to the local authorities, who would best be able to determine what was necessary.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he thought it hardly possible that the Committee could decide accurately the precise distance at which the attendant should precede the locomotive. In a straight road in the country it might be desirable that the man should be 100 yards or even more in advance, but in a town or in a narrow lane with turnings, the distance would oftentimes be curtailed with much advantage.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that unless the attendant were compelled to precede the engine he would, except in a town, be in all probability usually engaged in conversation with the man on the engine.
  Question put, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32 Noes 90: Majority 58.
  MR. FELLOWESthen moved to insert 100 instead of sixty yards.
  Another Amendment proposed, in same line, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the words "one hundred,"—(Mr. Fellowes.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the Amendment would defeat the hon. Gentleman's object.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it would be better to leave the responsibility upon the persons in charge of engines.
  Question put, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 35: Majority 38.
  Upon the Motion of Mr. HUNT, the following words were inserted:—
  "And shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotive."
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHproposed to add the words—
  "All superfluous steam shall be condensed in such a manner as that no steam shall blow off while the locomotive is upon the road."
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, he thought there was no necessity for the Amendment, as there was no difficulty in rendering locomotives harmless upon roads. The protection of the public had been fully considered by those who had drawn up the Bill.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, if the Committee did not accept his Amendment, he must leave the responsibility for any danger that might arise to those who opposed it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Upon the Motion of Mr. HOLLAND, the following words were added:—
  "Sixthly. Any person in charge of any such locomotive shall provide two efficient lights to be affixed conspicuously, one at each side, on the front of the same, between the hours of one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the House, in sanctioning the use of these locomotives under certain restrictions, should
  1066
  take care that they did not hamper the right of persons to bring actions for injuries sustained by them from the results of any carelessness on the part of the owners of locomotives or their servants. He, therefore, moved to add the words—
  "Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the right of any person to recover damages in an action at law in respect of any injury or damages sustained by him in consequence of the use of such locomotive."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call attention to the provision in the clause affixing penalties upon conviction for certain acts, but it did not appear what parties were to be liable to those penalties. It could not always be the owner of the machine, because he might send out the proper number of attendants, and one of them might neglect his duty, in which case it would be unjust to punish the owner.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the clause did require some amendment in the case suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and it should be considered before the Report.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the clause would be made more clear, because, as it stood, he could not tell who would be responsible for anything. As the words "not more" had been introduced, it seemed as though the men in charge of the engine should have a string round their wrist to prevent them from exceeding the limit of distance and exposing themselves to the mercies of informers.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Size and Weight of Locomotives which may be used.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to the words in this clause which were different from those of the second clause. In the second clause the words "turnpike road or public highway" were used, but in the clause the words were "turnpike or other road." As a different construction would be placed upon the different words, he should propose to strike out the word "other" and insert "public highway."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FELLOWESsaid, that as the locomotive machines might be nine feet in width, and the lanes and by-roads some-

  1067
  times were not more than twelve or fourteen feet wide, any vehicle meeting such a machine in such a place would occasion a blocking up of the thoroughfare. He should propose an Amendment to the effect that locomotives should only travel upon roads twenty feet or upwards in width.
  Amendment moved.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he believed that the agricultural machines now drawn by horses upon roads were wider than locomotives, and, moreover, locomotives could back out, which could not be done by horse-power.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, the Amendment, if carried, would prevent the use of locomotives in Devonshire and Somersetshire, where narrow roads abounded.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if the engines could back so easily there ought to be something in the Bill to make it clear that they were to be the parties who were to back, and not the others.
  MR. GREENWOODsaid, that though no doubt the Bill would confer a great benefit on other interests besides the agricultural interest, the House must take care that this was not done at the expense of the smaller ratepayers. In the former Bill no provision was made for meeting the increased cost of repairing the roads which would be necessitated by the passage of these heavy locomotives over them. He hoped that omission would be remedied in the present Bill. As to backing, how could one of these engines back with a train of four or five trucks behind it?
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he thought there was no doubt which would have to give way in practice; for the engine could back while the cart could not.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the difficulty often occurred in London where two carts or waggons met in a narrow street which did not afford room for them to pass each other. The drivers after squabbling for more or less time, got out of the difficulty in their own way, and it might be left equally to the common sense of country carters to do the same.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that in London there was always a policeman about.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the effect of the clause was to allow engines of nine feet width and fourteen tons weight
  1068
  to use the roads; but there was no express prohibition against the use of engines of greater width and weight. He proposed a provision against engines of larger size or weight being used, except upon special leave being obtained from certain authorities.
  Amendment moved to add the words—
  "And no locomotive exceeding nine feet in width and fourteen tons in weight shall he used on any such road, except subject to the provisions contained in the third section of the said Act, as to the use of locomotives exceeding seven feet in width and twelve tons in weight."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask for information as to why engines of nine feet width and fourteen tons weight were fixed upon by the framers of the Bill. When they recollected that over many country roads there were bridges of a very weak construction, it became a matter of serious consideration whether such heavy engines should be allowed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTproposed to add a proviso making it incumbent on the drivers of locomotives to back out whenever they might meet other vehicles in a road too narrow for them to pass each other.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the proviso would only create confusion and vexation.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Restrictions as to the use of Steam Engines within twenty-five yards of Roads, not to apply to Locomotives used for ploughing purposes.)
  MR. FELLOWESsaid, that he objected to the removal of these restrictions.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, that if this clause were struck out of the Bill, it would be tantamount to depriving farmers of the use of these engines for ploughing purposes.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought there could be no harm in allowing these engines to be used within the prohibited distance, if the ordinary precautions were taken.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was no safeguard whatever provided by the Bill to protect the public from danger.
  MR. DENTsaid, that the double engine system was now found to be the most profitable method of steam cultivation, and if this clause were not passed twenty-live yards of every field which bordered on a

  1069
  road would have to be left unploughed. He had often seen steam ploughs at work, but he never remembered an accident from any horse taking fright.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not see why these engines when used for ploughing should be treated with more favour than a thrashing engine, which was not allowed to be at work within twenty-five yards of the road except under a screen.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought the risk of one of these engines being at work within twenty-five yards of the road was no greater than that caused by level crossings, which were now permitted all over the country. Horses, in fact, were getting more used every day to steam-engines and their noises, and were not so apt to be frightened by them.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that that was the case, but he thought there must always be danger when an engine was at work so near the road. If the engine when it got into the field was to be fixed, why could it not be placed on the side furthest away from the road? If that could not be done with convenience, he thought the safety of the public would be best consulted by leaving the law as it at present stood.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, he should have no objection to add the following words to the clause:—
  "Provided a person shall be stationed in the road, and employed to signal the engine driver when it shall be necessary to stop and to assist horses and carriages drawn by horses in passing the same."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (How Penalties may be recovered.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask what was the object of saying that the summons should be served seven days before the hearing? Ordinarily petty sessions in the country were held weekly; and the provision in question would have the effect of postponing a decision for a fortnight. Unless there was good reason for a contrary course, he hoped the clause would be omitted.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill followed the course prescribed by the Act—the Locomotives Act 1861—which it was intended to amend. The clause was unnecessary.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 7 (Short Title of Act.)
  On the Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY words added, "and 'the Locomotives Act, 1861,' and this Act, shall be construed together as one Act."
  Clause 8 (Extent of Act.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the existing Act contained the clause (which restricted the Act to Great Britain), which it was therefore unnecessary to re-enact.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished the provisions of the Bill to be extended to Ireland, and proposed to bring up a clause on the Report to effect that object.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 1 (Certain Sections of "The Locomotives Act, 1861," repealed.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the clause gave no control whatever over the passage of locomotive engines in large towns. He proposed that the local authorities in the metropolis, and in large cities, should have power to draw up certain rules on the subject, which should be approved by the Secretary of State. He objected to the Secretary of State issuing regulations at the instance of the police authorities.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, the promoters of the Bill had no objection to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets so far as they related to the metropolitan area, but a good deal of inconvenience might arise were engines used for agricultural purposes compelled to make a long round out of their direct course in order to avoid all the large county towns.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would lead the House to imagine that the Secretary of State never consulted any persons but the police with reference to the regulations necessary to be issued respecting locomotive engines; but the truth was that no order had ever been made in reference to them except at the request of the local authorities, backed by the magistrates of the district, and by the chief constable of the district. No order of the kind had ever been made at the sole instance of the police. He thought some provisions ought to be made for the control of those engines in large county towns as well as in the metropolis. He suggested, therefore, that the hon. Member should bring up a clause on the Report to that effect. He wished the local municipal authorities in every city and borough

  1071
  should have power to restrict the use of such machines as they thought fit, and to make regulations with regard to them.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that such authority should he limited to towns having more than 50,000 inhabitants.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must object to such a limitation.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, he would take care that the wishes of the Committee on this point should be attended to.
  On the Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGH-LEN, after the word "eleventh" the words "and fifteenth" were added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HOLLAND MR. HOLLAND moved a new clause,
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall repeal, alter, or in any way affect the provisions of the 41st section of the Thames Embankment Act, 1862."
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.

  [BILL 109.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Saving Clause as to effect of Act).
  MR. BARINGproposed to add to the end of the clause the words—
  "Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall diminish or prejudice the allowances or rights of any chief, or head-constable, or other constable, given or reserved by the 15th section of the Police Act, 1859."
  MR. MOORsaid, he wished to draw attention to the case of the Brighton old police, who had subscribed to the superannuation fund, and whose rights did not appear to be sufficiently protected, although they had been reserved in the General Police Act.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he thought the proviso sufficient to meet the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but, if it were not, he would take care that any requisite alteration should be made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HOWESthen moved that the following new clauses be added to the Bill:—
  1072
  "The liability of the police rate in counties, and of the borough fund or borough rates in boroughs, to make good any insufficiency of the superannuation fund under the eleventh section of the Police Act, 1856, or the twelfth section of the Police Act, 1859, shall commence and take effect when and as from time to time the annual income of the superannuation fund shall be insufficient to pay the charges thereon.
  "Any fee payable to any constable appointed for any county for the performance of any act done in the execution of his duty as such constable, shall be received in such manner as the chief constable of the county shall direct, and shall be paid over to the superannuation fund."
  Where the superannuation funds had been in existence for a number of years the calls upon them were so great that a large number had been exhausted, and the whole of the charges were thrown upon the police rates. The object of the proposed clause was to avoid such exhaustion of the funds in all cases where it had not already occurred, by making the rates supply any deficiency when the annual income of the fund was exhausted, so that the corpus of the fund should remain intact.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that the question was one of considerable importance, and had been referred to by Major General Cartwright, one of the Inspectors of Constabulary, in his Report made during the present year to the Home Office. With that gentleman's able assistance tables had been drawn up in order to ascertain the present condition and probable exhaustion of the various county and borough superannuation funds. Forms had been circulated throughout the counties and boroughs, which when filled up and returned to the Home Office would afford valuable information on the subject. The forms when returned would be handed to Dr. Farr, who would make a Report upon them, and then the whole question was intended to be laid before a Commission to be appointed to consider the way in which the superannuation funds should be dealt with, and to recommend any alterations in the present system they might think it necessary should be adopted. He agreed in the propriety of the clauses proposed by the hon. Gentleman, but there would be considerable difficulty in carrying them out. The Bill was only intended to remedy some small defects in the existing Act, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would rest satisfied with the answer he had given, that the matter was under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and would not press the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, that if

  1073
  the public wanted a good body of police they must not object to provide for a liberal superannuation; but he advised his hon. Friend, under the circumstances, to withdraw his proposed clauses.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask what would be the nature and object of the Committee to be appointed.
  MR. BARINGstated, that the Committee, the appointment of which he recommended, would consider only the superannuation of the county, and not that of the metropolitan police.
  MR. HOWESsaid, he would withdraw the clause.
  Clauses withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the districts of Sheffield, Bradford, Gloucester, and Stroud, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 118.]

  SALMON FISHERY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill "to amend the Salmon Fishery Act, 1861," presented, and read 1°. [Bill 117.]
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.