Commons Sitting of 5 April 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II.
Resolutions [April 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Public Health [48]; Public Health and Local Government* [49].
Select Committee—Master and Servant (Wages)* [65], nominated.
Third Reading—County Buildings (Loans)* [84], and passed.

EDUCATION—MUSIC IN TRAINING COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. REEDasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether, in the appointment of an inspector of singing in training colleges and schools, regard will be had to his fitness to conduct examinations in the Tonic Sol-fa method as well as any other?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that in regard to music, as in all other cases, the duty of the Inspectors was to examine into results, not methods. The Inspector of schools would ascertain whether the children sang from notes or not, and the degree of efficiency that they had attained. The Government had also thought it desirable to appoint an Inspector of singing in the training colleges, the object being to find out the practical skill of the students and their proficiency in theoretical knowledge. It was, of course, highly desirable that the gentleman appointed should be able to examine in the Tonic Sol-Fa method as well as any other, and his noble Friend (Lord Ripon) had accordingly appointed a gentleman of great musical experience, Mr. Hullah, who, he had every reason to believe, would discharge his duties without prejudice against any particular system. He might add that, although it was open to the students to adopt whatever system they pleased, only 236 out of 8,000 had qualified for the Tonic Sol-Fa method, while in the case of the teachers the number who followed the same course was 57 out of 1,247. It was, therefore, obvious that the appointment of an Inspector familiar exclusively with the Tonic Sol-Fa method would not be advisable.

THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE POPE.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Ministers have any knowledge, officially or otherwise, of any such interview and conversation, touching the condition and affairs of this Country, between His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Pope, as is reported in "The Times" newspaper of the 28th of March last to have taken place in Rome? His only reason for putting the Question was that it was

813
rumoured the King of Italy was absent from Rome at the time of the interview.
MR. GLADSTONE: I need, Sir, hardly state to the hon. Member or the House that the Prince of Wales has not visited Rome in an official capacity, and that any interview between His Royal Highness and the Pope would not be an official interview, but one of those visits of compliment, courtesy, and respect which are usually paid by distinguished foreigners when they visit the City of Rome. I did not recollect, when the hon. Gentleman gave Notice of his Question, the purport of the telegram to which he alluded, but I have since referred to it, as well as to the Correspondence at the Foreign Office. We have there no Report which corresponds to that given in the telegram; but we have a Report from Mr. Jervoise, who mentions this interview. He states that the Pope was very kind and courteous, and particular in making inquiries after the health of Her Majesty. He does not, however, report anything of a more special character, either touching matters of policy or in any manner affecting the relations of this country, or the religious character of the people of this country. I should add that Mr. Jervoise was actually present at the interview between the Pope and the Prince of Wales.

ARMY—RESERVE FORCE.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNTZasked the Secretary of State for War, If it be intended to call out the Reserves for drill this summer?
MR. CARDWELL: A small portion, Sir, of the Reserve were called out last year, and a similar provision is made this year. It is intended to call out a portion of the Reserve at the time of the Autumn Manœuvres.

ARMY—THE MILITIA.—QUESTIONS.
SIR EDMUND LACONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Officers and a portion of the East Norfolk Militia have been deprived of barrack accommodation at Great Yarmouth, owing to the Detachment of the 33rd Regiment being ordered to remain after they had received orders to vacate the barracks, prior to the East Norfolk Militia assembling for their annual
814
training; and as, under the new Regulations, Militia Surgeons are not allowed to examine recruits, give medical attendance to the permanent staff, or to attend preliminary drill of the recruits, from which sources the principal part of their pay has hitherto been derived, and as many have partially or wholly abandoned private practice to enable them to perform their Militia duties, in what way he proposes to remunerate them?
MR. CARDWELL: In answer, Sir, to the first Question of the hon. Baronet I have to state that it has been necessary to refer to the General Officer commanding, and there has not yet been time to receive an answer. As to the second Question, I hope that there will be considerable economy in the new arrangements, because in certain instances a larger expenditure has hitherto occurred than will be justified under the present system. I am not prepared to commit myself to any declaration respecting compensation, beyond saying that all claims that may be sent in will be fairly considered.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NAVY—ACCIDENT TO THE BOATS OF THE "ARIADNE."—RESOLUTION.
MR. BOUVRIErose to call attention to the recent accident to the boats of Her Majesty's ship Ariadne, and to move—
"That it was and is the duty of the Commissioners of the Admiralty to provide Her Majesty's ships afloat with a due supply of Life Boats, and with efficient apparatus for lowering their boats at sea in safety."
Before approaching the subject of his Motion, the right hon. Gentleman—referring to the absence from the House both of the First Lord and the Secretary to the Admiralty—said, he regretted that neither the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Secretary to the Admiralty had had the common courtesy to be present that evening. It was a new thing that the heads of the Department should not be on the Treasury bench when the Public Business commenced, in order to

815
answer any Questions that might be put to them, with or without Notice; and not only that, but it was an affront to independent Members, and it was un-courteous to the House at large, that the chiefs of the Department should be absent. Therefore he protested against the absence of the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary to the Admiralty on that occasion, and he hoped it would be the last time that the practice was followed, or that he or any other hon. Member would have cause to complain of the discourtesy.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that his right hon. Friend should remember that his Motion stood third on the Paper, and that it now came on only because the two preceding ones had been postponed.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he conceived it to be the duty of the heads of Departments to be there at half-past 4 to answer any Questions that might arise; but still more when a Notice affecting their Department had been put on the Paper by an independent Member. He had now no choice but to proceed to say what he had to say in the absence of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were supposed to represent the Naval Department. [An hon. MEMBER: Move that they be sent for.] He had no power to send for them; and if their own sense of duty did not prompt their attendance, he must speak in their absence; and he had the more reason to complain because the Secretary to the Admiralty came to him yesterday, and asked him to postpone his Motion, and he (Mr. Bouverie) told him that he could not do so, because he had now an opportunity of bringing the subject under the observation of the House, and he did not know that he might have another. The House would remember that a short time ago the Secretary to the Admiralty, in replying to the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Barnett), as to whether the Ariadne had been provided with life-boats, stated that previous Boards of Admiralty had decided it should not be compulsory on Her Majesty's ships to carry life-boats; while, in answer to a Question put by himself, the hon. Gentleman said that there was no particular apparatus for lowering boats used on board the Ariadne, but that there was a system of unhooking boats, which was preferred by many officers. When, however, he asked the hon. Gentleman whether that system
816
had been adopted on board the Ariadne, he was unable to give him any information on the point. That was not a position in which the Secretary to the Admiralty should stand with respect to the safety of Her Majesty's officers and sailors. He would not again recount the details of the terrible accident which occurred in connection with the Ariadne, but would merely observe that it fully illustrated the danger attending the old-fashioned apparatus for lowering boats at sea, and also the danger of having ordinary boats at sea. By means of some of the new-fashioned apparatus, a boat could be lowered in a minute if a man fell overboard; but in order to pick up a man with the old-fashioned apparatus the ship must be rounded to, and the wind taken out of her sails, involving, perhaps, a loss of time amounting to some 10 or 15 minutes before a boat could be safely lowered, by which time assistance often came too late to be of any use. The first boat of the Ariadne, after it was lowered, drifted out of sight, and it was nearly three hours before the Ariadne came up with her; but they were within 200 yards of each other when the boat, not being a life-boat, was capsized, and her officers and men were struggling in the waves. In attempting to lower a second boat the accident happened—similar to many previous accidents of the same kind, involving the loss of hundreds and thousands of lives at sea, and which accidents would continue to occur so long as the present system of lowering boats continued in Her Majesty's Navy. In consequence of the old-fashioned system adopted for lowering the boat one of the falls jammed, one end of the boat fell into the water, and the men were all pitched into the sea. The men in her were indeed saved, but nearly all the crew of the first boat perished in sight and within 200 yards of the Ariadne, without it being possible to rescue them. That circumstance disclosed, as he thought, culpable neglect of duty on the part of the Admiralty; and he asked the House to declare that it was the business of the Admiralty to provide, in the event of boats being lowered, all those securities for the preservation of life which wore provided in passenger vessels, and in the large seagoing steamers of the mercantile marine. When it was known that apparatus could be provided, and that boats could

817
be constructed so as to avoid the risk of throwing all in them into the sea, whether in lowering or by their being capsized when lowered, he thought it discreditable to the Admiralty that they did not insist on the captains of Her Majesty's ships being provided with life-boats, and with apparatus for safely lowering them. This class of accidents had been the cause of endless disaster in old times, and Parliament, in consequence—with great and praiseworthy vigilance—had enacted with respect to merchant ships, and in reference particularly to passenger vessels carrying over 10 passengers, that they should have a due provision of boats, one of which should be a life-boat, according to the amount of tonnage. The enactment was no empty one; on the contrary, the provision actually made by private shipowners went beyond the requirements of the Act, in the case of all the large sea-going vessels. For example, he had obtained from an official source the names of two merchant steam vessels, both smaller than the Ariadne. The first, of 2,875 registered tons, carried no less than 10 life-boats, and the other, of 2,081 tons, carried eight life-boats, all hung to the davits so as to be ready for the most sudden emergency. No doubt various methods had been successfully invented for lowering boats at sea, and opinions might differ on the respective merits of Kynaston's, Clifford's, Simpson's, or Gladstone's, which some thought the best—he was not referring to the Prime Minister—but with regard to these different inventions, he thought that the best course to pursue would be for the Admiralty to appoint a select number of skilled officers and engineers to decide upon the fittest apparatus for the rapid lowering of boats at sea, and the best form of life-boat, and then to insist on the captains of the Queen's ships being provided with apparatus in accordance with the approved plan. The waste of life had been wanton, and it was not to be supposed that, with a landsman at the head of the Admiralty, he could understand these matters; but the naval Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman were responsible for them, and for the loss of life that was occasioned by the neglect of these obvious precautions. He therefore asked the House to adopt this Resolution, and to
818
approve—what no one surely could deny—that it was the duty of the Admiralty to avail itself of the apparatus best calculated to prevent such lamentable accidents as that to the boats of the Ariadne. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. GRAVES, in seconding the Amendment, said, he did so with great pleasure, and would call attention to the fact, that in the engagement of troopships it was made an indispensable condition that they should be supplied with life-boats and with Clifford's lowering apparatus; but when ships were engaged for the conveyance of seaman no such obligation was considered necessary. Now, he considered that very strange, and he wished to know why such an inconsistency existed. It was not satisfactory that, in order to attain to necessary improvements, our deficiencies should have to be exposed by calamities involving great loss of life. He was afraid that the question of life-boats was left entirely to the captains of vessels, who had a natural pride in their smart appearance, and endeavoured to avoid anything which detracted from it. Lifeboats in the ordinary shape were not picturesque, and did not look as trim as the boats usually supplied to Her Majesty's ships; indeed, he believed there was an objection on the part of captains to have life-boats, because they were regarded as "nasty, lumbering things"—terms in which they were described to him the other day on board one of our iron-clads. Possibly, the non-supply of life-boats, therefore, was not altogether the fault of the Admiralty, because there was a certain discretion left to the captains of vessels. With regard to the loss of life in connection with the Ariadne, what occurred to him on reading the account in the papers, was that it was extraordinary that the men were allowed to go into the boat without having their life-jackets on. The other day when he asked a Question on this point, no certain information could be given; but he hoped that now it would be stated why the men were allowed to get into the boats in such a sea without putting on life-jackets or belts, and what were the instructions on this head given to the captains of Her Majest's ships. He had had some experience of the extent to which the lowering of boats was facilitated

819
by the new apparatus, and he thought the suggestion that a small Committee of practical men should be appointed to consider the whole question of providing life-boats and lowering them was one well worthy the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty. With regard to the Ariadne, if ever there was an occasion on which the families of those who lost their lives in the public service had claims on the sympathy of the nation, that was one. The lives of the men had been unnecessarily sacrificed—he was not prepared to say by whom; but the families of the men had as strong a moral claim on the Consolidated Fund as the families of any men who had suffered in the service of the country on board Her Majesty's ships.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it was and is the duty of the Commissioners of the Admiralty to provide Her Majesty's ships afloat with a due supply of Life Boats, and with efficient apparatus for lowering their boats at sea in safety,"—(Mr. Bouverie,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BARNETTsaid, he had a near relative on board the Ariadne at the time of the accident, and a letter from the ship which he had received suggested one or two points on which a little explanation was desirable. He believed that originally it was intended that the ship should not go beyond Gibraltar; but his correspondent, writing after the accident, believed that the loss of the boats rendered it necessary for the vessel to go to Malta for fresh boats. But within the last few days he read in the Portsmouth intelligence of one of the papers, that one of Her Majesty's ships, which was fitting out for the Mediterranean, was to take out two cutters for the Ariadne. It was desirable that it should be known whether at such a great naval station as Gibraltar, the loss of a ship's boats necessitated the sending either to Malta or England before the ship could be supplied with others. It was inexpedient that a vessel of this size should be left without her full complement of boats. In saying that, he did not know what number she ought to have had; but it
820
appeared, from the narration of the circumstances of the accident, that when two boats had been lowered there were no more that were available at the moment, although it was possible there might have been others stowed away. He should, therefore, like to know from the Admiralty officials, what precautions had been taken for supplying the deficiencies of which he had spoken.
MR. GOSCHENapologized to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and offered him an expression of sincere regret that he had not heard the right hon. Member's speech—the explanation of which was, that there had been a Cabinet Council that afternoon, that after the Council meeting he returned to the Admiralty for Papers and details relating to this case which were not procurable before, and he had thought it impossible that the matter could come on so early. In the short debate two questions had been raised—the supply of life-boats and the best apparatus for lowering them. The House might rest assured that the Admiralty had not been indifferent about the supply of life-boats. In 1868, when the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was in office, most careful consideration was given to the question whether the supply of lifeboats to ships ought to be made compulsory or not. The question was carefully gone into, and there was a difference of opinion among the members of the then Board, and the opinion of those who thought that the supply of special life-boats should be made compulsory was overruled by those who thought it best that the captains of vessels should ask for them. The matter, therefore, did not rest either with the late or the present Board of Admiralty. In 1865 a large supply of life-boats was ordered to be constructed, so that they were kept on hand, provided they were asked for by captains. These officers objected to them, not because they thought them "lumbering things," as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had said, but because they were not so useful for other service as the cutters which were otherwise supplied. He quite admitted that this was a matter for grave consideration, and he would undertake that the matter of compulsory supply should be re-considered; that the decision of 1868 should be reviewed; and if on further investigation it appeared to

821
be necessary that the Admiralty should take the responsibility of supplying lifeboats. There was every disposition on the part of the Admiralty to supply them; but they had not forced them on captains who preferred cutters. There was a difference between the Navy and the merchant service with regard to the precautions taken on board for saving life; the precautions were very much greater on board men-of-war than they were in the merchant service. With every fresh watch a separate crew was told off to man the life-boat; that was part of the regular routine of the ship; the matter was so organized that in one or two minutes boats were lowered, and generally a successful attempt was made to save life when men fell overboard. There was a liability to these accidents on board men-of-war; consequently, the saving of life was always uppermost in the minds of officers; their organization for the purpose was exceedingly good; and hence such accidents as this, which they now deplored, were very-rare in connection with Her Majesty's ships. That brought him to the question which the hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded to—of the supply of life-belts. There was in the official Correspondence nothing which showed what was done on this occasion with regard to life-belts; but he had seen a private letter from a young officer of the Ariadne, which stated that the belts were thrown into the boat while she was being lowered. The men did not stop to put them on, so eager were they to rescue their comrades. With regard to the best apparatus for lowering boats, his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had alluded to several kinds from which a choice ought to be made. As a matter of fact, there was an order of the Admiralty that Kynaston's disengaging hooks were to be supplied to every ship in the Navy which had not got Clifford's apparatus. The rule was, that every ship should have Kynaston's hooks, unless the captains preferred Clifford's apparatus. Hon. Members might perhaps ask why the Admiralty did not select one of the two systems as the best, and apply it to all ships. The fact was, there was some vessels to which Clifford's apparatus was more applicable, but it was not successful in the case of the heavy boats belonging to the larger ships. Then, as his hon. Friend the
822
Secretary to the Admiralty stated a week ago, there was a strong feeling entertained by many officers that Clifford's apparatus had failed in those ships in which it had been tried; and, indeed, it seemed to have failed in large ships which had higher sides and heavier boats than merchant vessels. So far, however, from it being true that the Admiralty had not taken pains to supply the ships of the Royal Navy with the best boat-lowering apparatus, the fact was that no subject had engrossed more of its attention. It appeared from the records that the question had been examined by successive Boards of Admiralty. They had received reports from naval officers, and after that careful consideration which the hon. Member for Liverpool now said the subject required, they selected Kynaston's hooks. [Mr. BOUVRIE, interposing, inquired whether that was a lowering apparatus?] He (Mr. Goschen) said it was not; but that the hooks were used to prevent the accidents which might happen to the ordidary lowering apparatus without them. It was proved by experience that these hooks, when applied to the ordinary lowering apparatus, were superior to Clifford's apparatus. He had before him reports of a number of cases in which Clifford's apparatus had failed, and it had become necessary to lower a second boat with Kynaston's hooks applied to the ordinary lowering gear. Of course, the House would not expect him to go into a description of the comparative merits of the various plans which had been devised; but he could assure the House that the subject not only had been examined, but was now being examined from day to day. Indeed, during the last two months new inventions had been under trial in order to ascertain whether further improvements could be effected. In his opinion, no case of negligence could be made out against the Admiralty in regard to the supply of either the one or the other of these apparatus. They had left an option as to whether life-boats should be applied, and captains also had the option of supplying themselves with Clifford's apparatus, instead of Kynaston's hooks. As far as that option was concerned, he admitted the Admiralty had taken a course to which objections might be raised; but he denied that the Admiralty had been indifferent in this

823
matter, as, in point of fact, every exertion had been made to test the best gear which could possibly be devised. He admitted the immense importance of the question, and he should feel obliged if his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, or any other hon. Member who was conversant with shipping matters, would assist them in forming a correct judgment upon it. It was, of course, necessary to be guided by technical and professional advice, and it was impossible for him to express any judgment of his own as to the superiority of one apparatus to another. He agreed it was the duty of the Admiralty, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, to provide efficient boat-lowering gear for ships; but the Amendment implied that that duty had been neglected, which was not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, he (Mr. Goschen) would undertake that the matter should be further investigated, and that every effort should be made to obtain the opinions of naval officers and other competent judges as to what changes it was desirable to make in the boat-lowering gear supplied to Her Majesty's ships.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that as no naval officer rose to address the House, he, although a civilian, would venture to make a few remarks. He thought that an inordinately long time had been taken for considering a question of life and death, for, as his right hon. Friend had admitted, this question, which involved the lives of our seamen, had been under the consideration of the Admiralty since the year 1868, though he added that the last two Boards of Admiralty bore no responsibility in the matter.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had distinctly stated that both the present and the last Boards of Admiralty were responsible.
MR. KINNAIRDreplied that at last then we had fixed the responsibility somewhere. [Mr. GOSCHEN: Yes.] The Admiralty, however, had taken the strange course of leaving it optional for each captain to say whether he would have a life-boat or not. Was that fair when every merchant vessel was compelled by law to carry a life-boat? The right hon. Gentleman then took credit for the Admiralty, because the instructions given to the captain of every man-of-war contained a clause that a watch should be told off purposely to go into
824
the life-boat, which life-boat, however, was not always on board.
MR. GOSCHENwas afraid that, coming into the House late, he was rather flurried, and that he could not have made himself understood. These crews were told off to man the cutters, which were practically life-boats, and which continually were the means of saving life.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, his impression was, that the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "life-boat." After all that had been said of late about the Admiralty, it was clear we had not yet got to the root of the difficulty. He concurred with what the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentick) said the other day as to the inadvisibility of placing a civilian at the head of the Admiralty, for he believed the affairs of the Navy could not be properly administered except by a man who was thoroughly acquainted with the service.
MR. R. W. DUFFwanted to know whether the Ariadne was fitted with either Kynaston's hooks or Clifford's lowering apparatus, as he believed was ordered by the Admiralty regulations? The casualty, however, appeared to have been due not to the want of life-boats, but to a fault in the hanging, in consequence of which the boat could not be disengaged from the ship; and he therefore concluded those regulations had not been complied with. He would ask whether that were so, for while emigrant and merchant vessels were compelled to carry proper life-saving apparatus, the country had a right to complain if those precautions were entirely neglected in the Royal Navy. A Committee should be appointed by the Admiralty to decide which of the two principles referred to was the best, and that having been done, there ought to be a permanent order that no British man-of-war should leave the hands of the inspecting officer without being fitted with the apparatus selected. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the matter under the notice of the House.
MR. G. BENTINCKremarked that the question raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would, after the sad event which had recently occurred, be considered with great interest by every man in the country. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty showed distinctly that the casualty to

825
which he had adverted was traceable, to a certain extent, to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. The naval members of that Board, he said, had no responsibility. That was just what he (Mr. Bentinck) complained of. The result was, that upon all professional questions the responsibility rested on a man who, be his talents what they might—and he was not now speaking in disparagement of those of the right hon. Gentleman—was perfectly incompetent to give an opinion on the subject. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) had complained it was left to the option of a captain as to what description of apparatus should be employed. [Mr. KINNAIRD: And whether there should be a life-boat or not in the ship.] With regard to that point, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought the best thing under the present constitution of the Board would be to leave the matter to the option of the captains, and not to interfere with them at all. If the matter was left to a practical seaman, he would prepare the best means of saving life that was in his power. He did not think a fair comparison could be drawn between the requirements of merchant ships and men-of-war, because the boats were required to perform different services. What was good in the case of a merchant vessel might not be good if applied to the boats of a man-of-war. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked the House to vote that it was the duty of the Admiralty to provide Her Majesty's ships afloat with efficient apparatus for lowering their boats at sea in safety. He feared that the result of any interference on the part of the Board would be a repetition of the casualties and misfortunes to which the present system had mainly contributed; and he hoped before the end of the Session to be able to test the opinion of the House in a substantial manner, as to whether a practical seaman ought not to be placed at the head of the Admiralty.
MR. NORWOODremarked that no merchant vessel carrying passengers was allowed to leave port without a properly found life-boat, which was to be used for no other purpose but the saving of life. The Board of Trade Inspector required that life-boat to be in perfect order, or he would stop the vessel; the seamen were required to be drilled in the lowering and management of
826
the boat; and if the shipowner allowed his vessel to go to sea without the lifeboat on board, he would be liable to prosecution on a charge of misdemeanour, and incur severe penalties. That was the law as regarded merchant vessels, and yet the Admiralty had been considering for the last four years whether it was desirable to enforce similar regulations in the Navy. Last year, when the Merchant Shipping Bill was under discussion, it was proposed that it should be extended to the Royal Navy; and though he differed from that view then, the events of the last few months had changed his opinion, and he now thought that it would be advantageous if Her Majesty's ships were placed, not only under the clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act, but under the regulations of the Board of Trade. Indeed, he was not quite sure whether it would not be advisable to authorize Lloyd's surveyors to examine every ship of the Royal Navy.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he rose for the purpose of repeating what had already been observed—that the Admiralty fully recognized its obligation to provide all things necessary for the safety of the men, and no money would be spared that was necessary for the purpose. The only question was, what apparatus should be supplied; and, in determining a matter of the kind, it was necessary to consider the professional advice, and not throw all the responsibility upon civilians. That point had been most carefully considered by two successive Boards of Admiralty, and the decision come to was upon the advice of naval officers of the greatest experience. There was a difference of opinion among the professional men who were consulted; and the Admiralty, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to supply those life-boats to officers who did not wish to have them. At the present moment, there was a large supply of life-boats in the dockyards, ready for any vessel for which they might be demanded, and there was no practical difficulty in the way of the supply. He now came to the question whether the Ariadne was supplied with Kynaston's hooks. When he was asked that Question the other night, he was not able to give an answer; but he might say that the orders at the dockyard were plain and explicit

827
that all vessels were to be supplied with that apparatus. He had since telegraphed to Malta for further information, and had ascertained that that vessel was not so supplied. The officers at Portsmouth were unable to say with distinctness whether that was or was not the case; but it must be remembered that the Ariadne was commissioned in 1868, and was afterwards sent with the Prince of Wales to the Mediterranean. [Mr. R. W. DUFF: Had she then neither Kynaston's nor Clifford's apparatus?] He believed not. It was, however, the explicit order of the Admiralty that all vessels were to be supplied with Kynaston's apparatus, and if any were not so supplied it was the fault of the dockyard officers or the captains of the ships. If he were to read all the reports sent to the Admiralty by naval officers, the House would have little doubt that the balance of merit was in favour of Kynaston's apparatus over Clifford's. No doubt, there were some advantages in the latter, especially for the smaller classes of vessels, but for large frigates and men-of-war, it was considered that the former was most suitable. Therefore, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that all vessels should be supplied with Kynaston's hooks unless the officers in command demanded Clifford's apparatus instead.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was surprised that the obligatory precautions for saving life in merchant vessels had not been taken in the case of the Navy. He had frequently seen merchant ships detained at Gravesend on a fair wind, simply because her life-boats were not ready; and yet a man-of-war was allowed to go to sea without lifeboats. He did not think that a captain having 300 or 400 men on board should be allowed any option in the matter. He did not wish to blame the present, or any other First Lord; but he trusted the Admiralty would lay down a strict rule, that no captain should go to sea without life-boats and proper lowering apparatus, and insist upon that rule being carried out.
MR. MUNTZthought this debate proved there was something rotten in the state of Denmark, as the speech of the Secretary of the Admiralty made matters worse than before. It appeared strange—and at the same time painful to reflect—that, while the public paid for
828
a number of life-boats to be built, those were lying in Chatham Dockyard while sailors were drowned for want of them. That had been the case always. They had been told that it was left to the option of the captains whether they would adopt Kynaston's or Clifford's apparatus. They ought to have no such option, but the Admiralty ought to decide whether the one or the other should be adopted. He did not find any fault with the present First Lord; but, as regarded the composition of the Board, it was monstrous that right hon. Gentlemen should be appointed to offices which it was impossible they could undertake with credit to themselves, however talented they might be. The misfortune under consideration occurred before the present First Lord had been translated from his former position, which bore no resemblance whatever to that he at present occupied; but whatever his assiduity and soundness of judgment, it was impossible he could manage the Department without some misfortune—more or less the result of his want of naval experience. They were told that the Admiralty ordered certain things to be done, and that those things had not been done. What would be the case elsewhere? What would have been the consequence if the Megæra, for instance, had belonged to a private firm? The fault would have been fixed on the shoulders of the right man, and he would have been summarily dismissed. The Admiralty must act in the same way. It must not pass by gross negligence, and say—"It's everybody's fault, and therefore it's nobody's fault." The fault must be brought home and the offender punished.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYasked, whether the Ariadne was not at Portsmouth for several weeks in February last? [MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, in commission.] He had put the question, because the impression left by the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty was, that for the last four years she had been continually away from England. He should like to know whether anybody at Portsmouth was responsible for what had been done or neglected to be done in the case of that vessel? It appeared that the Admiralty were driven to the extraordinary necessity of telegraphing to Malta to ascertain the state of the ship, as no one at Portsmouth could give

829
the necessary information. They might as well have telegraphed to ascertain whether she had her guns on hoard.
MR. GOSCHENasked for permission to reply, and said, that the Portsmouth officers were asked some time back whether the Kynaston hooks had been supplied to the Ariadne. Their reply was, that under the Warrant of 1868 there had been no demand and no supply of Kynaston's hooks, and that the Ariadne had not since returned into their hands, having been in the First Reserve. When a ship was put into any other than the First Reserve, the whole of her stores were gone through; and she was supplied afresh with every requisite. In other cases, it was the duty of the captain to say whether or not he had every requisite; but the officers of the dockyard would be responsible only, if the Ariadne had been put into their hands. The answer from Portsmouth being inconclusive, the Admiralty sent to Malta, because the hooks might have been put on board before 1868. In case the answer should be unsatisfactory, an investigation would be instituted, and all persons implicated would be called to account for the omission or neglect, if any. In reply to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), he said the Admiralty would gladly appoint a departmental Committee, and bring in practical men, shipowners and others, from outside to decide upon the question of supply of life-boats, and the best lowering apparatus. The question was rather one for a departmental Committee than a Committee of the House of Commons.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that what he suggested was, that the Committee should be independent of the House, and should consist of skilled professional men, with an admixture of the lay element. If the right hon. Gentleman assured him that such a Committee should be appointed he would not press his Motion.
MR. GOSCHENexplained that the right hon. Gentleman had gone beyond what he said. The Admiralty did not shirk responsibility. The Committee would report to them, and they would have the responsibility of deciding. After that investigation, and after further inquiries, he should be prepared to state whether the Admiralty considered one apparatus should be invariably used, or
830
whether for different ships different apparatus should be adopted.
COLONEL NORTHasked whether their Report would be laid upon the Table of the House, as he considered it highly important it should be?
MR. W. FOWLERwas sure we should never see the end of these disasters until a stop was put to the extraordinary practice of placing at the head of technical departments men totally ignorant of the profession they essayed to control. He therefore entirely concurred in the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read) and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), that it was not proper to place a civilian at the head of the Board of Admiralty. Such a thing would not be tolerated in any other profession. Last year the Minister for War was ably assisted by a military man; but that hon. and gallant Gentleman having been appointed to a permanent place at the War Office, he had been succeeded by one who had no knowledge of military matters. It would be absurd to appoint any hon. Member, not a lawyer, however clever he might be, to the office of Lord Chancellor, and he thought it was not less absurd to appoint the President of the Poor Law Board to the chief office at the Admiralty. He fully recognized the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, and he objected, not to the individual, but to the system. It was a monstrous one, unworthy of a great and intelligent nation.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he must protest against the view propounded by the hon. Member who had just sat down. It was contrary to the Constitution of the country that they should expect that the headships of Departments should be conferred exclusively upon practical men. If it were decided that there might be only a sailor at the head of the Admiralty and only a soldier at the head of the Army, the House of Commons would find itself occasionally placed in a position of considerable difficulty. They did not find that an engineer was placed at the head of the direction of a railway company, nor were the general body of the directors expected to be conversant with gradients and familiar with the making of a railway. They took the opinion of professional men upon such points, and

831
applied it according to their own judgment. Such was, he contended, the principle which had prevailed, and should continue to prevail, in the selection of the heads of Government Departments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—RECRUITING FOR THE ROYAL ARTILLERY—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHrose to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that several regiments have received orders to send fifty volunteers to the Royal Artillery, and that no volunteer is to be under five feet seven inches in height, and not less than thirty-four inches round the chest? The late Franco-German War had proved that the most important branch of an Army was the Artillery, and no doubt the men to be procured to serve in that branch should be high-class men, but it was an unprecedented thing to select them from the Line regiments. Hitherto, volunteers from the regiments had been drafted into others; but there were no conditions as to the height, width, or girth of the men volunteering, the only condition being that they should be of good character. He had yesterday received a letter from a distinguished officer holding high rank in the Artillery, who said that the transfer of men from Line regiments to the Artillery was a false move, not for the benefit of nor agreeable to either service; that if the recruiting for the Artillery were properly conducted there would be no scarcity of men, as the inducements offered were quite sufficient without robbing the Line regiments of their best men; that the Artillery would rather recruit for themselves, and bring the men up in their own way to their own work; that going round the Line regiments touting for volunteers for another service at higher pay was a bad principle to adopt, unsettling the men, and leading to the disappointment of those who were chosen, when they found that their new work was harder than, and of a different character to, the work they had been previously used to; that the Artillery did not wish to create the ill-feeling that would be occasioned by robbing the Line regiments of their best men; and that though they wanted men, they had no doubt they could get plenty for themselves,
832
if they were allowed to go about it in the right way. In point of fact, the system which now appeared to have been introduced was the very system which led to the ruin of the French Army. In France the best and smartest men of the Army were picked out for the crack corps, and the Guards; and the result was that the Line regiments dwindled away to nothing. He protested against a system which, if it were carried out, would cause universal disgust throughout the service. The Royal Marines had a separate recruiting system of their own, and he did not see why the Royal Artillery should not also have a separate recruiting system. It was most unfair when the officers of Line regiments had taken considerable trouble to make their men smart, that those men should be offered higher pay to go into another corps.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he hoped he should be able to comfort his hon. and gallant Friend by the explanation that the recruiting of the Royal Artillery to which he had referred, arose simply from the fact that the Line regiments were at the present time in excess of their complement, and it had, therefore, become necessary to reduce their number. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman was so anxious that the Royal Artillery should be able to recruit for itself, he would doubtless be gratified to learn that the new arrangement would provide for exactly what he seemed to desire. He trusted that no regimental jealousy would prevent the Government from carrying out their intentions. The real state of the case was, that looking at the establishment for the coming year, the Government found that the Infantry was above, while the Artillery was below, its estimate, the estimated number of the latter having been increased by 5,000 during the past year, the whole of which had not been supplied by recruiting; and therefore they determined, instead of altogether discontinuing recruiting for the Line, which would have had a deleterious effect upon that force, to invite volunteers from regiments which were above their estimated strength for the Artillery. The result had been that whereas the Artillery last year was 1,500 below its estimate, 887 of that number had been supplied by this means.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £37,170, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that the accommodation given to Members of the House of Commons when they were summoned to the House of Lords was of the very scantiest description. They were penned up like so many sheep, and were subjected to much discomfort. He thought that such a state of things was disrespectful to the House of Commons. He would also remind the Committee that, this being the first Vote, if hon. Members were anxious to effect a reduction in the expenditure, they must examine with care the details of the Estimates, and that now was the time to try and reduce them by pointing out the particular items which were extravagant.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £40,899, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
MR. BOWRING, after expressing his appreciation of the extreme ability with which the hon. Gentleman who now presided over their Committees, discharged his duties, and his regret that he was about to retire from the office which he so worthily filled, said, that when the Vote was before them last Session, he had taken occasion to remark that the salary of the Chairman of Committees was most inadequate to the services performed, especially when compared with the salary paid to the corresponding officer in the House of Lords. The Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received a salary of £2,500 a-year, and he had moreover a complete staff of assistants under him, including a Counsel at a salary of £1,500 per annum, an Examiner of Standing Orders at a salary of £800 per annum, and a Clerk at £110 per annum, making a total of £4,910 per annum; while the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, who had no staff directly under him—although he knew that he had a claim upon a portion of the time of that excellent public servant
834
Mr. Rickards, Counsel to the Speaker—only received a salary of £1,500 per annum. The duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means were of a very arduous nature, frequently occupying eight or nine hours a-day in Committee of Supply or in Committee on Public Bills, in addition to his duties upstairs on Private Bills and on the Court of Referees. He had, moreover, of late years had conferred on him the dignity of Deputy Speaker; and, therefore, he (Mr. Bowring) trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the advisability of increasing the amount of the salary that the holder of that office received, by means of equalizing it with that assigned to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords on the first occurrence of a vacancy in the latter office, so that the two Chairmen should each receive £2,000 a-year. He also wished to enter his protest against the present system, under which the officers of the House, unlike those of the House of Lords, were prohibited from entering the House to deliver to Members letters and messages from their constituents, so that they frequently did not reach their hands until after the lapse of several hours. With respect to the item of £500 a-year to the Clerks who took the divisions, he wished to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the duty had been performed in the present Session, there having been hardly any discrepancies between the Returns made by the Tellers and those of the Clerks.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the House of Commons had very properly to check the Votes prepared by the Government, but he was not aware that it was their duty to find fault with the Government for their Votes being too low. At any rate, he would remind the hon. Member that from information which had been received, it was not improbable that a new Chairman of Ways and Means would shortly be appointed; and he would suggest that, before the amount of the salary attached to that office was increased, it would be as well to ascertain whether the Gentleman who was to be appointed to discharge the duties which had hitherto been so admirably performed was worth more than the present holder of it. If the salary of the Chairman in the other House was too high it should be reduced, and the

835
salary of the Chairman of Committees in this House had hitherto proved sufficient.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhad long thought the duties of the office which the Chairman had held with so much credit were too arduous for a single person. Might not the work be divided, the conduct of Private Business being separated from the Chairmanship of Committees of the whole House? Such a step would ensure full attention to the Private Business, and the second Chairman might occasionally preside over Private Bill Committees, which he would do more efficiently than amateur Gentlemen who often undertook that duty. He did not expect the Government to give an off-hand answer on this point; but in default of any different system of conducting Private Business, a division of the work was worthy of consideration.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKheld that if an office was paid at all it should be paid respectably, and he regarded the Chairman's salary as inadequate to the work which he performed. Men of business would regard a salary of £1,500 for duties which involved the working both night and day as a scurvy remuneration. Either salaries in other Departments were too high, or this was too low. He regretted the Chairman was about to vacate the office, for, having filled it as long as he himself had been a Member of the House, he had a feeling of "first love" towards him.
MR. RYLANDSbelieved that the salaries in other Departments were too high. Hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench were discharging their natural function in pressing the Government to increase the expenditure. He concurred in all that had been said as to the services performed by the present Chairman; but the office was one the dignity and honour of which did not depend on £300 or £400 more or less. If a salary of £2,000 would secure higher services that would be a reason for raising it to that sum; but he hoped the Government would not alter an arrangement which had for many years secured a succession of Chairmen of distinction and ability.
SIR HARRY VERNEYremarked that the Private Business had of late so increased as to press unduly on the Chairman. It would be a great loss to the
836
House if the Chairman retired, and, nothing but the heaviness of his duties having probably disposed him to do so, he would suggest that his services might be retained if a second Chairman were appointed to conduct the Private Business. Private Bills sometimes raised questions affecting millions of money, and he was sure their promoters would scout the notion of cutting down the expense, if by more adequate provision the work could be more satisfactorily discharged.
MR. COLLINS, in common with other hon. Members, regretted the prospect of losing the Chairman's services. It must be remembered, however, that during the last 10 or 15 years the Private Business had sensibly diminished. The Provisional Order system disposed by Public Bills of many undertakings, which were formerly the subjects of private measures, the completion of our railway system had lessened the number of Railway Bills, and the appointment of Standing Referees had relieved Members of a disagreeable function. Salaries, moreover, were not to be measured by what gentlemen would earn in commercial positions. The Prime Minister was not paid £5,000 as an estimate of the value of his services, but rather as an honorarium. Salaries were given because Gentlemen entrusted with the business of the country had to bear certain additional expenses, and it would be recollected that Lord Russell had stated he was never so poor as when he was Prime Minister, in receipt of the stipend attached to the office. Our institutions were not yet so Americanized that the payment of public functionaries had been degraded into an £ s. d. affair, for it was still deemed an honour to serve the Crown or the country. If there were a difficulty in obtaining men of ability to sit in Parliament, the payment of Members would have to be resorted to; but as long as there was an ample supply of gentlemen ready to act as Members, Ministers, or Chairmen of Committees, he protested against their being made mere stipendiaries.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHconcurred in much that his hon. Friend had just said, and thought there was no function which the House was less capable of exercising than the assessing of salaries. The House might complain, indeed, of salaries being too high, but it could scarcely raise the

837
question whether they were too low. He hoped that any Gentleman occupying the position which the Chairman had so worthily filled, if he thought the salary too low, would frankly say so, and the same remark applied to the Speaker. Members of the House could hardly say what the salary ought to be. If the salaries of Ministers of the Crown and others were to be discussed in the House, opinions would be so various that a decision would with difficulty be arrived at, and it was better to leave the question to those who framed the Estimates.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £46,269, to complete the sum for the Treasury Department.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHcalled attention to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Formerly there was employed a counsel to the Home Office, but three years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it would be convenient that, instead of that officer being specially attached to the Home Office, there should be a Parliamentary Counsel at the service of the whole Government, through whose hands all the Bills promoted by every Department of the Government should pass. Partly in consequence of that change, the salary was raised from £2,000 to £2,500; but it had now reached £3,000 a-year, and there was an assistant counsel and an assistant, making the cost over £5,000 a-year. He had no objection to the amount, for the work of drafting bills increased yearly, but he found that the Home Office had returned to the old practice of having a counsel of its own. Some explanation should be given, and he should like to know whether the gentleman receiving £1,000 a-year as counsel to the Home Office resided in his own chambers in Lincoln's Inn?
MR. BRUCEsaid, three years ago it was found necessary to obtain proper supervision of the drafting of Bills, and Mr. Thring was therefore taken from the Home Office, where his loss was greatly felt. For many years counsel had been specially attached to the Home Office, and he (Mr. Bruce) found it impossible to carry on the business of the Department without such assistance. Several other Departments, such as the Colonial Office, and the Local Government Board, had counsel attached to them; and those who were acquainted
838
with the multifarious business of the Home Office must know that no Department of the Government more required the aid of counsel. The gentleman referred to formerly had chambers at the Home Office; but as there was at present no room in that Department, he had temporary chambers in Great George Street, Westminster. But he had no private business.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHunderstood that the counsel to the Home Office was employed in drafting Home Office Bills.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Bills were ultimately drawn by the Government Counsel, Mr. Thring, to whom instructions were sent from the Home Office with regard to the Bills of that Department. But the counsel to the Home Office had other duties to discharge in connection with the examination of Bills.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought that too many Bills were drawn by Government. If less Bills were drawn by them, a saving of £1,400 a-year might be effected.
MR. BAXTERadmitted that too many Bills were drawn by Her Majesty's Government, but whose fault was that? How often in the course of every week in that House were Her Majesty's Government asked whether it was not their intention to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session for doing something or another? The programme of the Government, as every hon. Member knew, would occupy the House of Commons till the month of August, and yet 50, 60, or 100 Gentlemen got up in their places to urge the Government to bring forward Bills. The Government, in a weak moment like other people, consented to bring in Bills, some of which were not likely to pass into law. He would also point out that now-a-days the Government were expected to take charge of every Bill that was brought into the House affecting the public interest, and he confessed that he saw no chance of lessening the expense of that particular item. If it was the desire of the House and the country that the Government should undertake all the legislation, there was nothing for them but to consent to pay the bill. The gentleman whose duty it was to prepare Bills for the Government was by no means overpaid. There was not a harder worked servant of the Crown. In consequence of the greater proportion of the

839
legislation of the House being now thrown into the hands of the Government, the expense of drafting Bills had enormously increased, and was still increasing. This year the Estimate had been raised from £1,000 to £1,400 because of the drafting of hybrid Bills.
MR. MAGNIACasked, whether the Vote included any salaries to Crown Agents for the Colonies?
MR. BAXTERsaid, that no part of the salaries of the Crown Agents for the colonies was paid by this country.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was not satisfied that the Government "at a weak moment" should have yielded to the pressure of hon. Members. They ought not to have these weak moments.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £68,024, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked, why it was that this Vote for the Home Office was increasing every year? A great deal of the additional expense, he was aware, arose from the appointment of new Inspectors and men of that class. But those who received the benefits from such appointments ought to pay for it.
MR. BAXTERsaid, the Vote, large as it was, had increased only by £649, notwithstanding that the inspection of gunpowder works, formerly paid out of the Civil Contingencies, was this year for the first time placed on these Estimates, and also notwithstanding that the Inspectors of Factories had been largely increased.
MR. WHITWELLinquired, whether there was any probability of the Home Office dealing soon with the question of the explosion of explosive materials, seeing what a number of accidents had recently occurred? He also wished to know whether the three gentlemen mentioned as receiving pay for quasi-military appointments received pay from the Home Office?
MR. BRUCEreplied, that there was at this moment a Committee of the War Office sitting for the express purpose of inquiry into this question of explosive materials. The War Office had appointed two or three gentlemen to inspect manufactories where explosive materials were produced, and see how the business was carried on, and these gentlemen were now engaged in collecting materials for their reports. As to the second Question, a certain number
840
of military men had been appointed to the Factory Department before he took office. The fact that they had been in the Army ought not to disqualify them, but, on the contrary, might well render them fitter for the employment.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that the class of Inspectors who were appointed clearly for the benefit of persons carrying on any particular business—the Inspectors and Commissioners of Fisheries, for example, now costing about £5,000—ought not to be a burden on the public. Everyone knew that the whole object of appointing those gentlemen was to increase the revenue of the fishery proprietors, and accordingly the rental of salmon fisheries had of late years increased enormously. Again, the expense for seeing that persons employed in coal mines were not injured by carelessness, which now amounted to about £12,000, ought to be borne by the owners of the mines. The same remark would apply to gunpowder works.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he agreed with some of the observations which had been just made. The time had now come, or would shortly come, when the expense for salmon fishery inspection ought to be removed from the Votes and thrown on the proprietors. When the Legislature interfered with private property, and introduced a new system not with a view to augment the revenues of the owners, but to increase the supply of food for the people, it was only fair that the cost of seeing the system carried out thoroughly should be borne by the public. But it was only a question of time when that should cease, and he should like to know whether the Home Office had it in contemplation within a reasonably short period to remove this charge from the Votes?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKalso contended that the inspection of salmon fisheries, coal mines, and such other matters ought to be paid for by the owners and not by the public.
MR. BRUCEsaid, these charges had been imposed upon the Government by Acts of Parliament, and there was now before the House a similar Bill, as to the inspection of mines, which would largely increase the amount under this head. In all these cases, it was for the House to determine whether the cost of inspection should be defrayed out of the

841
public expenditure. As to the inspection of fisheries, there was no doubt much to be said in favour of throwing the charge upon private proprietors. Fish was rather the luxury of the rich than the food of the poor, and the inspection certainly tended to improve the property of private persons. The amount in question was small, being only £5,000, but the principle was an important one. There was a Salmon Fisheries Bill now before the House, and the House might consider whether it would not be right, in again legislating on this subject, to throw the charge of these inspections upon private individuals.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £53,485, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that there were some remarkable items in connection with this Vote to which he wished to call attention. He had called attention to a circumstance last year, respecting which he had private information, but which the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Department in that House (Lord Enfield) admitted that he was ignorant about. It seemed to him a most objectionable circumstance that the Parliamentary Under Secretary, who represented the Foreign Department in the House of Commons, should be ignorant on such important matters. The noble Lord came down to justify certain Estimates, and yet, practically, he had no control over the financial arrangements of the Foreign Office. The Parliamentary Under Secretary, he maintained, ought to be able to give the House definite and reliable information on such matters; but it appeared that this duty was managed by the Permanent Under Secretary of the Department. Now he (Mr. Rylands) desired information with respect to the following item:—"Oriental Interpreter, £400," the note to which was—"This remuneration has been hitherto defrayed out of the Vote for Secret Service." Surely there could be nothing in the position of an Oriental Interpreter which justified this secresy? If his services
842
were confidential, or were in any respect of an intriguing character, one could understand his being kept out of sight; but without explanation, one was at a loss to understand why it was necessary to pay him out of the Secret Service money. The secresy led him to suppose that this payment was something in the nature of a job. Who was this Intepreter? What were his duties? And was this a salary enjoyed by some member of the Foreign Office, in addition to a salary for services of another description? He rather suspected it would be found that this official also received a salary of some other kind. Last year he stated he had reason to believe that out of Secret Service money some pensions were paid to widows of persons who had been engaged in the Foreign Office or in the Diplomatic or Consular Service. He did not see any such entries in the Votes, and therefore he hoped to hear from the noble Lord either that the statement was incorrect, or that these payments had been dropped. He now came to the subject of his Motion, the salary of £500 to the Permanent Under Secretary of State "for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department." He thought he was justified in asking the Committee to disallow this charge. The Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs received a remuneration of £2,000 a-year, and this sum of £500 a-year was not professedly given to the Under Secretary on account of services at the Foreign Office, but was expressly an allowance for the administration of duties in connection with the Secret Service Fund. He wished to remind the House of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to the Question which was addressed to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for on that occasion, the Prime Minister stated that the sum of £500 was paid to the Permanent Under Secretary, because of the labour which he had to undergo in connection with the distribution of the Secret Service money; but the right hon. Gentleman was clearly under a misapprehension as to the nature of the duties which that distribution involved. He would quote, in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the evidence of Mr. Hammond himself and of the late Lord Clarendon,

843
both of whom were examined before the Diplomatic Service Committee. Mr. Hammond then informed the Committee that if any unusual amount of money was expended, information was asked for by the Foreign Office; but if only an ordinary sum, no such information was demanded. Mr. Hammond further went on to say that he, as Permanent Under Secretary, drew the cheques, and that he did not profess, under ordinary circumstances, to take an account of any payment unless it was unusual in amount. The evidence of Mr. Hammond was entirely confirmed by Lord Clarendon. That noble Lord told the Committee that the Political Under Secretary was not consulted with respect to the expenditure of the Secret Service Fund, or, indeed, anybody else; that he dealt with it on his own responsibility; that he did not communicate what he did with it to anyone; and that the best way of keeping the disposal of the money secret was not to talk about it. "Of course," Lord Clarendon went on to say—
"Mr. Hammond draws the cheques which I give him authority for; and I trust the public have sufficient confidence in my honour to think that I do not misappropriate any of the money."
Now, he did not mean for a moment to contend that there had been any misappropriation of the money in the usual sense of the word, although much of it might have been expended for purposes which he could not regard as advisable; but what he must contend was, that the reason which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman as a justification of giving the £500 a-year of which he was speaking to Mr. Hammond, was entirely disposed of by the evidence to which he had just referred. The salary of £500 a-year was given by Mr. Canning in 1824 in lieu of commissions, and the change was made at a time when almost every Department swarmed with men who received those commissions out of the public purse. For a number of years prior to 1824, too, the amount of Secret Service money which had been expended was enormous; and then there was greater justification for the expenditure than now, because there was greater necessity of procuring information under circumstances of great difficulty. In the early part of the century the Secret Service money amounted to nearly £200,000 a-year; but the times had greatly changed, and now the sum
844
was not only greatly diminished, but would, he hoped, be reduced still further. He wished, however, to know in whose hands the large amount of the balance of the sum estimated for, which remained unexpended, amounting to £20,000 was placed, for it did not appear in the accounts over which the Secretary to the Treasury had control. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £500, the additional salary paid to the Permanent Under Secretary.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £500, being an Allowance to the Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that before replying to the objections made to the payment of £500 a-year to the Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, he would explain the reason why it was impossible for him last year to give any more definite reply than he had given to the hon. Member for Warrington, and he would ground that reason on the evidence given by Mr. Hammond, when examined before the Diplomatic and Consular Services Committee two years ago. Upon the hon. Member for Warrington asking Mr. Hammond whether he did not think that the Parliamentary Under Secretary should have the use and control of the money voted by Parliament, the reply of Mr. Hammond was, that it was decided by the Secretary of State 45 years ago that the Permanent Under Secretary should be charged with the disbursement of the money for Secret Service, on the ground that it was better that all things connected with the Secret Service should remain in the hands of a person permanently attached to the office, rather than in the hands of a functionary liable to be changed. He was, therefore, unable now, as he had been last year, to give to the hon. Member for Warrington the information asked for, because under the rule he had just mentioned the Parliamentary Under Secretary, not being responsible for the expenditure, knew nothing about it, and could give no explanation on the subject. The Prime Minister and Lord Clarendon had declared their opinion that Mr. Hammond was fairly entitled, on account of

845
his services, to this sum of £500 a-year, and it was in accordance with a pledge given last year, that this additional salary was placed on the Estimates and not on the Secret Service Fund. The hon. Member for Warrington conceived that the services of the Permanent Under Secretary in connection with the Secret Service Fund were almost nugatory, with the exception of drawing cheques; but when Mr. Hammond said that the expenditure was checked by him and required a certain supervision, that meant something more than merely drawing cheques. It meant that Mr. Hammond had the trouble of going into the details of the expenditure, and offering an opinion to the Secretary of State. He would remind the hon. Member for Warrington of the manly way in which Lord Clarendon spoke of the objections taken to the distribution of the Secret Service money. That noble Lord observed that the interests of the national service were placed in his hands; that any failure on his part might involve the country in a great trouble; he hardly knew why he should be trusted in large matters and not in small; that all the mysterious rumours about corruption in respect to the application of the Secret Service Fund were unfounded, and he was glad to have the opportunity of saying that he had always applied the money in the way it ought to be applied. If the hon. Member objected to the Secret Service Fund, he should oppose the Vote for that purpose; but should not refuse to give this very small sum of money to the Permanent Under Secretary. With regard to the Oriental interpreter, whose name had for the moment escaped his memory, the expenditure for the salary of this official out of the Secret Service Fund went back for 50 years; but, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of Commons on the 12th of August last, it was now placed on the Estimates. Were he to mention the name of the gentleman who was Oriental interpreter, the hon. Member for Warrington would admit that the salary was given for bonâ fide services; and not only that, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he held no other appointment in the Foreign Office, that he was of great learning and ability, and of great service. With regard to the pensions to widows, he believed that all
846
the pensions were paid out of the Civil List; but he could not say whether there was any particular expenditure under this head from the Secret Service Fund. He trusted that, after this explanation, and considering that Mr. Hammond had been a most hard-working, honest public servant in the service of the Foreign Office for 48 years, the Committee would not grudge to place this salary of £500 on the Estimates.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not regard the Motion of the hon. Member for Warrington as any attack on Mr. Hammond or any person connected with the distribution of the Secret Service Fund, which he thought it was necessary to maintain. He was one who believed that they could not conduct the Foreign Service without a secret fund, and the £4,000 which was stated to have been paid for a copy of the Treaty of Tilsit was money well expended. But that was not the point now raised. The question was, who did the work? It appeared from the evidence given before the Committee, that the work was really done by the Secretary of State himself, and that all that the Permanent Under Secretary did was to draw the cheques, of course checking the amount in the same way as a clerk in a bank checked the amount he paid. As to any responsibility on the part of the Permanent Under Secretary in the payment or management of the Secret Service money, the evidence showed there was none. His object in rising was to object to the manner in which this sum was entered in the public accounts. He did not object to Mr. Hammond having £2,500 a-year, and he thought it would be a hardship to say to an old and tried public servant, at this time of day, that the amount he had received for so many years should be reduced. But the form of paying him that sum was fictitious, and introduced a vicious precedent. An hon. Friend near him had just told him that the sum, on the occurrence of a vacancy, was to be reduced to £300 a-year; but that did not do away with the falseness of the principle. They should enter in the Estimates that a sum of £2,500 was wanted for Mr. Hammond, as an old and deserving public servant, making it, however, to be understood that the exceptional £500 was personal to Mr. Hammond.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKbelieved Mr. Hammond, who had, he might say, momentous interests in his hands, deserved £2,500 a-year, and would be no party to an attempt to deprive him of it. Moreover, he was inclined to think that, while the Government employed too many persons, the pay was in some instances excessively small for the services rendered, and was not equal to that given by the Corporation of the City of London. If they wanted good men, they must give a good price for them.
MR. RYLANDSwished to say that there was no understanding entered into by him, that he would not oppose the voting of this £500 a-year if it were placed upon the Estimates. If the Government would place the sum upon the Estimates in some other form than the present, he would not say that he would vote for it, but at all events he would consider it. He was surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Finsbury backed up extravagance.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, in deference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Warrington, this charge, which was formerly paid out of the Secret Service Vote, had been placed on the Estimates, and now hon. Members, who did not object to Mr. Hammond having the money, said—"Do not take it in the form of a Vote for managing the Secret Service money, which he does, and the secrets of which he is a depository, but put it in the way of an increase of salary, and raise the salary of the Under Secretary of State of the Foreign Office to £2,500 a-year." It was not disputed that Mr. Hammond ought to have the £2,500; it was only the manner of paying him the money which was objected to. But the effect of giving him a salary of £2,500 a-year as Under Secretary of State would be to make a distinction in favour of one Under Secretary of State, and to lead four others, who were in an equal position, to seek an equal advance, so that the result of carrying the Amendment would be to impose upon the country an extra burden of £2,000 a-year.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTprotested against such a representation. Mr. Hammond got the £2,500 a-year now, and yet it was not proposed to give that salary to the other four Under Secretaries. What then, became of the argument
848
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The reason he could not support the Vote was, that it set up the bad precedent of paying a man under a fictitious pretence.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, the difference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would avoid already existed, because the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, whose position was the same as that of an Under Secretary of State, had £2,000 for five years, and then a maximum of £2,500; and yet the other Under Secretaries had not applied for any increase of salary.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Secretary of the Treasury was not an Under Secretary of State; he was at the head of the Civil Service.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 41: Majority 22.
MR. WHITWELLremarked that a change had been recently effected by transferring the superintendance of certain commercial affairs from the Board of Trade to the Foreign Office, and expressed a hope that under the new arrangement the interest of the commercial community would be duly protected.
MR. M'LARENsaid, two items in this Vote required explanation. The superintendent of the Treaty department received £800 a-year, and also, it would seem, an extra allowance of £200. Then the assistant in the Treaty department got £500, and a clerk in the same department £360 a-year; so that altogether we paid £1,860 a-year for the superintendence of treaties. Nevertheless, we had not been very successful of late in the manufacture of our treaties as evidenced by the Treaty of Washington. It was sometimes said that persons in bad health got better as soon as they dismissed their doctors, and perhaps our treaties would be better drawn if this office of superintendent were abolished. Again, it appeared that the librarian and keeper of the papers received £800; the sub-librarian, £545; and seven clerks, £1,803. He hoped the noble Lord would explain why it was necessary to pay so large a sum to the librarian and his assistants.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he had been for very many years acquainted with Mr. Bergne, the superintendent of the

849
Treaty department, who had been in the service for 40 or 50 years, if not longer, and having often worked with him in official matters, he could say from his own knowledge that he was one of the most valuable servants of the Crown in this country.
MR. MELLORremarked that hitherto the librarian had acted as Foreign Office agent; but as the latter office had been abolished, he intended to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £545.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDobserved that when Sir Louis Mallet retired from the Board of Trade certain commercial business was transferred from that Department to the Foreign Office, and that caused some changes to be made by the Secretary of State. Formerly one department embraced consular and commercial affairs, but now they had been separated, and at the head of the commercial department had been placed Mr. Kennedy, who had been 25 years in the Foreign Office. He was a gentleman who had very much distinguished himself, and within the last two years he had been engaged upon special service in the Levant in connection with the Consular Service. It would be presumptuous in him (Viscount Enfield) to give any assurance that the new commercial department would require no further addition to their present staff, because the arrangement had only been in existence two months; but there was every reason to hope that the commercial world would be satisfied with the way their affairs would be looked after by the Foreign Office. He could inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the superintendent of the Treaty department, Mr. Bergne, had been in the public service 55 years, and might, if he had so pleased, have retired from it on his full maximum salary some years ago, and therefore he was really doing the work of the country for nothing. Moreover, Mr. Bergne, who was 72 years old, had other duties to perform besides those connected with the Treaty department, and there were only two other gentlemen to assist him in the work. As regarded the librarian, his work was very heavy, but it was very efficiently done, and if hon. Members would do him the honour to call at the Foreign Office, he would have much pleasure in giving them the opportunity of judging for themselves. Two or three gentlemen had come from
850
abroad to see the system upon which our Foreign Office library records and registers were kept, and returned very much struck with the conciseness of it catalogue, and the great precision with which every volume and every paper was tabulated.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL— [BILL 48.]
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL— [BILL 48.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. FIELDEN, who had placed an Amendment on the Paper to move, That the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he was induced to give that Notice in order to prevent the Government taking up the Bill, which was one of a most important character, at an advanced hour of the night, when it would be impossible to discuss its provisions. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would not exert the power at their back by taking advantage of a thin House, at a late hour of the night, for the mere purpose of advancing the progress of important Bills like the one under notice. Full time and opportunity ought to be given to the House for the discussion of all such questions. With regard to this Particular measure, another reason why it ought to be discussed in a full House was because the country had not realized fully its provisions. The Bill had been recently discussed at meetings at Ashton-under-Lyne, Leeds, and other places, and much fault found with its provisions. Although it was not his intention to take he sense of the House on that stage of the Bill as to its rejection, he wished to call attention to several points of it to which he would offer every resistance in Committee. His first complaint was, the great power which it proposed to give to the Local Government Board to deal with matters of a local character. It appeared to him that unless the interest

  851
  of the local authorities was enlisted in the affairs of their own locality, they would never be found willing properly to discharge the duties imposed upon them. It might be said that local authorities were not always efficient; but if there was one means more likely than another to reduce their efficiency, it was the continual interference of a strict central authority. Such control would inevitably create dissatisfaction, and drive the most influential and most competent men from local boards. He also contended—considering the social habits and varied interests of the people in different parts of the country—that it would be impossible to carry out one unform system for all localities. What would work well in Devonshire might altogether fail in Lancashire. Again, what would be applicable to Sussex would, in all probability, fail to work well in Yorkshire. The endeavour of the central authority should be to lay down sound general principles and leave details to the local authority, although the local authority might not do the work as well as could be desired. If the local authority failed to act in accordance with the general principles laid down, and refused to do its duty, let it be summoned before the judicial authority and made to carry out the law; let the local authority be encouraged to cultivate an independent spirit, and to bear itself as if it were an authority, and not the mere instrument of a central department. He cordially concurred in the object of the measure. The public health of the masses of the people was of the most vital importance to the nation; and if they could secure that health by any means recognizing local authority, and without destroying local effort, no price would be too dear to pay for such a result, because sickness among the labouring classes not only threw a burden on others, but reduced the fund of wealth-producing power in the country. He was, therefore, as earnest as his right hon. Friend to promote or preserve the public health of this country, and it was in no spirit of opposition to the aim the Government had in view that he made those criticisms on the measure. He must repeat that he objected to the centralizing clauses, which seemed to him to override the authority of the district boards; for the 24th clause forbade the adoption of the Act without the
  852
  authority of the Local Government Board, and the 31st clause gave the Board power to repeal, alter, or amend any local Acts. Surely that was too large a power to give to any department.
  MR. STANSFELDpointed out that that would be done by Provisional Order, which would require the confirmation of Parliament before it could operate.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, that was very true; but everyone knew that Provisional Order Confirmation Bills were generally passed at 2 in the morning, and that when they were questioned, opposition was not received with very good grace by the Treasury bench. An instance of that had occurred in the case of the Provisional Orders relating to tramways last year. Some amendment was needed, too, in the definition of "pollution of streams and rivers," for the clause as it stood at present would need a whole army of Inspectors to carry it out; while, as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire were concerned, he believed that such a clause, if enacted, would have the effect of shutting up and stopping all the manufactories, and he was satisfied that that clause must be swept out of the Bill altogether. It must not be forgotten that manufactories were the great source of the country's wealth, and that when the question of pollution was considered, the evils of pollution should be weighed against the value of our manufactories. But the Local Government Board did not appear to be satisfied with the definition of pollution contained in the Bill, stringent as it was. It asked for powers to increase the stringency of the definition as to what constituted pollution, and proposed to do this on the advice of an Inspector, who, perhaps, had gained his experience in another part of the country. That was an arbitrary power which should not be given; nor should the Board have power to delegate its authority, as proposed by another clause, to individuals in the locality, who would probably be busy-bodies more often than not. The Bill also dealt with the water supply, and drainage, and the sewage pollution of rivers; matters which were very little understood, and upon which the country was not yet prepared for legislation. The clauses of the Bill which dealt with the question of the sewage pollution of rivers ran counter to the whole spirit of the local authorities of the country, who

  853
  were not satisfied that any measure had yet been proposed which contained within itself a solution of the difficulty. As to the clauses relating to ashes being thrown into the rivers, there was no doubt that ashes did, by their deodorizing power, purify the water into which they were cast; but he questioned whether their influence for good in that direction was not more than counterbalanced by the evil they accomplished in filling up the beds of rivers. The uniform character of the Bill was, in his opinion, another point likely to prove fatal to its usefulness. In some valley districts of the West Riding of Yorkshire it would be found absolutely impossible to carry such a measure into practice. They were told that they must throw their sewage matter on the land, and must permit it to filter through the soil before allowing the liquid to flow into the river. But the valleys to which he had referred were almost gorges; the mills being in some cases built right in by the side of the rocks, and there were no means of carrying out any such system of sewage as that in vogue at Croydon and other places. He had, without being moved by any feeling of general hostility to the Bill, endeavoured to lay before the House the views which he had arrived at by practical experience, and by a consideration of the question extending over many years. While he should be glad to render all the assistance in his power in the consideration of the important clauses for the supply of water and of gas, and for the cleansing of cottages, with a view to the passage of a measure which in these respects was calculated to promote the welfare of the community, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman did not remove from his Bill the clauses relating to the pollution of rivers, there was a great risk of the measure being stopped in its progress through Parliament; and if it escaped the danger which thus threatened it, and became law, it would prove a dead letter in its application to many districts of the country.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The new Conservative motto which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has given to his party—Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas—does not appear to be a very stimulating cry, if we are to judge by the state of the Opposition benches. I agree,
  854
  however, with the right hon. Gentleman that the health of the population ought to be one of the most serious questions which can engage the attention of the Legislature. If any hon. Member, by way of preparation for this debate, has seriously attacked the 15 main Acts and 10 subsidiary Acts which form our sanitary legislation since 1848, he will appreciate the labours of the two right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Stansfeld and Sir Charles Adderley), whose Bills are before us this evening. The Government Bill deals mainly with administrative construction of authorities; while that of the President of the Royal Sanitary Commission chiefly relates to the consolidation of sanitary law. Undoubtedly sanitary legislation cannot be satisfactory until the disjointed members of its past enactments are brought together by a consolidating law. But as last year we established a central sanitary administration, it will be some advance if this year we organize a provincial administration of health. The country may not be conquered by such a proceeding; but if after having built the citadel, we surround it with outworks, we certainly add to the strength of our position. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) has force in his objection, when he says that the Government Bill only adds another law to laws already too numerous. But the proposed law is devoted to the formation of local administrative structures, which either do not exist at all or have fallen into a ruinous condition. So if we pass with Amendments the 90 clauses of the Bill of the President of the Local Government Board this Session, we shall do a good work, and can come with increased zest next year to the 437 clauses of the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire. Last Session we united into one Board the central administration for Poor Law and Health Law. There was ample justification for our doing so; because Franklin's celebrated aphorism—"Public health is public wealth" has a deep meaning. Health and poverty, in their public relations, are connected by an inverse ratio, for as the one augments, the other diminishes. This Bill, like the Act of last year, maintains the association, though not always consistently. Thus, though the Guardians of the Poor in the country districts become

  855
  the sanitary authorities, the ordinary civic authorities in towns assume the health functions. Outside this House the President of the Local Government Board has been much censured for this difference; but, though it lacks uniformity, it is practically necessary and convenient. Large towns are the characteristic features of this country, and form the urgent motive for speedy sanitary legislation. At the beginning of the century only about 50 towns exceeded a population of 10,000; now 192 do so. Then there was no town in England and Wales, except London, which had upwards of 100,000 inhabitants; now there are 17 of these teeming cities. You cannot treat such large towns as these, except through their own civic authorities, for they have outgrown management by parishes. Those towns increase by 18 per cent in population every 10 years, and require vigorous sanitary administration to keep them in order. Take the case of London as an illustration. We have spent enormous sums in metropolitan sewerage, and yet a ring of houses has grown round and external to it, with a population of 630,000, and which has increased 50 per cent in 10 years; and the whole of this outside ring has no sanitary purification for its extended area. You cannot deal with such concentrated accretions of population by a mere parochial system adequate enough for rural districts. No doubt the creation of separate urban authorities lands us in some singular anomalies. The "local Board districts" are to be made urban, and yet nearly 200 of them have populations under 3,000. But then, if they do not perform urban duties with efficiency, they may be dissolved and merged by the 76th clause of the Bill. The rural Boards which are created by this Bill have less power than the urban Boards. But they have to combat evils of less magnitude. Rural districts have, on the average, a death-rate of 15 in 1,000; while towns have one of 24 in 1,000. Though rural districts increase in population absolutely more slowly than towns, still they do so at a greater ratio. For while the towns between 1851 and 1861 increased 19 per cent in population, between 1861 and 1871 they augmented only 18 per cent; in other words, the ratio of increase had rather diminished. But in the first period country districts had increased 4 per
  856
  cent in population, while in the second period it had augmented by 7 per cent. That rapid rate of increase shows that some transforming causes must be in operation, and these clearly are, that hamlets become villages, and villages are transformed into towns. I now turn to the Bill of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board, to see whether he has grasped this fact, and I find that his 25th clause amply provides for rural Boards being changed into urban Boards. So, after testing in various ways whether the Bill has been well considered, I come to the conclusion that it has, and deserves from us a general support. My right hon. Friend may be surprised to hear this from me, for it has been my duty to introduce to him various influential deputations from important associations, which have not expressed unmixed satisfaction with his labours; and I reserve to myself the right of moving or supporting certain Amendments in Committee. The influential sanitary associations to which I have alluded have especially urged on my right hon. Friend the desirability of having an intermediate county authority between the central administration and the local Boards. I admit at once that a county is not a natural area either for sanitary or Poor Law administration. As a fact, out of 650 Unions 200 overlap county boundaries. Nor are drainage areas coincident with them. Nevertheless, counties are popular divisions, and were recognized as such in the Bill formerly introduced by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen), when he was at the head of the Poor Law Department. The main advantage of such a large area as a county for local administration is, that by it we could secure a much higher class of medical officers of health and of engineers than we can attain by small areas. The appointment of medical officers of health is one of the most important parts of the measure. It provides that they are to be appointed both by urban and rural Boards, and it suggests that the supply may most readily be had from the class of Poor Law medical officers. They are to be appointed and wholly paid by urban Boards, who may dismiss them at pleasure; but rural Boards, being aided in payment by the Government, can only dismiss them with its consent. These medical officers have most important

  857
  duties to perform—duties which require much special knowledge, much firmness, and thorough independence. They have to inspect the sanitary conditions of factories and schools, of streets and thoroughfares, and of the dwellings or lodging-houses of the labouring classes. They have to keep a watchful eye on the working of the main and house sewerage. They are to look after all nuisances likely to affect public health. They must attack the wealthy manufacturer when he pollutes the river with the refuse of his works; and they must equally remonstrate with their own masters—the civic authorities—when they pour the sewage of the town into the stream, regardless of those who live lower down in its course. They have to search out nuisances in dwellings—from the defective drain in the palace, which breeds fever, to the accumulations in the dust-bins of the cottage, which poisons the air around it. They have to watch the markets, from the shambles of the wealthy butcher to the stall or barrow of the poor costermonger. In fact, they have everywhere to track out disease, associate it with its causes, and watch not only the death-rates, but the variations of sickness among the population. The medical officer is, in fact, a public inquisitor, requiring much knowledge and tact in the execution of his duties. Who are the sinners to be delivered over to this public inquisitor? The vestryman butcher who sells diseased meat at his shambles; the vestryman cottage-owner who has ill-constructed cottages for the poor; the town councillor who has his mills on the streams; these are the men who sin against health, and they are the people who appoint, pay, and dismiss the inquisitor of their sins. And to what class of medical men does the Bill look to for so much knowledge and independence? To the Poor Law medical officers. That is a meritorious, hard-worked, and poorly-paid class of medical men; but they are already borne down by the extent of their curative duties. If you add extensive preventive duties to these, and even pay them well for the new work—though the Bill is by no means explicit as to payment—what chance is there that both the curative and the preventive functions will be efficiently executed? It would have been possible, by uniting local districts into a county area, to have secured the services
  858
  of a medical man who relinquished the cure of disease in order to have no conflict between the interests of his patients and those of the public; for a medical man must be well paid to secure independence of action when he devotes his whole time to the health of communities instead of to the health of individuals. But the Bill does not offer us such independent officers of health. Still I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will admit that our reasons for wishing them are strong, and that in Committee he will introduce Amendments, in order to assure us that the officers appointed will possess, or will soon acquire, knowledge of the health of communities, because that is a very different thing from the health of individuals. For though it is true that the health of a community depends upon all the moments of health of the individuals constituting it, still no single individual has within his own power the regulation of his own health, irrespective of the co-operation of the public; and the knowledge requisite to elicit the action of individuals upon communities, and the reflex action of communities on individuals, forms the subject of hygeine, which requires long and patient study, as it is altogether outside, and is rarely embraced in the training of a medical man for the curative art. If I have made myself intelligible, it follows that three conditions are required for the efficient performance of the duty of a medical officer of health. First, knowledge of public health; second, experience in the application of that knowledge; and, third, independence of all local vested interests. Now, I regret to say that not one of these conditions is to be found in the scheme of this Bill. I hope, at least, that the Amendments of the Bill will offer a better position and pay to such Poor Law medical officers as study and pass examinations in the subject of hygeine. Unless that is done, it does not require a prophet to foretell the failure of this important section of the Bill. The fact that there is no security for knowledge and experience of public health in the local officers to be appointed renders it doubly necessary that we should scan the relations which are to subsist between the local and central administrative powers. When we passed the Local Government Act last Session, at early hours in the morning, there

  859
  were not wanting warnings, among our unreported debates, that these relations must be closely watched. As the principle of this Bill is to discard the intermediate county authority, and to bring the local Boards in immediate and direct relations with the central Board, we ought to know how that is to be effected. The Bill gives us no explanation, possibly for the reason that the Act of last year gave powers for the appointment of Inspectors and other officers required by the central Board. These, in fact, become an absolute necessity, because as local medical officers need not under this Bill possess knowledge of public health, and certainly cannot have independence of action, they must be used chiefly as collectors of information, which must be digested and made useful to the public through central agencies. This centralization of local duties is a misfortune. It crops up in various parts of the Bill. Thus, in the 64th clause, the Local Government Board offers, and sometimes enjoins itself, to be analytical chemist for the whole of England. They invite "purchasers of any article of food or drink" in the provinces to send their articles for examination to London. They insist that potable waters and the waters of polluted streams shall be analysed as the central Board directs. This is a serious matter, for it not only affects the responsibilities of local Boards, but also the interests of science. There are few towns in the kingdom in which well-qualified analysts do not exist. Take, for example, Manchester and Newcastle. Surely an analysis executed in the laboratory of Owen's College in Manchester, or in that of the Newcastle School of Science, will be as good as one made in a London laboratory. Why should Manchester men and Newcastle men be invited to distrust their local science, when it is sufficient? Take what securities you choose for analytical efficiency in localities, but encourage rather than discourage local laboratories for local purposes. Over-centralization is always injurious, for it weakens local administration; and centralization of science is pernicious, because it prevents the diffusion and stunts the development of science in the provinces. When we see such a marked confusion in this mixture of central and local administration, you will not be surprised that we desire to know in what way the central and local
  860
  functions are to be correlated in regard to medical officers of health. The rule is plain enough that national objects should be treated nationally, and that local objects should be treated locally. The diffusion throughout the provinces of all science bearing on the health of the people should be the object of the central Board, not its concentration into a metropolitan focus. I have been obliged to give some criticisms in detail on this important Bill, but I now gladly turn from them to other parts of the measure with which I am in hearty accord. I am glad to find that it deals with the pollution of rivers, for that subject is ripe for legislation in consequence of the labours of the Rivers Pollution Commission. One of the fundamental commandments of the ancient Egyptians was—"Thou shalt not pollute rivers;" and now I trust we are about to make this a new commandment for the modern English, for the want of it has produced intolerable evils. Even in the case of the large river which washes the metropolis, and which supplies us with quasi-potable, and often with unpotable water, 660,000 human beings pour into it their daily excretœ and household garbage, before the Londoners draw it off for water supply. And yet the dirty, foul water of the Thames is purity itself to that of rivers which flow through manufacturing towns. The fact is, that individuals and communities have exercised unmitigated selfishness in regard to all our river courses; for they use them entirely with reference to their own interests, as if those below them in the stream had nothing to do with the flow of water which the bounty of nature has supplied for the use of all. And they profess to believe that the complaints of those lower than themselves in the stream are utterly unreasonable. They are the wolves who foul and muddy the stream, and who growl at the innocent lambs below, if they raise their meek eyes in complaint of their misdoings. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be firm with this part of the Bill, though its chemical language and scientific terms may appear pedantic to Members who may not have studied the Report of the Royal Commission on the Pollution of Rivers. The merit in this, as in all other parts of the Bill, is that it involves positive instead of a laissez faire legislation.

  861
  Formerly, our sanitary legislation was permissive. A local authority might adopt this or that Act if it were willing; and often it was most unwilling. Now, this Bill recognizes the right of every inhabitant of the kingdom to have pure air, pure water, and pure soil. I have said that the ancient Egyptians inculcated as a religious duty the protection of rivers from pollution; and Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, extended his sanitary laws to the air and to the soil as well as to water. Hippocrates also made these three subjects the foundation of one of his chief works. And yet here we are, with the world some thousand years older, about to enact, for the first time, compulsorily, instead of permissively, these ancient laws for the protection of our teeming populations. It would be a most unwise and responsible action for any of us, because we differ in some points of detail, to refuse our support to a measure which is based on the Report of a Royal Commission, and has received careful and honest consideration from the Government. The main requirements of sanitary law are comprehended in two words—cleanliness and ventilation. If this Bill obtain these, it accomplishes its end. The attainment is not an impossibility. If we could only secure to the homes of the working classes the same conditions of cleanliness and ventilation that we now give to the felon in the cell of his prison, at least eight years of working life and enjoyment would be added to the lives of our industrial population. The great evil with which they have to contend is not the increased risk of dying, but the certainty of living under the influence of depressing agencies, which often make labour pain and life a burden. Yet these agencies are all removable; and as this Bill will certainly remove many of them, I hope soon to see it become law.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that on that occasion, he regretted not only the deficient attendance on his own side of the House, but the general deficiency of attendance on one of the most important subjects which could come before Parliament. He had long been convinced that some legislation of the kind was an absolute necessity in the rural districts, and he was glad that the Government were determined to deal
  862
  with the question in a bona fide manner; and, further, he had himself attempted to procure the passing of a measure which would give some vitality to local bodies, and enable them to carry out Acts which, in consequence of their being only permissive in their nature, they had hitherto never enforced. The Bill of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposed to make the Poor Law Guardians the sanitary authority; but he feared that they were already overburdened with the relief of the poor and the assessment of property, and that their energies would be overtaxed if they had to deal with drainage, water, hospital arrangements, and the purification of villages. Boards of Guardians would be looked on with greater jealousy than a more strictly local body, and the Bill would be improved if committees to take the initiatory steps in the various parishes were engrafted on it. Persons elected by the ratepayers might act on the committees in undertaking the initiatory work of inspection and registration, leaving further steps to the legal or medical officers of the Board of Guardians. Local knowledge would thus be secured, and local jealousy avoided. He should, therefore, at the proper time, propose Amendments in this sense. As to sewer, and other appeals, the Bill proposed that they should be treated like assessment appeals. He could not see how that would work, for sewer rates were made on a different system to poor rates and did not come before the assessment committees. He hoped the Bill would make compulsory the appointment of a public analyst in each district, for such an officer would not only be useful with regard to existing, but to prospective, legislation. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would inform him how under this Bill village hospitals would be treated? His own opinion was, that they would be very much interfered with by clauses of the Bill.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was of opinion that this measure would be warmly welcomed in the rural districts, especially in the North of England; and he hoped that while care was taken to purify the waters of the rivers, some attention would also be given to our lakes, which were much more polluted than they ought to be; otherwise they might find that manufacturers, driven

  863
  from the banks of the streams, might fix themselves on the borders of the lakes and pour their refuse into them. At the same time, he did not wish to see the manufacturers too hardly pushed, and would point out that it was not in all cases in which acids were mixed with water that it rendered them noxious, as evinced by the fact that, in some recent experiments, a medical gentleman drank without hesitation water which contained a much larger infusion of muriatic acid than was sent into streams by factories, and which was proscribed by the 33rd clause, and yet he declared it not only perfectly healthy, but pleasant. He would also point out the fact that it was impossible to raise iron and other metals from mines without pumping out the water and tinging the various streams in the neighbourhood of mines—red hematite ore, for instance, which in rainy weather tinged all the streams. They must be careful that they did not attempt to accomplish too much, for if they did most assuredly the measure would fail. He was also of opinion that the clause conferring powers to close houses as unfit for human habitation might be usefully extended to Ireland.
  MR. DIMSDALE, being exceedingly anxious that the Bill should pass into law that Session, said, he gave a general approval to the measure, and deprecated many Amendments being made in Committee. With that view, he therefore hoped that hon. Members who had objections to the clauses would state them at once, in order that the Minister might modify them where it was possible, previously to going into Committee. His own observations would be confined to three points—the improvement of labourers' dwellings, the pollution of rivers, and the constitution of the best conceivable moral authority. With regard to the first point, the 49th clause would, he thought, meet most of the difficulties connected with the improvement of labourers' cottages, seeing that it enabled two magistrates to close any house found to be unfit for human habitation. The Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Act had done much good, in spite of the clause confining its operation to towns with a population of more than 10,000 persons, and some of its provisions might simply be transferred to this measure—especially the clause which enabled any four or more house-holders,
  864
  by laying an information in writing, to secure the inspection of any premises which they considered to be unfit for human habitation. Although he did not approve of all that had lately been said with regard to the agricultural labourers, or the character of the movement that was taking place among them, yet he was far from saying that as a class they had not some cause to complain; and if the dwellings of many of them could be raised from their present wretched state that would be a most beneficial improvement, and one for which they would have good reason to be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman. As regarded the pollution of rivers, about three weeks ago he had an opportunity of introducing to the notice of the House a special grievance of the villages and towns on the banks of the Lea, and he had the satisfaction of having been supported by every hon. Gentleman connected with the district. There were two suggestions made by them on that occasion, which were frankly and fairly met by the right hon. Gentleman, for which, on behalf of his constituents, he begged to tender his respectful thanks. In the first place, they asked for an appeal to the central authority, and that was given by the 31st clause of the Bill. The second suggestion was that there should be a fixed standard of purity. The first was an important point; but the second was still more important, for the difficulty was that they did not know to what expense they flight be put in their part of the country. Bearing upon it, the 89th clause of the Bill said that all powers given under it should be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, powers exercised under other Acts, thus making one great objection to the Bill, that it proposed new legislation before consolidating existing Acts; and until that was done people would not know to what legislation they were subjected. In this case, those who dwelt in the valley of the Lea would not know whether they would be under this new measure or under the old Lea Conservancy Act. Under the old Act there was no standard of purity, and they did not know to what to conform; he had, therefore, given Notice that at a future stage he should move the introduction of words which would bring them under the operation of this measure. It was curious enough

  865
  that two different standards of purity had been laid down by two different Commissions; the one was to be found in the Report on the Purification of Rivers, the other in that on the Water Supply; and the latter he, and those whom he represented, preferred. That standard was approved by Dr. Letheby, and other high authorities. He had received that morning a letter from Dr. Letheby, stating that the Public Health Bill of the Government was unworkable as regarded the standard of purity. At Stortford, situated on the borders of Hertfordshire and Essex, he was informed that, though the inhabitants had laid out £20,000 in dealing with their sewage by means of irrigation, it would be impossible to render the effluent return sufficiently pure to comply with the standard of purity contained in Clause 33 of the Bill. He proposed to raise the question in a definite shape when they should get into Committee, by proposing to substitute the standard laid down by the Water Supply Commission, which had been guaranteed as sufficient and efficient by the eminent chemists Dr. Letheby and Dr. Odling. Dr. Frankland had also said that if we wished to make the waters of all the rivers and streams throughout the country potable, he did not think this standard would be sufficient; but that it would, if our object was to make them safe as regarded the health of the people. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that Boards of Guardians would not be proper persons to act as sanitary bodies, because they would be likely to look at matters from a purely economical point of view, and with little consideration for the health of the people. If a health committee, consisting of two or three persons, were elected by the ratepayers, it would be very much better. It would be also very desirable to have an intermediate authority in the shape of a county Board between the local Board and the central authority; and it was very important to establish union districts for drainage purposes and to prevent the pollution of rivers. Conservancy Boards, he thought, from the narrowness of their constituent parts generally worked badly, and it was desirable to give a fair representation to all the communities which were interested in the water-shed of particular rivers. The points he had mentioned were of
  866
  great importance, and if the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to them, he hoped that a most useful reform might be carried out, and a boon granted to the working classes, which would convince them that Parliament was not neglecting their interests.
  DR. LUSHagreed with those who desired that the Bill should become law during the present Session. His chief objections to the measure might be stated in Committee; but he could not help feeling that it threw a heavy responsibility on the members of his own profession, while it did not secure to them a position of adequate honour or emolument. As to Boards of Guardians, looking at their education and other requisites, he did not think they ought to be intrusted with the authority given to them by the Bill. He had been a medical officer of a Board of Guardians, and as such had represented the deficient sanitary condition of the district under his charge; but on no occasion whatever was any representation of his ever properly attended to. He did not believe that since that time Guardians had improved in their moral sense or their attention to the sanitary wants of their several districts; and, as a rule, they were rather elected for their power of refusing relief to the poor than for their fitness in carrying out sanitary improvements. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether these persons were the best representatives of the public he could find for the purpose of carrying out this Bill; and he spoke the voice of members of his own profession generally, when he said that medical men were entirely dissatisfied with that portion of the measure. Then, again, the nomination of the sanitary inspectors devolved upon the Guardians, who were also the authorities for paying these inspectors; and there was reason to believe that, instead of selecting persons outside the sphere of their own influence, they would nominate the medical officers of their several districts, and there was nothing in the Bill which required the Guardians to pay those officers for the new duties thus devolving on them. Moreover, they would be mere servants of the Boards, and would have no power to carry out the sanitary works they thought necessary. Again, he did not like the distinction between urban and

  867
  rural authorities. The two sets of authorities must frequently come into collision, especially in the outskirts of boroughs, and the Bill contained no provision by which their respective powers might be blended in such cases. In a city or borough under proper municipal control, the sanitary arrangements might be excellent; yet around it there might be a district built over, or partly built over, with hardly any sanitary provision. As to the proposed system of inspection by the central authority, he wished to know whether it would include experts specially nominated, or was to be carried on by Poor Law Inspectors with their medical associates. In the latter case the beneficial result attained would be very small. It was highly desirable that a proper spirit should be infused into the local authorities from above, and this could only be done by a system of thorough inspection.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he was no opponent to the Bill; but, on the contrary, wished to give effectual assistance, as far as he could do so, not only in the passing of the Bill, but in working it afterwards; and he could not help regretting that a measure dealing with so serious a social question should meet with so inadequate a reception in that House. Urban and rural districts being already treated differently, he thought it would have been unwise had the Bill attempted to deal with them under one head. He remarked in the Bill the omission of any provision as to allowances from the Government. In almost all instances it was stated what amount the Government was prepared to advance, and he hoped to hear some explanation on that point. Then there would also be a difficulty on the question of the authority; for as to the sanitary authority in towns, there was no alternative but to make the best of a bad case; but the rural districts, however, presented almost a tabula rasa, and there was no reason for selecting an existing body, if a better could be devised. He had just attended a large conference of Poor Law Guardians of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, and he could assure the House that they strongly objected to functions being thrown on them for which they were not elected, and which, if faithfully performed, would bring them into collision with their neighbours. The requirements
  868
  necessary to be considered in constituting the authority were a sufficient area, that suitable duties should be imposed upon it, that there should be a uniform practice throughout the whole district, and that it should be an independent local authority that could be trusted. With regard to the first, the Poor Law Unions were an area of insufficient size, and the Guardians were not suitable persons to be charged with these duties. Next he might state that the Bill gave enormous powers to the central government; it broke down the independence of local authorities, and sapped the foundation of local government. Failure in the working of the Act was clearly contemplated, and in case of default the central government would be able to seize all the power, to make bye-laws, to take charge of the local moneys, to make rates, and to mortgage them in reference to executing new works; and all that would be done upon the authority of their own inspector. And as he understood the Bill, the orders of the central authority could be enforced by a rule of the Court of Queen's Bench, on a summary application, without giving the local authorities any room for showing cause against it. [Mr. STANSFELD: It is not the case.] He was glad to find that was not so. Still, he regarded that as an attempt on the part of the Government to seize powers which did not belong to them, and to place the powers of the local boards in the hands of an irresponsible authority, such as they had an instance of in the French Préfect, M. Janvier de la Motte. He was surprised that the Commission which sat for four years did not adopt the local authority which was before provided under the Cattle Diseases Act. That authority, which was composed of justices of the peace, must be at least as competent for the purposes of this Bill as it was for the purposes of the Cattle Diseases Act. Under that Act the local authorities were armed with all the necessary powers to carry out the law, and provision was also made which enabled them to delegate to committee or committees all or any of the powers conferred on the local authority themselves, except the power of making a rate; and he could bear personal testimony to the fact that, though the necessities of the case then were terrible, the Act worked with perfect smoothness from

  869
  beginning to end, and without a single hitch. His desire was, that the present Bill should go to a Select Committee, in order to ascertain what was the best possible form of rural sanitary authority that could be set up. He had no hostility to the Bill at all; but he did not wish to see the measure passed in a form which would give nothing but dissatisfaction, and, therefore, should not now oppose the present stage of the Bill, but when the proper time came, he should move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that while an advocate of the principle of local government, and an opponent of anything like centralization, he could not agree to the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for the subject was of such vital importance that it ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. The only fear he had in legislating on the subject was lest they should be too precipitate in any resolution they might come to. He remembered the lesson taught by the unfortunate Health of Towns Act, which was passed in 1847, and which required the people to carry out certain measures at a vast expense, which very measures they were now called upon to upset, and he hoped that in the legislation which the House was now called upon to undertake they would proceed more carefully, and be guided more by common sense than by impulse, for there was no doubt that great ignorance prevailed upon the subject, and that when one person proposed what he thought would effect a great improvement in sanitary affairs, there was not wanting others to jump up and say it was the greatest mistake conceivable. There were several clauses in the Bill as it stood which he thought would be impracticable, and many alterations would be required in them. With regard to vesting what he might call the suburban power in Boards of Guardians, he thought Boards of Guardians were very doubtful bodies to whom to intrust such authority, as they were principally composed of well-meaning but semi-educated men, many of whom were very narrow-minded. He would also suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put into his Bill certain clauses for the purpose of guarding against the adulteration of articles of food, and thereby prevent the people
  870
  from being cheated by a number of nefarious rascals. The Bill would require careful consideration, which he trusted the House would give to it, so that it might become a lasting Act of the Legislature.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that as the Bill was based on the Report of the Committee over which he had presided, he naturally wished to promote the passage of the Bill through the second reading as speedily as possible, and he believed that nobody would be supported who attempted to call in question the main proposition of the Bill—that the sanitary laws stood urgently in need of reform. When one considered the needlessly excessive mortality shown to exist in the country, the debilitated condition of great numbers of workmen, and the discomfort and demoralization to which almost all were subjected by a grossly neglected sanitary condition, it was impossible for that House to oppose or impede, on its general principle, a proposition brought forward by the Government to ameliorate that state of things. Some might prefer one plan, some another; but all agreed something must be done. He would not impede the progress of the Bill, therefore, by referring any more to his own preference for the immediate consolidation of the sanitary laws; for he believed that consolidation to be inevitable, and not likely to be delayed more than another year. The Consolidation Bill, called the Public Health and Local Government Bill, which stood last on the Paper of Business for that night, had been called a rudis indigestaque moles, and so he admitted it to be, for it was only a collection in totidem verbis of the existing sanitary Acts; and the Commission of which he was a Member left the phraseology unchanged, because they were aware of the danger of altering words on which legal decisions had been given. That Bill formed a useful collection of the whole law on the subject, omitting repetitions, reconciling contradictions, and making a few amendments and additions. The Government draftsmen could simplify the language; and he trusted that when he moved the second reading, the House would assent. To return to the measure now under discussion. It was much simplified by having for its sole object the improvement of local administration. The object

  871
  of the Act of last year was to concentrate the central supervision, which up to that time had been scattered through several Departments of the State. It had thus disposed of all questions about centralization, and it had done this so as not to give the State any power to undertake the local administration of the country; but to stimulate local administration where it was stagnant, and to give assistance when assistance was needed. This Bill would cover the whole country with some responsible local administration, and nearly all the objections raised to it referred to matters of detail to be discussed on the clauses in Committee. Of the three parts into which the Bill might be divided, the first and most material made it uniformly imperative that there should be responsible local government everywhere; the second enabled the local authorities to combine for larger than merely district purposes; and the third improved and completed some of the particular provisions for local government, which the experience of the last few years had shown to be imperfect. The first point, however—the universal provision of responsible local government—was the main principle of the Bill which they were now called upon to pass through a second reading; and nobody would hesitate to affirm that they ought not to go on with our present partial provision for local government, leaving it to the option of every part of the country, whether it would undertake the responsibilities of local government; or that they ought not to leave local administration stagnant, while the health and comfort of the people were sacrificed. It would be better to go backward rather than not to go forward. It would be a weak but intelligible proposition to sweep away the ineffectual system which they had: to complete that which they had was an intelligible and intelligent proposition, while it was neither to propose to leave things as they were, and to do nothing. The main principle of the Bill was the utilizing of existing machinery, the immediate provision of it where none existed, and the consolidation of authority where confusion existed; and recognizing that principle, corporate towns and localities having local authority under Private Bills would retain the powers which they now possessed; but towns having no such machinery
  872
  would have to obtain it by electing local boards. With regard to country places where hitherto certain functions had been referred to the Vestries, and others to Boards of Guardians, it would be enacted that the Guardians should be the responsible bodies, and upon that last provision objections had been raised. These objections were, that the Boards of Guardians would not make good rural sanitary authorities, and that the rural and urban powers of government should not be distinct. What the Commissioners felt after taking much evidence was, that the Board of Guardians was everywhere in existence, and that if they wished to supersede such a Board by some other body, such as a county Board—which must be representative, or it would not be tolerated—such a body had still to be created, and it might take years to create it; while the question would not wait. Even if it were created, it would probably, after all, not be so effective as a Board of Guardians. That Board had gradually become a good body for its own purposes; it in most places intelligently performed its present functions; and in his own county he did not know anything more remarkable than the way in which exercise had educated the Guardians for their duties, and raised them in the scale of effective citizenship. Moreover, at this very time the Guardians discharged many of the functions it was proposed to retain to them, and that was another reason for the proposed establishment of them as the rural sanitary authorities. It would involve the least alteration to adopt them, and the greatest to create a new body. Could it be expected that a county Board would bring its power to bear upon the abatement of a nuisance in a village 30 or 40 miles away from the county town where it would meet? As for its having an executive distributed into district committees, that would involve the multiplication of districts, the number of which was one of the chief objects of the Bill to reduce, for it was desirable not only to utilize, but to economize existing machinery. There was economy, as well as convenience, in taking the union area, and employing the Poor Law officials, instead of creating a new district and new officials. It would be a great point gained in efficient rural administration if all its areas

  873
  —petty sessional, highway, Poor Law, and sanitary—were made identical. The authorities might act by committees of their own body, or combine for larger purposes; but the unit should be the same for all purposes. As to having the same code of powers for rural and urban authorities, it seemed absurd they should give every village in the country all the powers necessary for managing the streets and houses of a large town, or even of smaller towns. The best way of meeting the difficulty of apportioning powers to requirement was that indicated by the Bill—namely, that when a country district became urban, it should have every facility for assuming urban powers; and, on the contrary, when a place dwindled, as some did by the removal or decline of manufactures, and became a deserted village, it might get rid of its urban powers and responsibilities, and resume those which befitted rural places. The 25th clause opened the second portion of the Bill, and provided that local Boards might unite for larger than district purposes—such as the conservancy of rivers and arterial drainage. To that provision for effective river conservancy, opposition was offered by some of the large towns in Yorkshire, which feared the prevention of polluting rivers would stop their trade. But all that manufacturers were or would be called upon to do was to take all practicable means not to poison air or water; the law did not and would not say that they should do that which was impossible, but that they should not needlessly injure their neighbours; and, as had been truly said, the more Parliament forced them to try all means, the more men had found out that there was a use for almost all supposed refuse, and that in removing an injury to their neighbours, they were actually profiting themselves. Such an objection ought not to stand in the way of a Bill like the one under notice. For many years, he had served in Committees on the subject, and he remembered many manufacturers giving evidence of the impossibility of consuming smoke in their particular case, who were now economizing the fuel they used to poison their neighbours with; and he could tell of Birmingham at this moment rendering doubly noxious its sewage by discharging into it as refuse what was chemically identical with what they were importing from Wales at £5 a ton. He
  874
  wished the House to observe that the third portion of the Bill—namely, that increasing the powers given to local authorities—was the portion of the Bill to which most particular objection had been made; and though he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, he did not say that he was not prepared to attempt Amendments to this part of it in Committee. Some of the objections were good and valid, and he thought Government would have to omit more than one whole clause from the Bill; but then it must be observed that, even if the whole of the third portion were omitted, it would not affect the main principle of the Bill, which in the passage of the rest might remain intact. The new powers, for instance, which were proposed to be conferred on local authorities to prevent adulteration of food, were necessary; but they were not essential to the Bill, and some of the proposed increased powers would bear modification. If, however, every hon. Member expected to be satisfied on every particular point respecting which he felt doubt before the second reading of the Bill, no progress would be made, and we should continue as to sanitary administration, in a state disreputable to a civilized country. He had presented a Petition the other day from the clerks and other officers of the local boards throughout the North of England, stating that there was no clause in the Bill making their appointments permanent, and praying the House, therefore, to reject the Bill, while the medical officers were equally ready to sacrifice the whole object in view if they could get their particular wishes satisfied. They magnified their just complaint of medical inefficiency to such an extent that they would sacrifice all other provisions for the purpose of creating a new staff of medical officers throughout the kingdom. The medical officers of the Poor Law Unions might possibly be improved so as in ordinary cases to suffice as the new officers of health. They would be raised to a higher level, and would probably have larger pay, and become the very body these medical gentlemen sought for in a needless creation of many thousands of new officials. The hon. Member (Mr. Corrance) had on the Paper a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The spécialité of his hon. Friend was a love of inquiry; he seemed to be "ever

  875
  learning and never coming to the truth;" but if he was not satisfied after the exhaustive inquiry which had been made in this question, when would he be? When hon. Members, however, took up a subject newly, they were sometimes too apt to disregard all that had been done before, and to create more reams of blue books, and choke the Library only with reiterated inquiries. There was the financial difficulty, with regard to which it was said that the Bill would throw greater charges upon the local rates. Now he, for one, felt quite convinced that the present incidence of local rates was partial and unsatisfactory, and he sympathized with the objections to increase local rates in their present unsatisfactory arrangement. But that was not a valid objection to the present Bill. In the first place, he denied that there would be any increased charge upon the local rates in consequence of the Bill; for the probability was exactly the other way—that the Bill would result in a considerable economy, by a consolidation and utilization of machinery, and still more by improving the public health, the neglect of which was the chief cause of burdens on the rates. Generally, it was found that parishes most heavily burdened with rates were those in which disease was most rife through the neglect of sanitary arrangements. If, however, there was to be any increased outlay under the Bill, it must be voluntarily incurred, and the advantage of the outlay would be thus confessed by those who incurred it. No doubt some charges were to be made imperative; but they were new charges upon points on which the existing law was found defective and injurious, by deficient provision, to the public health, and the outlay in such cases would be a remunerative outlay. The question of incidence of rates was swallowed up in the prospect of great remuneration. All points of detail must be discussed in Committee, and must receive very careful attention. The details of the Bill might be materially improved; but of all objections which had been brought against Government, he did not think that blame could be one for hastiness in bringing forward the measure. If they were to be blamed, it was rather for the long delay, and lukewarm pressure by which they had allowed measures of very inferior importance to stand in the
  876
  way of reform of the present condition of our sanitary laws.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he must admit that the Government were acting wisely in following the suggestions of the Commission, and in adopting the Boards of Guardians as the local authority to carry out the Bill. As to the Commission, he believed no body of men who ever sat had devoted more precious time to their work, or had laboured more indefatigably in the public service. The services rendered by the medical Members of the Commission were beyond all praise. As a Member of that Commission, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) had devoted himself to the work with great self-sacrifice, and that work would not be forgotten. While he believed that the Government had acted wisely in selecting Boards of Guardians to carry out the Bill, the House must in no degree lose sight of the serious imperfections of those Boards. In the first place, ex officio members, who at first used to apply themselves zealously in helping to administer the Poor Law, now, as a rule, were lax in their attendance, because they were not direct representatives of the ratepayers, and felt themselves to be in a false position. In the next place, the Boards were far too numerous. When they consisted of 60 or 80 farmers or small tradesmen, the attendance was generally very slack and irregular; and not only that, but upon a critical occasion, instead of being influenced by the best minds at the Board, they followed like sheep the lead of some bell-wether. In conclusion, he recommended the adoption of some system such as existed in Ireland, of the formation of electoral districts of a reasonable size, so that one farmer who happened to farm a whole district, or the clergyman of the parish, should not be the only men capable of serving the office.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to call attention to some points in reference to the Bill. He believed that the present deficiency of energy in carrying into effect sanitary legislation in the country was owing, in a great degree, to the ignorance which prevailed in regard to it—that was, that the authorities intrusted with sanitary regulations were not conscious of the powers that they possessed or of the means of using them. In fact, he must repeat, that although many of them possessed

  877
  adequate power, and although in towns they had a Press which watched over the interests of the townspeople, yet in the country districts the authorities were not aware of the nature or extent of the authority they possessed. Under these circumstances, he had suggested to the President of the Local Government Board to make a code or digest of existing laws, and circulate that code among the sanitary authorities throughout the country, and unless the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to the adoption of that suggestion, he (Mr. G. Hardy) should in Committee feel it to be his duty to propose a clause making it imperative upon the Local Government Board to effect that object. Were that done, not only would the sanitary authorities be educated in a proper manner, but the Way would be paved for introducing a measure which would reconcile conflicting decisions, define the powers of authorities who at present clashed, and bring about the consolidation all persons interested desired. He had reason to believe that such a work was in progress, and he hoped that it would be laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible. He thought there was no doubt that Boards of Guardians as sanitary authorities were in some respects open to the objections raised against them; but the Government was not yet in a position to institute any new authority, and indeed they did not yet pretend to present a complete system of local government, for the highways were not, but should, in his opinion, be under the same authority as dealt with the other matters, as there were a number of nuisances affecting highways that should be under the same authority that dealt with other sanitary affairs. The House, however, should not be in too great a hurry upon this matter, but they should rather educate the Boards of Guardians for sanitary purposes, for any one who had undertaken the introduction of improvements in sanitary matters must have been struck with the ignorance which generally prevailed upon the subject, and struck even with his own ignorance. As had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), immediately one had entered upon a sanitary improvement some one assured him it was the greatest mistake in the world. The
  878
  form of ventilation which one regarded as perfection was declared by another to be nothing short of suffocation, and an elaborate scheme for the disposal of sewage, which its author thought perfection, would be denounced by a competent critic as a grave mistake; and therefore he must press upon the Government that, for the present, at least, what they were doing must be, to a certain extent, tentative. His right hon. Friend had said the Poor Law Inspectors were competent to carry out this sanitary law. Now, those gentlemen at present had very hard work, especially in the metropolis, not only in reference to workhouses and outdoor relief, but there had been added to their duties the asylums, which required to be looked after with the greatest care. If it were said that they should inspect nuisances as well, it would be impossible that they should discharge all their duties. If, on the other hand, they looked to local authorities to discover local nuisances, they would never get the work done at all, for it would generally be to the interest of those local authorities to be on good terms with their neighbours who were the authors of nuisances; and in most cases the local officers would be disposed not to be too strict with their townsmen. What was wanted, therefore, was some extraneous authority, some Inspector, who would go to the local authority and say—"Here is a case in which you must interfere." The authority inspecting, therefore, he thought, must be an independent authority, having no other object than to secure the public health; and an efficient Inspector of that kind would tend to prevent expense; while an inefficient one would tend to litigation. If the local authority, who might be the guardians, dealt with the case, there would be an end of it; if not, the Local Government Board should be apprised of the fact and step in. He regretted this discussion had occurred in such a small House, but was not surprised to find it so. When the House met on a Thursday and Friday after an adjournment, it was not surprising that the temptation of an additional Saturday and Sunday in the country was sufficient to prevent the most devoted Liberal and the most ardent philanthropist from coming to town in the middle of Easter week. Had this debate arisen before the Vacation,

  879
  or a week after, it might have been more instructive; but, after all, there was no dispute on the main points at issue. All were convinced that sanitary improvement was required; all were convinced that the Commission which had devoted itself so completely to the task of inquiring into the matter under his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) were, in the main, right in their recommendations; all were convinced that there was no possibility of finding any authority in towns other than that provided by the Bill; and as regarded the country districts, those having experience on the subject had freely expressed the conclusions their experience had led them to form upon it. No doubt could exist that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the measure would give due weight to the opinions expressed, and be ready in Committee to bring the clauses more into uniformity with each other.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he heartily supported the measure; but in doing so, could not refrain from expressing his regret that no provision had been made for including the metropolis in the operation of the Bill; whereas many of its enactments were even more needed in London than in the provinces. Thus, penalties were imposed by it upon those who offered food for sale unfit for human consumption, and if the people of Birmingham were to be so protected, why not the people of London? Then, again, sanitary authorities in the country were to be compelled to provide ambulances for fever patients; but, in London, this course was still to be optional, although he believed the authorities in the metropolis would much prefer to have this option taken away from them. Hospital authorities, also, were empowered by the Bill to make arrangements with the sanitary authorities for the reception of fever patients; but no such provision was to be found in any Act applicable to the metropolis. Another point of which he desired to remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was, that very many persons able to pay for treatment had been treated gratuitously in hospitals erected under the Act passed by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), and that there had been no means of compelling such persons to repay the
  880
  cost of their treatment. It was very advisable that this should be remedied; but no power was to be found in the Bill for this purpose, as far as London was concerned. He trusted those points would be duly considered by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he wished to express his deep sense of obligation to the House for the way they had received the Bill, and he more especially recorded his thanks to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) for the generous assistance which, as President of the Sanitary Commission, he had rendered him in reference to this subject. He also felt obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) for the valuable suggestions which he had just made to him. He wished to enter his friendly protest against the remarks which had been made by certain hon. Gentlemen concerning the efficiency of the Boards of Guardians. Now, judged as a whole—as the Local Government Board had an opportunity of judging them—those charges seemed to be the result of a too rapid generalization; and he agreed with much which had fallen from the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Fielden), who had opened this discussion, that Boards of Guardians were to be judged first in reference to their own composition, and that the great object was to secure upon those Boards independent men and men of education, who would take an interest in the affairs which they were called upon to administer. In dealing with them, he (Mr. Bruce) had found almost everything to depend upon the judgment of the Inspector. He had, moreover, always professed himself a believer in local government, and had always insisted that the chief duty of the central authority was to lead, and not to drive, and he had borne that in view when drafting the Bill. The hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair), in his very able and lucid speech, referred to the very large question of organization, which after all was the subject-matter of the Bill. That question might be looked upon from various points of view. They had first to deal with the organization of local sanitary areas, and local sanitary authorities; next, with the organization of the sanitary officers of those authorities; and,

  881
  lastly, with the connection between the local authorities and their officers and the central authority. In endeavouring to deal with those subjects, his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had introduced a Bill, one object of which was to create parochial councils for the initiation of sanitary business in parishes. On the other hand, there were some hon. Members of the House, and many people out of it—especially those who took a professional view of the matter—who were so anxious that the authorities should have sufficient means to employ and pay the most able administrative officers, that, so far from wishing to go back to the parish, they were not content with the Union, but would adopt the county. Others, again, were of opinion that we ought to have the county as an intermediate body between the local and the central authority. If by an intermediate county authority was meant an authority which should not be an executive body, but should superintend the administration of the Union and stand between it and the Local Government Board, he would not be in favour of the creation of such a body, for it would be merely a multiplication of authorities and a dissipation of centralization. If, on the other hand, what was meant was an executive authority which should take to itself certain functions, which should have certain powers conferred upon it which would be better performed by an authority whose jurisdiction extended over a larger area than the sanitary unit, he, as he had stated on introducing the Bill, was in favour of such an authority. He stated then that the reason why he did not propose to create county Boards was because the boundaries of parishes and Unions did not coincide with the boundaries of counties, and if there was to be such an authority, it would be desirable that the boundaries of the smaller authority should coincide with the boundaries of the greater. But he indicated that when county Boards came to be constituted it appeared to him advisable to confer upon them county functions, such as attention to highways, the conservancy of rivers, and their preservation from pollution. He found in the country that the parish, as a rule, had not performed its duties, for any person acquainted with the sanitary history of the country must be aware that there
  882
  were great laches on the part of the vestry—that is, of the inhabitants of the parish in vestry assembled. Another objection to the parish as a unit was, that there would be too many units, that the areas would be too small, and that it would be impossible to employ efficient officers. He felt it necessary, therefore, to take a step in advance, and to select the Union; and the reason was, because the Union was an existing and recognized area, an existing and workable authority. He, moreover, agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford that it would be unwise to create a new authority where our object was to simplify authorities. However, by the 25th clause it would be in the power of the Local Government Board to create, as nearly as the difference between the boundaries of Unions and counties would permit, county Boards for any purposes that might be desired, the duties of these Boards being the performance of functions and not merely superintendence. He came now to the organization of their officers, and he must refer here especially to the medical officers. The Bill provided that medical officers of health should be appointed, and it said that the Poor Law medical officers might be the persons. It was objected that the Bill did not carry on the face of it a statement of the organization which it proposed. The answer to that objection was twofold—first, that it was quite unnecessary in a Bill of the kind; all he needed was to take powers; and the second was, that he did not wish absolutely to conclude the question. It was his desire to keep the question as far as possible open until this measure had made some progress in the House, and until he had been enabled to gather the opinions of hon. Gentlemen generally, before he committed himself to an administrative scheme, which must necessarily be one of a tentative character. It would probably have been observed that in the Civil Service Estimates which had been presented he had taken no Vote on Account of augmentations of the staff of sanitary officers. But he would be deceiving the House if he did not state that as the Bill proceeded, as he gained confidence that it would pass, and as he became assured of the precise form in which it would issue from Parliament, it would

  883
  be his duty to present Supplementary Estimates with the view of providing assistance for the existing staff; and the object of that demand for additional funds would he to start the local sanitary authorities with an efficient and complete staff of central Inspectors. The cost might possibly be greater at the outset than in continuance; but it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the measure that the local authorities should be fairly started. He did not feel called upon at that time to define the precise difference between the several classes of Inspectors. That would be a matter of detail, and to some extent of experiment, and it had better, he thought, be left untouched in the present stage of the Bill. His attention had been called to one or two clauses which he would just touch upon. First, there was the clause which dealt with the question of river pollution, and he would tell the House why that clause appeared precisely in the shape in which it was presented to them, and why it now appeared to him desirable to introduce some modification in it. When he first addressed himself to the consideration of this subject he found nothing more difficult than the clause which dealt with the pollution of rivers. There was, first of all, the question whether it were possible to lay down any table of chemical tests; and then the question, what that test should be. He found that chemists, as well as doctors, differed; and, after due consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that he had better not attempt to draw up a clause binding in all places and under all circumstances, and that he would act most wisely in so shaping the clause that the matter would be left open to the consideration of the House in Committee. With respect to the criticisms offered by the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair) upon the 64th clause, he confessed that he approached the subject with a strong disinclination to avail himself of powers of compulsion. It appeared to him that he might well content himself with the power already lodged in the hands of local authorities in large towns to appoint analysts and to make a fair charge for their services. Deputations had, however, waited on him, not only of scientific men, but of persons interested in trades affected by the Bill; and, after carefully considering the recommendations
  884
  they had made, he intended to lay before the House a proposition when the Bill went into Committee which he hoped would meet with acceptance. His hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had referred to the 74th clause, but he did not appear from his remarks to be conscious of the bearing of the 49th section of the Sanitary Act of 1866. That section conferred upon the Secretary of State the power, in case of default by the local authorities in the performance of their duty as guardians of the health of their district, to call upon them to perform it. If they still failed, then the Secretary of State might appoint some other person to carry out the necessary work, and levy a rate upon the district to cover the expense. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had drawn the attention of the House to the fact that London was not included in the Bill. The omission was made purposely, for the sufficient reason that he thought it was for the advantage of London that it should be left to suggest its own place; and, if it desired the benefits to be obtained by such a measure, it should itself propose to be brought under the operation of the Bill. He had been asked by an hon. Member what contributions the Government proposed to make in aid of the local authorities. That was a very serious question, and he thought it would best be dealt with in Committee. He had made some rough calculations; but all that he could say then was, that upon the first occasion that the question was raised in Committee he would be prepared to make a statement upon the subject. Upon the question of consolidation, he ventured to say that the introduction of a measure was not primâ facie the best time to consolidate. The mind of the House would be apt to become confused if he were to attempt to lay before it a Bill containing a number of clauses upon every one of which the question of consolidation or of new law would arise. The prospect of getting through with such a Bill was so distant that he did not think it desirable to propose it. With reference to the suggestion, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy), that if he did not consolidate the law this year, he should prepare some kind of digest for the use of local authorities—he believed that, as far as they were concerned,

  885
  even as regarded urban authorities, when they elected a lawyer as clerk, a very little time and experience would enable him to understand the Acts as they were for all administrative purposes. He admitted, however, that for such purposes, and still more for the use of members of sanitary Boards and the general public, it would be extremely desirable that a digest, or sort of popular vade mecum, should be prepared, published, and circulated, to enable persons to see the salient points of sanitary legislation. The right hon. Member said he intended to propose a clause to effect this object; but it would not be necessary, because he (Mr. Stansfeld) had himself already put the work in hand. With that explanation, he trusted the House would be willing to read the Bill a second time.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not press his Amendment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday 26th April.

  MASTER AND SERVANT (WAGES) BILL.
  Select Committee on Master and Servant (Wages) Bill to consist of Seventeen Members:—Committee nominated:—Mr. CHARLES DALRYMPLE, Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. JOSHUA FIELDEN, Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. HERMON, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. M'CLURE, Mr. MUNDRLLA, Mr. MAGNIAC, Mr. PELL, Mr. POWELL, Mr. POTTER, Mr. MELLY, Sir DAVID WEDDERBURN, and Mr. WINTERBOTHAM:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.