Commons Sitting of 4 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 1] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* [225]; School Boards * [224]; Grand Juries (Ireland)* [226].
Second Reading—Local Government Board (Ireland) * [90]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* [218].
Select Committee—Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [116], nominated; Wildfowl Protection * [205], nominated.
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (re-comm.) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) (re-comm.)* [171]; Courts of Law (Scotland) Agents* [135–223]; Bank of England (Election of Directors)* [211].
Considered as amended—Naturalization * [145]; Baptismal Fees * [209].
Third Reading— Colonial Governors Pensions * [176], and passed.
Withdrawn—Burial Grounds * [111].

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE LEGISLATION.

  RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th June],
  "That the existing system of passing Local Bills on the same subjects as Public General Acts is inconvenient, works injustice between different towns, and leads to unnecessary complication in the Laws affecting Local Government."—(Mr. Francis Sharp Powell.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  COLONEL WILSON - PATTENsaid, that if the hon. Member for the West Riding would omit the words "works injustice between different towns" from the second Resolution, he did not see any objection to the Motion. But he thought it rested rather with the Government to consider the whole subject of Private Legislation and propose a complete scheme.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should be prepared to support the Resolution now proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. F. S. Powell), if amended in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for North Lancashire. He was glad to understand that the hon. Member did not intend to move the next Resolution which stood in his name. Parliament intended by the Local Government Act and kindred Acts, and also by the Towns Improvement Clauses, Water Works Clauses, and Gas Clauses Acts, to bring about a general harmony and correspondence in local legislation. This intention was frustrated by the circumstance that Private Bill Committees, each acting exclusively with reference to the case before it, were swayed by plausible arguments of counsel, and too often induced to lose sight of, or to dispense with the application of, the principles which the general Acts aimed at securing. No doubt the circumstances of localities varied, and no cast-iron rule could be uniformly applied, but the general lines laid down by Parliament should be more faithfully adhered to. We should not then have so many anomalies and strange powers introduced, or attempted to be introduced, into local Bills as at present.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the House ought to pause before agreeing to the Resolutions. The third Resolution, which proposed that no Private Bill should be introduced and passed unless

  627
  the Minister of the Department was satisfied that the circumstances were exceptional and did not come within the general law, was equivalent to giving the Minister the power of veto; and he did not think that it would be right to place in the hands of a Minister or of the Ministers of the Crown the power of putting a veto on Private Legislation. He thought, however, that notwithstanding the numerous discussions that had taken place on the subject, the time was not yet ripe for the decision of so large a question, and he would move the further adjournment of the debate.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had no objection to vote for the first Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding, condemning the existing practice with reference to the passing of local Bills. At present the Local Government Board had no locus standi before Committees with respect to local Bills; but, nevertheless, they had, during the present Session, thought it their duty to examine all such Bills coming before Parliament and had communicated with the Chairman of Committees, and their criticism had been found to be of considerable utility, and to have thrown light on points which had been before obscure. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) that the subsequent Resolution ought not to be accepted; but the House would not commit itself to that Resolution by adopting the first. What he thought the House ought to do was to make use of the Public Departments of the Government for its own information. He had been considering the matter with the authorities of both Houses, and he was inclined to propose a new Standing Order to the effect that copies of local Bills, when deposited at the Houses of Parliament, should be deposited also with the Local Government Board—that the Board should report on the Bills, and its Report should be laid before the Committees.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYrecommended that the very important suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should be taken as a sequence to the first Resolution of the hon. Member for the West Riding. The second Resolution he thought should be omitted under any circumstances, and the third required to be very much modified. There
  628
  was the most urgent necessity for some improvement in the mode of dealing with local Bills.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the House was suffering from the inconvenience of arguing two different subjects at the same time and interchangeably. The one was the general proposition that private legislation, dealing with matter of a similar nature to that of public Acts should, as a preliminary step to its introduction, be submitted to that Department of the Government which had the charge of such subject-matter—a proposition worthy serious consideration, undoubtedly, as it might tend to prevent those contradictory or unequal enactments which separate private interests contrived to introduce through the means of private legislation into Acts which affected large masses of the population. The other subject was of a more limited kind, and contemplated the recognition of a title to be given to the Local Government Board to require a copy of every Private Bill, before its introduction into Parliament, to be sent to that Office in order that the Bill should be criticized and revised, and the agreement or disagreement of its provisions with Acts in force might be ascertained beforehand. The advantage of such a course was obvious; but the restriction upon the right of public bodies and private persons to come before Parliament for the promotion of objects they believed of consequence to them, afforded far too serious a subject to be dealt with summarily. The stores of private enterprise would be hardly consonant with such limitation, and he thought the House should pause before conceding the whole of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.
  MR. HENLEYthought the proposals of the hon. Member for the West Riding went a great deal too far. It wanted to do away with local self-government, and no one could doubt that if it were adopted there would be a great deal of ear-wigging of the Minister. He did not see how any Minister could fairly judge of the special wants of particular places. Any person who looked at foreign countries and saw what few arterial lines of railway they had might easily conclude that if we had been in the hands of a Minister we should be in much the same position, for a Minister would never have admitted that many of the largest railways we had were required

  629
  by the necessities of the localities. Moreover, the promoters of a scheme would never be satisfied with the decision of the Minister, and would raise the questions involved in the House. It was better to let people come to Parliament and make out their case as well as they could, and if they did not make it out, they would gain nothing by their motion. He would support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WEGUELINsaid, it often happened that Bills of several hundred clauses came before a Committee, which had to pick up its knowledge of the subject from the speeches of counsel and such opportunities of reading the clauses as they might have during the investigation. He thought it would be well to have these Bills submitted to some authority for examination before they were laid before the Committees.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, the mere introduction of abstract Resolutions of this kind, unaccompanied by practical suggestions, were of very little value:—moreover, he thought the Resolution of the hon. Member for the West Riding was already covered by the Resolution of the House to refer the whole business of Private Legislation to the consideration of the Government. Looking to this, he thought the House should not put upon its records a Motion such as the hon. Member for the West Riding had now proposed, and which seemed to some extent to supersede or override a decision to which the House had already come. He thought it would be far better to wait until the Government should lay a complete scheme before them, and the House could then enter into a consideration of the subject in its entirety. Moreover, in a short time they would have to reconsider the Clauses Consolidation Acts, upon which so much of our Private Legislation depended.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEagreed with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board that the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding was a very useful one, and one which it would be well to adopt, for it pointed to the evil which now existed with regard to the unnecessary multiplication of Private Bills on matters which should more properly be the subject of public legislation. Before, however, such a
  630
  Resolution could be adopted, it was a condition precedent that public legislation on such matters should be in a sound, consistent, and rational condition. He had no experience with regard to the legislation applicable to towns or to sanitary matters; but he believed it was in anything but a satisfactory state.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that if the third Resolution of the hon. Member for the West Riding were agreed to, the doors of Parliament would be closed against all municipal and local authorities, who would be unable to bring in any measures which had not received the previous sanction of the Local Government Board of the day. He thought that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should be formally brought forward by the Government, and not introduced merely in connection with these Resolutions. He hoped the Motion for adjourning the debate would be agreed to.
  MR. GOLDNEYalso thought that the most sensible course the hon. Member could adopt would be to consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that the discussion had been so satisfactory that he would gladly have withdrawn his Resolution, had not right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench encouraged him to hope the whole subject would be discussed with the assistance of proposals made by the Government during the present Session. Under these circumstances, he thought that he should be acting most wisely in moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday, 18th July.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION—CHARGES OF MANAGEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALTsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), Whether the sum of £26,926 7s. 7d. charged for Agency (in addition to other items for management, repairs, &c.) in the Rental Accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, contained in the Report of 1872, could not be reduced in future years; and, whether such Agency is paid by salary or by commission?
  SIR THOMAS ACLAND: The sums charged for agency and management in the accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have been frequently the subject of public investigation. This matter was examined by Committee of the House of Commons in 1856, 1862, and 1863, and by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1858. It also was the subject of a Report drawn up by a Committee appointed by the Treasury in 1859, and of a Minute and Report prepared by the Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. These documents are to be found in the 16th Report of the Commissioners. They contain a full statement of the scale of remuneration as to its principles and details. They explain that the principal expenses are incident to the transition state of the Church property scattered over 40 counties, and that the nature of the business requires that the Commission should benefit by the wide experience of persons having an independent professional business. Such experience could not be obtained for any salary which the Commissioners could give. The Commissioners have recently, in conjunction with the Treasury, revised their official establishment. They will not lose sight of the importance of effecting every economy in the management of their estates which may be consistent with efficiency.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether each hereditament separately numbered, described, and valued in the Valuation List, as finally determined by the Assessment Committee under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act of 1869, should, if such hereditament be chargeable to the Inhabited House Duty, be assessed separately for such Duty, in conformity with such Valuation List, and in pursuance of section 45, sub-section 2, of such Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir. I think the conclusion does not necessarily follow, when the House Duty Act requires that the assessment should be made jointly. The fact that the valuation must be separately made under the Metropolitan Valuation Act does not interfere with the provi-
  632
  sions of the Act requiring such joint assessment. The assessment could be furnished upon the sum of the valuation under the Metropolitan Valuation Act.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE TO THE WEST INDIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRING (for Mr. REED)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is prepared to reduce the Rates of Postage between the West India Colonies and this Country?
  MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, that the cost of the West India packet service, after deducting the amount of revenue received for postage, amounted to £118,000 a-year, and the whole of that sum was paid by the Imperial Treasury. The West India Colonies contributed nothing whatever towards the expense of the subsidy. The contract with the Royal Mail Company would not be concluded until December, 1874, and until then it would be impossible to make any change in regard to postage.

IRELAND—LIGHTHOUSES FOR LOUGH SWILLY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONOLLYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he would state to the House what information he has received from the Board of Irish Lights, as to the necessity for erecting one or more Lighthouses on the coast of Lough Swilly, in the county of Donegal; and, whether he is willing to take the subject into his early consideration?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, that the Board of Trade had received no application on the subject; but the Department had had the subject under their own consideration for some time, and they were in communication with the Trinity House upon the matter. They hoped to be prepared upon an application in the statutory manner from the Irish Lights Board to erect a lighthouse upon Dunree Head, Lough Swilly, and they were now with that object in communication with the Irish Lights Board.
MR. CONOLLYgave Notice that he would move for certain Correspondence on the subject.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he should have thought that his answer would have rendered such a Motion unnecessary.

CRIMINAL LAW—CONVICT LABOUR.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that mats are being made at Millbank Prison from plaited coir yarn prepared by steam machinery in Wakefield Jail, and that such mats are made by contract with the governor of that jail for Mr. Goodacre, till recently the London agent of the said Wakefield Jail?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the mats were furnished, not by contract, but from time to time according to the wants of the department. He was not aware that Mr. Goodacre was connected with Wake-field Prison; but, even if he were, he did not think that circumstance would justify the department in refusing to deal with him as with any other person.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION INQUIRY —MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue), whose Motion stands for Thursday, Whether he is not of opinion that the case of Mr. Justice Keogh ought not to be discussed in the House before the evidence taken in the Galway Election Petition case has been printed; and, if he will not postpone his Motion until the opinion of the House has been taken on the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), who has given Notice that he will move that Mr. Justice Keogh ought to be removed from the Bench for his alleged misconduct?
  THE O'DONOGHUEbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the only object he had in view was that there should be the fullest possible discussion of the Galway Judgment at the earliest possible moment. If the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was really anxious to have a discussion—he said "really," because some doubt seemed to be thrown upon his intention by the Notice of Motion given by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James)—but if the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was really anxious, then for his part he was quite willing that the discussion should be taken on the Motion of the hon. and learned
  634
  Member for Limerick; but until he (The O'Donoghue) really knew what course the hon. and learned Member intended taking, he was unwilling to withdraw the Notice which stood on the Paper in his name.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Then I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, on the part of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), who has communicated with me, whether the Government will give a day for the discussion of the Motion?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could only repeat what he had stated on a former occasion—that he did not think he could with propriety ask the House to put aside important public business to discuss a matter which seemed to him to be not yet quite ripe for discussion, inasmuch as the means of forming a judgment on the points in dispute were not as yet in the hands of Members, the evidence not being in print.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENasked, whether there would be many more portions of the evidence besides the two already published?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)was informed that only one part more remained to be published. He was informed that it was somewhat larger than the previous parts; but the printer hoped that by the end of next week the whole of the evidence would be published.
  Afterwards—
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to three Notices on the Order Book of this House, equivalent in their terms and construction to votes of censure upon Mr. Justice Keogh; whether, considering that that learned Judge is shortly about to go on Circuit, he does not think that public confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland will be seriously impaired by reason of such impending votes of censure being allowed to remain on the Notice Paper unchallenged in any way by Her Majesty's Government; and, whether he will place upon the Table on behalf of the Government any amendments to said Notices, or make any declaration with the view of relieving the judicial bench on the North-West Circuit from the stigma which might otherwise be thought to attach to it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that the Question of the noble Viscount proceeds on a misapprehension. I am not prepared to admit that the appearance of a Notice on the Paper has the great importance the noble Viscount attaches to it. He thinks that the public confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland will be seriously impaired by Votes of Censure being allowed to remain on the Notice Paper unchallenged by Her Majesty's Government. Sir, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to challenge the free exercise of the discretion of hon. Members in giving Notices on subjects on which they intend to raise a discussion until the time arrives when it is fit for the Government to announce the course they intend to take with respect to such Notices. I do not think it would be becoming in the Government—who have themselves, through their Law Officers, judicial functions to perform in respect to the very great question involved, of the prosecution of individuals arising out of this case—to indicate the course they may pursue until they have had ample opportunity for considering the entire case; but it is quite a mistake to suppose that the appearance of such Notices indicates more than the personal opinion of the Member giving them, or in any way determines the question of confidence or want of confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland. I quite appreciate the anxiety of the noble Viscount with respect to the state of feeling in Ireland on this matter. That is a subject of great importance, to which I hope we are fully alive—namely, the duty of considering everything that relates to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and especially of one of Her Majesty's subjects bearing the commission of Her Majesty and representing Her Majesty in the high office of justice. For that purpose—for securing due respect to the law and punishing those who infringe it—every attention has been and is being given by my right hon. and learned Friend near me (the Attorney General for Ireland), and by the Government of Ireland. Probably it is within the knowledge of the noble Viscount that already steps have been taken for the apprehension and punishment of various persons connected with this case. I am quite certain, when the subject is fully
  636
  before the House, they will take such a course as may be best calculated to strengthen the administration of justice in Ireland, and the confidence of the people in that administration; and the Government will, as soon as they have access to the whole of the evidence, which they only can have when it is prepared for laying on the Table of the House, state the course they intend to pursue with reference to it.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—GUARDS DRILL.—QUESTION.
MR. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, What reply he has received from His Royal Highness the Ranger of Hyde Park to a request made by the ladies and gentlemen who ride in the Park early in the morning, that there may be no firing by the Regiments of Guards from half-past 8 to 10 o'clock, as it not only disturbs their enjoyment of the Park, but might lead to serious accidents?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, that His Royal Highness the Ranger of Hyde Park had given to this request—as to every request respecting the enjoyment of the Park by the public—the most careful consideration; but the question was by no means free from difficulty, for it was frequently found that when arrangements were made for the convenience of one section of the public, extreme inconvenience was inflicted on another section. Therefore, the balance of convenience and inconvenience had always to be considered. As the House was aware, the Royal Guards were required to reside in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park, and for their efficiency it was necessary that they should parade and drill in that Park. It was part of their drill to fire blank cartridge, and the question to decide was at what time would that part of the drill be performed with the least inconvenience to those who frequented the Park? To go through the whole day—it had been suggested that 6 o'clock in the morning would be a convenient hour; but if those gentlemen and ladies who went to the Park at 8 o'clock in the morning were now inconvenienced by volleys from the Guards, what would be the condition of others who, residing near the Park, might be sleeping in their beds at 6 o'clock? The number of those asleep

637
and in bed at 6 o'clock was infinitely greater than the number of those who went to enjoy themselves in the Park at 8 o'clock in the morning; the latter, he could testify from his own personal observation, were few. His Royal Highness, in considering this subject, had also to consider the usual course of discipline of the Guards in London, and if the drill were made later than 8 o'clock in the morning greater inconvenience might be felt, and at last they might come to the proposal of some enthusiastic Volunteers to have drill with blank cartridge as late as 5 o'clock in the evening. His Royal Highness had not been able to appoint a time other than that at which the Guards now usually drilled. Many suggestions had been made in order that persons might not be taken unawares by the sudden volleys; but the only arrangement which seemed possible was that a regiment of Guards, on entering the Park, should give notice at the gate whether or not it was to be a blank cartridge parade.

MID-WALES COUNTY COURT CIRCUIT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to the Resolution of this House, passed on the 11th March last—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the due administration of justice, that the Judge of a County Court district in which the Welsh language is generally spoken should, so far as the limits of selection will allow, be able to speak and understand that language,
  it is the intention of the Government to give effect to that Resolution by appointing a Judge possessing the qualifications in question to the Mid-Wales County Court Circuit?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, he was able to give but a very short answer to the Question, and that was that no vacancy had occurred in the Mid-Wales County Court Circuit since the passing of the Resolution referred to.

  SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS—SAMOAN OR NAVIGATORS ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any information with respect to the alleged assumption by the United States of the protectorate of the
  638
  Samoan or Navigators Islands, or if the United States have occupied any part or portion of those islands with native consent?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Information has reached the Foreign Office that on the 9th of April last the Chiefs and Rulers of Samoa signed a letter to the President of the United States, petitioning him to annex these islands to America. Sir Edward Thornton, Her Majesty's Representative at Washington, has been instructed to make inquiries as to what decision the United States Government may have arrived at with regard to this petition for annexation.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY—UNIVERSITY TESTS ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. R. TORRENSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he considers the following Grace, which passed the Senate of the University of Cambridge on the 6th of June last, to be in conformity with the spirit of the University Tests Act:—
"Subscriptio anti gratiam pro gradu aliquo in Theologia concessam facienda," "That he assents to the Thirty Nine Articles of the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that he believes the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God, and that in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments he will use the same and none other"
and, whether before advising Her Majesty to assent to the same, or otherwise, he will cause a Copy of the said Grace to be laid upon the Table, in order that this House may have opportunity for considering it?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he had seen the Grace to which the Question referred, and which was passed in the Senate of the University of Cambridge on the 6th of June last, with the view of being presented to Her Majesty. It would go to the Council Office, and be there considered by the Lord President of the Council. He did not know whether his personal opinion as to whether the Grace was in conformity with the spirit of the University Tests Act was of importance, because it was a subject on which legal advice should be taken whether Her Majesty should assent to the Grace or not; but he was inclined to think that the Question had been put under some misapprehension, because the Grace referred to persons graduating

639
in Holy Orders, with which the University Tests Act had nothing to do. With respect to placing a copy of the Grace on the Table, he did not think it would be desirable to prejudge the discussion of the question by the House on the statutes regulating the college.

ARMY—THE AUTUMN MILITARY MANŒUVRES—THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, with the object of giving the Volunteers the most favourable opportunity of making a creditable appearance at the next Autumn Manœuvres, he will take into consideration the recommendation made by the Commander-in-Chief in his report last year, who, while speaking of the Volunteers, says—
  "Unfortunately corps were generally represented by only very small portions, and these had consequently to be thrown together into provisional battalions. This arrangement was unavoidable, but it presents a great difficulty in bringing out the Force in as favourable a condition as could be wished. If whole regiments of Volunteers could come out on these occasions, the efficiency of this portion of our Auxiliary Forces would be greatly enhanced;"
  and, whether he will reconsider the Regulation which he has laid down, which requires the attendance of every Volunteer during the whole fortnight's training?
  LORD ELCHOinquired whether, if a corps undertook to send 100 men to the Manœuvres, and kept up that force during the fortnight's training, it would be considered necessary that the same men should attend during the whole of that time?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had represented to him that the Manœuvres were not likely to be successful if the Volunteers who took part in the instruction in the second week had not taken part in it during the first week.

ARMY—WIMBLEDON REVIEW.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the forthcoming Volunteer Review at Wimbledon, on the 20th of July, will be considered a special Brigade Drill, at which one-half of a battalion must be
  640
  present according to the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Circular of the 28th of May?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Volunteer Review at Wimbledon was not a Brigade drill under the terms of the Circular in question, and the rule in that Circular did not apply to it.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. RYLANDS,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he shared the feeling which he believed was entertained by many Gentlemen to put forward this Bill; but in the present state of business the Government did not think it would be in their power to apportion any part of the time at their command to its consideration.
MR. RYLANDSasked the hon. Member for Taunton, what course he proposes to pursue in relation to the Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections Bill, if the Government are unable to give him a day?
MR. JAMESsaid, the Bill had several times been on the Paper and no Notice of any Amendment had been given. He was not aware of any objection to any of the clauses. He would put the Bill down for this day week, and if any hon. Member expressed a desire to have it modified he would alter it, and then leave it to the House to say whether it might not go into Committee.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd July.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART II.—RULES.
General Rules.
Clause 48 (General Rules).
MR. BRUCEhaving on Tuesday proposed to insert, after the words "shall be," the words, "as far as practicable," now moved that they be inserted.
MR. ELLIOTagain urged the Government to accept the modification he had proposed by inserting in page 24, line 30, after "therein," the words—"so far as may be reasonably practicable, having regard to any special circumstances of the mine," He contended that there were

641
many precautions which might be practicable in the sense of being possible, that would not at the same time be reasonably practicable, because they would cost so much that the property would not be worth working. If, as the Attorney General had said, the word "reasonably" would make no difference, why should not the Government concede its insertion in deference to those who thought it would? He moved to amend the proposed Amendment of the Government by inserting "reasonably" before practicable.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, the Home Secretary had admitted that in a mine there was a liability to accidents which no manager could possibly foresee; and he regretted the division that was taken when they appeared to have got nearly all they desired in that admission from the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman desired to do what was right, was it not possible for him to insert the word "reasonably" to meet the views of those who were apprehensive that managers, rather than owners, might be taken up when they did not deserve it?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the word "practicable" in an Act of Parliament meant "reasonably practicable," and it would, therefore, be superfluous to insert the former word.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the next general rule provided that the examination of the ventilation should be carried on as far as was "reasonably practicable." He thought, therefore, the words ought to be introduced into this clause in order to bring the different parts of the Bill in conformity with one another.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not object to the insertion of the word "reasonably." He thought it had been struck out wherever it had originally appeared in the Bill, because it was considered to have no legal significance; but as it had been accidentally retained in the next general rule, he would consent to its insertion in this place.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
MR. BROGDEN MR. BROGDEN moved, after subsection 1, insert new sub-section—
"Where a mine subject to Clause 19 of this Act is known to give off dangerous gas, a barometer and thermometer shall be placed at the mine above or below ground, under charge of, and as directed by, the manager."
642
The object of the Amendment was to enable the managers of mines, by reference to the barometer and thermometer, in the course of their daily occupations, to ascertain when great danger of explosion was likely to arise. According to a statement made before the Royal Society, it appeared that out of 525 explosions in mines in the years 1868, 1869, and 1872, 49 per cent occurred at times when there was great barometrical change, and 22 per cent when there were great changes of temperature.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the word "mine" in the Interpretation Clause included every shaft in the course of being sunk, every level, and a variety of other things. If the Amendment were adopted, a thermometer and a barometer would have to be placed in the mines at all times. If these instruments were placed in the mines in Staffordshire overnight, they would not be found the next morning.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsupported the Amendment, but thought it was not sufficiently comprehensive in its terms. He thought that justice had scarcely been done to the advantages that would result from a more general use of scientific instruments in mines. He did not mean to say that absolute safety could be insured by their use; but serious danger to life and limb could be very considerably diminished. A falling barometer and a high thermometer afforded certain evidence that ventilation was carried on with difficulty, and when gas was generated it was not merely explosive gas which had to be guarded against, for non-explosive gas was most dangerous to work in. He would suggest that the Amendment, instead of applying only to certain cases, should be made to apply in the case of every mine. Then he believed that the words "above or below ground" in the Amendment were objectionable. In the case of the thermometer it was important that it should be above and not below ground, because at a certain depth in deep mines there was a constant temperature, and when the temperature at the surface and in the mine were the same, natural ventilation ceased altogether. The plea of expense ought not to weigh for a moment in the matter, as a barometer could be obtained for a sovereign, and a thermometer for a shilling.
MR. PEASEsupported the Amendment with the alterations suggested by the hon. Baronet. The Amendment ought to be made to apply to every mine drawing coals.
MR. DENMANthought the words "at the mine" were ambiguous, as a mine included several things. If something beneficial were to be done in the sense of having a barometer and thermometer handy and near to ascertain the state of the mine at reasonable distances, the words of the Amendment must be very considerably altered, because the words "at the mine" would be complied with by having one barometer and one thermometer only in any part of the mine, whether it was above or below ground.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his object was to have the use of the barometer and thermometer made compulsory within certain well-defined limits; so that no person should be liable to be prosecuted unless he wilfully neglected to comply with the Act.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, it occurred to him that a foreman coming across a low barometer and a high thermometer would be very much bothered as to what such differences indicated. He should like to know whether a high barometer and a low thermometer always went together?
MR. BOUVERIEsuggested that simple directions for the use of the barometer and thermometer should be drawn up in concert with the Inspectors and the Royal Society, which on receiving a public grant some time ago expressed a willingness to give its assistance on any scientific matter.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that, as the Amendment seemed to be generally approved of by the Committee, and as it was obvious that it ought, before adoption, to be very carefully drawn up, he would undertake to introduce such an Amendment, properly framed, upon the Report.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKexplained that the grant referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was not made to the Royal Society itself, but for public purposes under the administration of the Society.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ELLIOT MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 24, line 36, after "shall," insert "so far as is reasonably practicable."
MR. BRUCE, understanding that it was practically impossible for all the travelling roads to be always properly ventilated at the same moment, said, he would assent to the introduction of these words.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsuggested that it would be better English to say "as" not "so" "far as is reasonably practicable."
Amendment agreed to.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN moved, in page 24, line 37, after "safety lamp," insert "and an efficient fire-damp indicator," with a view of subsequently adding a provision that no part of a mine should be reported safe when more than 4 per cent of inflammable gas was indicated by that instrument. The proportion of gas to atmospheric air was now ascertained by the safety-lamp, the flame of which expanded and exploded feebly for a small amount of gas, the explosion within the wire gauze becoming violent for a proportion of 7 per cent. The fire-damp indicator showed the exact amount, and one kind could be so adjusted as to ring an electric bell all over the mine like the division bell of this House, while another was a portable aneroid barometer adapted to the purpose. The only objections that could be taken to the fire-damp indicator were similar to such as were originally urged against the safety-lamp, and he was sure the men could soon be taught its value, after which its use would no longer need to be enforced.
MR. LANCASTERsaid, he had found fire-damp indicators so impracticable that he regarded them as mere toys.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought it was a dangerous experiment for Parliament to pretend to tell the miners what they were to do under all possible circumstances.
MR. RYLANDSalso deprecated any endeavour to regulate mines with such a minute attention to details, because such intermeddling legislation would give the workers in mines an unfounded confidence in these regulations which would lead to disastrous results.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the present rule only gave effect to what was already done in every well-conducted mine. They had ample experience of the utility of

645
the Davy lamp, and it was better to rely upon it than on any fire-damp indicator, the value of which had not yet stood the same test of long experience as the Davy lamp had.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LANCASTERproposed, in page 28, line 3, to leave out Rule 16, providing that
"the roof and sides of every travelling road and working place shall be made secure, and a person shall not, unless appointed for the purpose of exploring or repairing, travel or work in any such travelling road or working place which is not so made secure,"
in order to insert the following Rules:—
"16, Where the natural strata are not safe, the roof and sides of every travelling road shall be made reasonably secure by the owner, agent, or manager, and a person shall not travel or work in any such travelling road which is not so made secure, except for the purpose of exploration or repair, or for other necessary duties of the Mine. In the miners' actual working place, as defined by the special rules of the Mine, the miner himself shall make the roof, sides, and face thereof safe for working therein."
"16 a. The owner, agent, or manager shall cause all timber for props and other purposes required by the workmen to carry on their operations with safety to themselves to be cut in convenient lengths for setting, and placed for use where the workman delivers his coal."
It was important that the alteration he suggested should be adopted in the interest of the workmen, of the employers, and also of science, which was introducing the "long-wall" system of working. By that system a large face of coal, probably from 100 to 1,000 yards, all running parallel, was worked out at once. Perhaps 50 or 60 men were employed in that place as miners, and it was necessary that the roof-propping should be done simultaneously. Each man, or number of men, had been in the habit of propping and securing their own place where they worked. As the Bill, however, now stood they must have a set of special timber men, and the miners must remain idle while the timbering was carried out. He considered it important that the miners should help in that work, and he proposed these Rules in the interest of the work people, of the employers, and of science, which had led to the adoption of a system tending to security and economy. In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, in 1865, one life was lost for every 210,000 tons of coal raised; but since then the "long wall" system had come more into
646
use, and in 1870, 380,000 tons were raised with the loss of one life.
MR. PEASEconsidered that the Amendment would introduce a dangerous principle. Hitherto the Committee had placed the whole responsibility upon the owners, and whereas this Amendment proposed to transfer to the men the responsibility in regard to the safety of the roof, from the falling of which so many accidents resulted.
MR. BRUCEsaid, this was a most important question, because, although explosions in mines attracted most public attention, the falls of the roofs and walls really caused more loss of life than any other casualties occurring in mines. The Bill did not propose that the timbering and propping should be taken from the workmen where they had been accustomed to do it, but only that what the men did in that way should be done under the supervision and responsibility of the manager. The Amendment would limit the application of this principle to the highways of collieries, and exempt working places from the operation of the rule. Out of every 100 deaths caused by the fall of roofs, 90 occurred in the working places, and it was those 90 deaths that the hon. Member (Mr. Lancaster) would except from the rule. There was nothing new in the principle he had advocated, for it had been adopted in the oldest mines with the best results. In Northumberland 2·75 lives were lost for every 1,000,000 tons of coal raised, and in Durham 1·95. In North and East Lancashire, where the men were allowed to prop for themselves, the proportion was 4·70; the lives lost numbered 221; whereas, judging by the loss in other districts, if the Durham system prevailed it would be only 93. In West Lancashire the proportion had been 5·81, and in South Wales 6·59. The number of deaths in South Wales was 405; if the Durham system prevailed it would have been 120. Of course, in these cases, there were other points of difference besides the difference in system; but a very experienced Inspector, having persuaded the coal owners in his district to adopt a system of superintending the timber and the roofing, had reduced the number of deaths about 40 per cent. It was inexpedient to trust to the men, as some advised, because danger seemed to make them reckless rather than careful. Nothing was more common than for a

647
man to go on pulling down coal to make a good day when he should be propping and roofing. It was not, however, proposed to take the propping out of the ands of the men; it was only required that they should do the work subject to supervision.
MR. LANCASTERsaid, the roof of Northumberland and Durham was hard and strong, while that of the Midland Counties and South Wales was loose, so that the system must be different, and comparisons could not be trusted.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, accidents more often occurred from coal-falling than roof-falling. Accidents from the former cause arose from the men going in too far under the mass of coal with their pick, in the hope of getting a good heavy fall. He suggested that the word "reasonably" should be introduced, with a view to qualify the responsibility of the owners.
MR. BOUVERIEthought if any rule was adopted that in the clause would be the best, because from the figures quoted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) it was obvious it decreased the loss of life.
MR. ELLIOTreferred to the difference in the mode of procedure in mines in Northumberland and in Glamorganshire. In Northumberland enlightened persons were appointed, in consideration of their fitness, to superintend the general safety of the mine. He should be glad to see such a measure carried; for he believed that more lives would be saved under this clause than perhaps any other clause of the Bill.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANbelieved that if this clause were adopted it would tend more than any other in the Bill to save life. No doubt it would create very considerable difficulty, especially in South Wales; but no sort of pains must be spared to save the lives of men. He believed that the difficulty would be in a great degree upon the part of the men themselves. He suggested that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" should be introduced into the clause, which ought to be qualified as the preceding ones had been.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsupported the proposal to insert these words. The first part of the Amendment had been drafted by Mr. Dickinson, one of the most experienced mine Inspectors.
MR. BROGDENdoubted whether the clause could be carried into effect in
648
mines of thick coal unless a staff as numerous as the miners themselves was employed. As the Bill would come into operation at an early period, he would suggest that power should be reserved to the Home Secretary to allow an exemption from the clause in case of necessity.
MR. BRUCEwas opposed to the introduction in this clause of the words suggested, because, as the clause had considerable elasticity, he regarded them as unnecessary. All that the Bill required on the part of colliery owners was that they should take reasonable precautions, and if it could be shown, in case of accidents happening, that they had made good regulations and provided for their being carried into effect, they would be exempted from responsibility. Had he thought the words proposed were essential, he would have introduced them; but he regarded them as unnecessary.
LORD ELCHOthought the reasoning of the Home Secretary was in favour of the introduction of the words, bearing in mind the speeches they had heard from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Elliot). What appeared to him to be a fair compromise between the two was to carry out the principle that they should not try impossibilities; that they should not say that the roof was to be secure when it could not be made secure. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian) that the roof should be made as safe as possible.
MR. BRUCEsaid, if the word "reasonable" was to be introduced into the Bill at all, it ought to find a place in half-a-dozen clauses which had already been passed. The words at the end of the clause having reference to reasonable care being used were intended to apply to each of the general rules, and to all the requirements of the Bill.
MR. FOTHERGILLthought if the word "reasonable" at the end governed the whole, it was as well that that should be made clear. This Bill introduced a very alarming state of things into the management of mines. Suppose a question came before a magistrate, would it be enough to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary's

649
understanding was that the clause was covered by the word "reasonable?"
MR. BRUCE: No, but the Act of Parliament would say it.
MR. BRISTOWEthought the Home Secretary's interpretation of the influence of the word "reasonable" at the end very doubtful, because the draftsman who had charge of drawing up the Bill had two propositions before him—first the responsibility of the owners for matters under their own management and control; and, secondly, their responsibility for offences under the Act committed by some person in their employment. The owners, agents, and managers were responsible for those matters which were directly within their province, and it was admitted on all hands that the management and maintenance of these travelling roads were matters which they themselves must undertake. The Committee had to consider whether the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was consistent with the wording of the clause. He did not think so, and if his own view were correct the mine owners and managers would be strictly responsible, and the words of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian) were therefore necessary.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who had sat down, that there was no such distinction between one class of obligations and another as the hon. Gentleman had supposed. All were duties and obligations thrown on the owner, agent, and manager, and each would be responsible for carrying out the rules, but in each case of contravention they would be able to exonerate themselves from liability. By adopting the Amendment for the insertion of the word "reasonable" they would render those cases where it did not occur exceptionally severe. For instance, one clause provided that "the shaft shall be securely fenced;" now if it gave way that would be held to be a proof that it was not securely fenced, if the word "reasonable" was not inserted in that clause, and was inserted in others.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had struck out the the word "reasonable" in half-a-dozen cases, believing it to be an unnecessary word.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, they had the assurance of the Home Secretary that
650
the word "reasonable" was intended to apply to all rules, and if so it was very easy to frame the clause in such a way that there could be no doubt about it, and then there would be an end of the question. It was idle to discuss seriatim whether that word was to be introduced into every clause, and the words at the end should be made sufficiently clear.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that without the word "reasonable" the onus of proof would lie on the manager, with it it would be transferred to the person making the complaint. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would introduce some general words throwing the onus of proof on the prosecution there would be an end of the question.
MR. PLIMSOLLrecommended the Committee to adopt the clause without alteration, as providing a valuable protection for the men, while not inflicting any hardship on the owners.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the suggestion to throw the onus of proof on the prosecution introduced a new question. The protection aimed at by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) was greater than was right in cases of this sort. What was wanted was to increase the responsibility of the masters. At the same time, he did not want to carry that responsibility too far. The intention of the Government was that when an accident happened the masters should be liable to be called upon to show that they had been sufficiently cautious. But the new clause, of which he had given Notice, would prevent them from being summoned when the Inspector was satisfied that reasonable precautions had been taken.
COLONEL CORBETTsaid, the whole question appeared to him to be only a matter of words. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to substitute for "make secure" the words "to be well secured," the difficulty would be met. "Well secured" meant that the work was done as well could reasonably be expected.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the Committee was getting into confusion. This Bill, as the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe) had said, was drawn with two distinct views, relating to the duties and liabilities of two different classes of persons. Unfortunately, the idea was arising that they

651
could import into the management of mines the principle of the Factory Acts, inasmuch as the interior of mines was beyond the control and supervision of the owner—as he was called—that was, the occupier. Except in very rare cases it would be absurd to attempt to apply the Factory Acts to such works. But they had legislation in point. They had the Merchant Shipping Act, where the liability of the owner of a ship was provided for and defined, and where the liability of the captain, who corresponded with the manager of a mine, was also provided for and defined. The penalties were according to the distinct and relative position of these parties. They might go hammering on with this Bill with the view of introducing impossible distinctions in order to define the liability of separate classes, without arriving at clearness.
MR. GOLDNEYrecommended the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster) to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANalso recommended the hon. Member for Wigan to withdraw his Amendment, and he would then himself move to insert those words which he had before mentioned, and which he hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would accept. His right hon. Friend might fairly accept words which he had already accepted in the first sub-section.
MR. ELLIOTthought this alteration might be made without at all diminishing the efficiency of the clause. A manager or owner ought not to be made responsible for the act of a man who had not put his timber in properly. They might lessen the dangerous conditions which operated in a mine; but as to making the roof and sides in any working secure, such security was quite unattainable in practical mining. He hoped, therefore, that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" would be inserted.
MR. CRAUFURDreminded the Committee that the principle laid down in the clause was no novelty, because if a man's servant committed a fraud on the revenue, the employer became amenable to the Excise and Mint law. Adequate protection would never be obtained for the lives of miners unless the same principle were extended to mine owners.
MR. WOODSsaid, the evidence of every practical man in the House was
652
against the clause as it stood. It was physically impossible to keep the roof safe in the constant changes which went on in the working of a mine. Yet the mine owner who did not maintain it would be liable under the Act, and, unless he could prove his innocence, might be sent to prison.
MR. SCOURFIELDthought that there was no analogy between the Excise laws and the present case. An offence against the Excise laws did not excite public feeling; but in the case of a mine accident there was the feeling that some one should be punished, and the principle of "first come, first served," was too likely to be acted upon.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, it seemed to him that an analogous case to what was now proposed would be that if the captain of a ship was guilty of smuggling the owner should be held responsible.
MR. BRUCEsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster), and then the Government would state the change they would be prepared to make in the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRUCE, repeating the objection to make exceptions to particular rules, and remarking that there was really no radical difference between the Government and the hon. Member for Coventry with respect to those on whom the burden of proof should rest, and that the Government did not wish to impose any unreasonable burden upon owners and managers, while requiring them to take every possible precaution, said, that on the Report he would propose to introduce into the beginning of the clause itself the words—"so far as is reasonably practicable," so that it would read—"the following general rules, so far as is reasonably practicable, shall be observed in every mine."
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved, in page 29, after line 38, to insert—
"30. Where an accident has occurred which has caused the loss of life or such serious bodily injuries as require that the circumstances should be reported to the district Inspector, no alterations or repairs are to be made on the place, or in or about the mine, until it has been visited by the Inspector, unless it can be shown that the allowing it to remain without change would impede the work of the mine, or be likely to lead to other accidents."
He said that the necessity for such an

653
Amendment arose from the fact that it frequently happened that immediately after an accident all traces connected with it were removed.
MR. ELLIOTopposed the Amendment upon the ground that immediately after an accident it was often absolutely necessary to make alterations to restore ventilation and to endeavour to rescue the men.
MR. BRUCEfeared that the Amendment would tend sometimes seriously to aggravate an accident.
MR. RODENalso believed that it would lead to dangerous consequences in many cases.
MR. BROGDENsaw many reasons for some such rule, but he feared the objections to it were unanswerable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ELLIOT MR. ELLIOT moved, in page 29, after line 42, to insert the following general Rule—
"In the South Wales and Monmouthshire districts no person (other than the haulier or driver) shall precede the horses, or ride on a train of tubs or trams, or accompany the haulier or driver when employed in driving trams or tubs underground, save for the purpose of training unaccustomed horses to the work, and also save by leave of the Inspector of the district. Every door boy shall be solely employed in attending to the door or doors under his charge."
He observed that accidents frequently occurred by boys being taken away from the doors under their charge, and the object of the Rule he proposed was to prevent boys being overworked, and from, running before the horses and being crushed in consequence of tumbling down.
MR. BROGDENobjected to the enactment of the proposed Rule as a general law. If it was necessary in particular districts it could be applied to those districts when approved by the Secretary of State.
MR. BRUCEwas aware that the danger arising from the employment of boys underground had long occupied the attention of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Elliot), but he thought that the proposed Rule was not of a sufficiently wide application to justify its being made a general Rule and, if adopted, it should be embodied among the special Rules.
Amendmen0t, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to call the special attention of he Committee to the Amendment which stood next on the Paper. It was one on which, in the opinion of those connected with the Bill, much of its workable character must depend. If the clause remained as it now stood, the Bill would lose a great deal of its virtue. He was not in the habit of saying anything of himself, but he must ask permission to say one word in order to relieve himself of a charge which had been made with regard to him. He fully recognized the ability of the excellent reports of their proceedings which appeared in the public Press; but he thought it was scarcely fair, where, from the very condensed form of the report of what was said in Committee, the reasons for Amendments which stood in his name were not given, that statements should be made that he had reduced the Bill from being a good to be a bad Bill. He had no connection with mines, or interest in them. His only desire with reference to the Bill was for the benefit of the mining population generally, and especially of South Staffordshire, that it should be a good coal-mining Bill—all the Amendments he had put forward were with that view. To secure this two things were essential—that there should be experienced managers, and that nothing should be enacted which would lessen or tend to derogate from their authority. Having laid down 30 general Rules, the Bill provided that every person contravening or not complying therewith should be an offender against the Act. Except that he proposed to insert the word "reasonably"—an alteration which he presumed would be assented to—he did not object to this. The clause, however, went on to say that in the event of contravention or non-compliance "by any person whomsoever" being proved, the owner, agent, or manager should be guilty of an offence against the Act "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent such contravention or non-compliance." He proposed to substitute for this a provision that they should be liable, on conviction, to a penalty—
"If it shall be shown that all reasonable precautions have not been taken by such owner, agent, or manager to prevent such contravention or non-compliance."

655
The law assumed every man to be innocent till he was proved guilty—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear?]—but the clause as it stood laid down the principle that every man should be deemed guilty till he proved himself innocent. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to show that the clause was consistent with the former principle. He would take as an illustration any of the 30 general Rules for a breach of any one of which by "any person whomsoever" the owner, agent, or manager would be liable to a penalty. A collier might place something in the man-hole or place for refuge, and a person thus prevented from getting into it might be run over and killed. The owner, manager, or agent would know nothing of this breach of the regulations, yet the clause would hold them responsible. In the same way a miner, having lost his rammer, or for some other reason, might take down an iron rammer, and the result of his using this might be an explosion, killing the man himself and those around him. In that case a breach of the rule would have been committed, and the man having been killed no information could be obtained about it. The facts, as proved, might show that a breach of the rules had been committed, and how were the owner, agent, or manager to clear themselves? If they were in the dock their mouths would be closed, and the only persons who could give any explanation would be unable to say a single word. It was said that Parliament was now only asked to follow out the clauses of the Factory Acts. But what were the provisions of the Factory Acts upon which what was said to be an analogous liability attached? No person was permitted to be employed without a surgical certificate, and anyone who paid wages without seeing the certificate was liable to a penalty. If, therefore, a factory manager chose to pay wages without seeing a surgical certificate he did that which he knew to be wrong. The Factory Inspector might summon either the occupier of the mill or the other person in fault, and it was clear that the Factory Act never intended to impute guilt to anyone unless he had personal knowledge of the Act which he was breaking. On a former occasion he had ventured to impugn the doctrine of the Attorney
656
General, in which he cited, as a parallel case, that the existence of an accident was of itself proof of negligence on the part of a railway company. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never said anything of the kind.] He had certainly understood him to say so, and he could scarcely be mistaken, for he replied at the time that the first question raised at a trial was—"Do the company admit the negligence?" According to the law laid down in Addison on Torts, the question arising upon a civil case in the event of an accident would be whether the machine causing the accident was solely under the management of the person charged, and whether he was using due and reasonable care. So that even in a civil action a primâ facie liability, such as it was sought here to fix upon an owner or manager, would not attach to them; but in a charge under this section the proceedings would not be civil, but criminal, and the question whether the owner, agent, or manager had anything to do with the accident, or whether the accident would have happened if the person charged had used reasonable care, would be one which the person charged would have no opportunity of answering by his own evidence. He thought, therefore, that a liability of this nature would tend to keep away the best class of men from the office of manager, and to lessen their authority and consequent usefulness, and it would be an evil day for all working in mines when owners, agents, and managers were placed in the position he had described. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 30, leave out from lines 1 to 9, and insert the following paragraph:—
"Every person contravening or failing reasonably to comply with any of the general rules in this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act; and in the event of any contravention or of non-compliance with any of the said general rules by any person whomsoever being proved, the owner, agent, or manager of such mine shall also be liable on conviction to a penalty under this Act; if it shall be shown that all reasonable precautious have not been taken by such owner, agent, or manager to prevent such contravention or non-compliance."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would not place his authority against that of the hon. and learned Member on the question of law involved; but he would repeat what he said the other day, that in the case of a train running off the

657
line and causing personal injury or death it would lie on the railway company to show that they had not been guilty of negligence. Without discussing cases, he was quite content to rest on the principle of law of which there was not the slightest doubt. The real question was whether the section as it stood, substantially, or that proposed by the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted by the Committee? He did not understand there was any serious objection to the first portion of the clause, as it would be amended on the Report by the insertion of the words "so far as is practicable;" and these words would now override the whole clause, including the portion with which the Committee was now concerned. The words must be imported into the construction of the paragraph the hon. and learned Member would strike out. The only fair way of testing it was to consider how it would work. It would be better to strike it out in a straightforward way than to substitute something offering a security which, would prove illusory. If an explosion occurred by the act of some person, not the agent, manager, or owner, and loss of life ensued, and the law was put in force against the agent, manager, or owner, according to the Government proposal the defendants would have to show, to the satisfaction of the Justices, that all reasonable and practicable precautions had been taken to prevent it. It was an argument worthy of Quarter Sessions to say that the mouths of the defendants would be closed and they would be utterly unable to make a defence, because the character of the management of a mine was capable of proof by the production of rules and by the evidence of persons familiar with the course and conduct of business, of whom there must always be several who could be called as witnesses. By such evidence it could be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken for the purpose of avoiding an accident, which, it might be, was inevitable. Under the terms of the Bill the owner, agent, or manager, would be entitled to acquittal. It must not be forgotten what the hon. and learned Member proposed to cast on those who had to enforce the law. He had shown what the defendant would have to prove. He must appeal to the candour of hon. Gentlemen to admit that nothing would be
658
easier than to show that there had been a reasonable compliance with all proper requirements. But what was it the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested should be cast upon those who had to enforce the law at the instance of the public, who were crying out for the protection of human life? He put upon the man who had to enforce the law not only proof of the negative, but of one of the most difficult negatives which could be possibly proved—namely, that there had been an active non-compliance with all the reasonable requirements of the law. How could the Inspector in 99 cases out of 100 enforce the law if he had to discover whether these rules had or had not been complied with? He could not show that reasonable precautions had not been taken, and it would be better at once to strike this clause out of the Bill than to place such a burden of proof upon the shoulders of the person who had to put the law in motion. In substance, the proposal of the Government was perfectly reasonable, and that of the hon. and learned Member was unreasonable and impracticable. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a picture of a highly respectable person standing in a dock and tried before a jury. But in case of the money penalty there would be a trial before a magistrate, and if any other punishment were imposed there would be an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said this was a principle unknown to the law of England. But there was no substantial distinction between this clause and section 41 of the Factory Act. He admitted that the analogy was not exact, and that unless analogies were exact they were often misleading; but regard must be had to the point to which the analogy referred. In the first place, the proposal of the Government was not that a man should be held to be guilty until he had proved his innocence, but that a mine manager or owner should be held primâ facie liable to a penalty until he showed that he had performed certain specified directions mentioned in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman would hardly show his usual candour if he did not recognize the distinction between the two cases. Under the Factory Act, when an offence occurred in any factory the owner or occupier was in every case deemed in the first instance to have committed the offence,

659
and was liable to the penalty; but if he proved to the satisfaction of the Justices that he had used due diligence to enforce the Act, and that the offence was committed by an agent or workman, the payment of the penalty was enforced against the agent or workman; and when the Inspector was of opinion that the occupier had used due diligence, that the offence had been committed by an agent or workman without his knowledge and against his orders, the Inspector might proceed against such agent or workman, and not against the owner or occupier. He had not now to justify the Factory Acts, which had worked for many years with general satisfaction; but what he said was that the Government were in this case doing substantially what had been done in former cases with universal assent. In many instances a man had not to prove his innocence, but there were some in which the rule of law was otherwise—as, for instance, in the case of a man who was found in the possession of Government stores, the law was that he should show whether he had innocently come by them. In other cases certain facts were primâ facie proof of guilt, and while he had admitted that the rule was generally the other way, there were sufficient exceptions to show that it was not universally so, and the question for the Committee to decide was whether there was not abundant reason in this case to satisfy them that it was fair to throw upon the owner the onus of showing that he had performed certain specified acts of duty from which the law would infer his innocence. All that the Government cared for was the substance of the clause; for the expression it would be unworthy in them to contend. He could not expunge the substance of the clause, but proposed to add to it these words—
"But no such owner, agent, or manager shall be convicted of such offence if he shall prove that he has taken all reasonable means and precautions."
He contended that, substantially, the clause was a fair one, and that it imposed no duty upon an owner, manager, or agent which he had not the means of meeting; but if it gave offence or created alarm the Government would not object to any alteration, provided that the real effect of the clause was left untouched.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYbelieved that there was in reality very little difference between the Government and those who desired the amendment of this clause, and he was convinced that the more the subject was considered the more certainly would the Committee come to the conclusion that if an owner had taken due precautions he ought to be relieved not only from any charge being made, but also from being summoned to meet any charge and having to make his defence. The argument of the Attorney General was not wholly satisfactory, for if an explosion happened and loss of life occurred this Bill would not be applicable, as the offence became one of manslaughter, which would be tried in the ordinary way before a jury. In that event nothing would be inferred; neglect would have to be proved, and the greater offence would swallow up all the minor ones. If it were proved that owing to his negligence or his wilful act loss of life occurred an owner would be liable, and no one would wish it to be otherwise. The offence, however, might be less than manslaughter, yet by the clause an owner would be responsible for a special breach of a general rule; but he did not suppose that if a workman did a particular act in contravention of a rule, anyone would desire to make the owner responsible. He believed that the clause could be amended by the insertion of a very few words, so as to render it consistent with the views of those interested in mines, and those who were anxious that they should be worked in a proper way. He suggested that words should be inserted which would relieve the owners, agents, and managers of mines from prosecution under this Bill in the event of their being able to show that they had taken all reasonable care, by the publication and enforcement of the rules, as to the regulations for the working of the mine. In the event of due care having been taken on the part of the owners or their agents to make the rules known, and to enforce them when a wrongful act was done, the prime offender, and not the owners or their agents, ought to be punished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised to bring up a clause on the Report to bring this Bill into harmony with the Factory Acts; but what the owners wanted was that they should not be summoned before the

661
Justices' unless a primâ facie case was made out against him. He further suggested that before the owner was prosecuted the Inspector should make inquiries and ascertain whether or not he had done his best to enforce the rules. He trusted that there would be no long discussion upon a point upon which both sides of the House were so nearly agreed.
MR. BRUCEacceded to the two proposals of the right hon. Gentleman without any difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right when he stated that there was but little difficulty between them. He had never contended for more than that the owner should be bound to show that he had done his best to enforce and to observe the general rules. He, therefore, willingly accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to amend the clause by inserting after the words "all reasonable means" the words "by publication and enforcement of the above rules as the regulations for the working of the mine." With regard to the second point, he might observe that he had already given Notice of an Amendment which went even beyond the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as it not only required the Inspector to make an inquiry into the circumstances of the case before commencing a prosecution against the men, but restricted the power of instituting a prosecution to the Inspector.
MR. PEASEthought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) amply met the difficulty, and would carry out the desired object much better than the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill).
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANobserved that he felt much anxiety about this part of the Bill from a fear that a mine owner might be liable to be brought before the law for an offence of which he was as innocent as if he had been a resident of New Zealand. He was, however, rejoiced to find that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) entirely met this case. It would then be the duty of the miner or manager, by publication and other means, to enforce the rules laid down. He wished, however, to know what was the exact meaning of the word "enforcement?" If it meant that wherever one of the general rules had been broken the owner,
662
agent, or manager had done his best to enforce them and to punish an infraction of them, he thought the case was fairly met. It was most important that those other parties who were interested in mines should not be liable to be proceeded against until the case had been previously thoroughly sifted.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, what he meant by the word "enforcement" was to make the regulations of the mine the rules by which the people concerned were to abide.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he was glad the penal clause had been rejected, but feared the owners would be relieved of all responsibility. Railway directors were made liable in purse for loss of life resulting from disregard of the ordinary rules for insuring safety; and though he was glad the owners of mines were relieved from penal consequences, he thought they should still be liable for pecuniary compensation.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) thoroughly satisfactory. It was right that the owners should be quired to show in case of accident that they had taken every proper precaution to prevent accident; more than this should not be expected of them.
LORD ELCHOconcurred in the opinion so generally expressed, that the difficulty in the matter was now satisfactorily solved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy). In respect to the Secretary of State's proposal, to limit the prosecutions to Inspectors, he (Lord Elcho) thought that that was going too far in the other direction.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his only difficulty at first sight about accepting this Amendment was the meaning of the word "enforcement;" but on consideration he found it must clearly be interpreted in conjunction with the word "publication," and that it would require no more than the use of the ordinary means for enforcing the rules of the mine.
Amendment (Mr. Staveley Hill), by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, the following words were inserted:—
"By publication and enforcement of the said rules as regulations for the working of the mines."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.

PART III.—SUPPLEMENTAL.
Penalties.
Clause 58 (Imprisonment for wilful neglect endangering life or limb).
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS)MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 33, lines 27 and 28, leave out from "if the Court" to "of the case," inclusive, and insert—
"If an owner or agent, to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, and if not an owner or agent, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and in the event of non-payment."
MR. BRUCEsaid, the effect of the clause was to enable magistrates, where a breach of the rules had been committed involving danger to life or limb, to inflict imprisonment as well as a fine. He did not think the workmen themselves would deem imprisonment too great a punishment for a deliberate and wilful breach of the rules endangering life, or that a money penalty was quite sufficient in such a case. The Amendment now proposed would make the workman liable to imprisonment for such an act, but would allow the owner or manager to escape with a mere pecuniary fine, however palpable his offence. He held that all punishments should be adequate, and also that they should be equal. Imprisonment was inflicted for offences far less grave than an act of wilful negligence endangering human life, and it would be unequal to punish with imprisonment the workmen who committed such acts, while the owner or manager who did the same thing got off by the mere payment of a fine.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. These were offences which a mere money penalty would not meet. The miners wished that they should be punishable with imprisonment; and the rule that they wanted to have applied to themselves they desired, where all the circumstances were the same, to have equally applied to the owners. It should be remembered that the offence must be a wilful one.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had put down the Amendment on the Paper because the agents and managers of mines objected to the clause as it stood, and it was extremely probable that such a clause, unamended, would lead many
664
gentlemen of considerable attainments and position who now filled those posts to give up such an occupation, and let in a class of inferior men. It therefore became a question whether the clause would work well if it were left as it stood at present. He would, however, leave the matter in the hands of the Committee.
MR. SAMUDApointed out that by the alterations already made in the Bill those managers who published and took reasonable means to enforce the rules would not be liable to any penalty at all under this clause, and that would prevent the security to the miners which managers and owners should be compelled to ensure, either in person or in purse.
MR. BRUCEurged that, as the agents guilty of negligence could only be punished under the present Bill when it had become an Act of Parliament, it was necessary to see that the punishment to be awarded was sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. He thought it could not be urged that imprisonment was too severe a penalty to be inflicted for wilful negligence. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
MR. RODENregarded imprisonment as a proper punishment for a personal act of negligence; but suggested that the penalties to which miners and employers were subjected should be equal.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not divide upon this Amendment, inasmuch as the proceedings to be taken were clearly defined, and were of such a character that no person conducting his business in a proper manner would be liable to punishment.
MR. STAVELEY HILLbelieved that fines were as great an inducement to people to do well as imprisonment could be; but at any rate punishment should be equal for masters and men.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he had merely moved the Amendment in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for South West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), thinking it desirable that the proposal should be discussed; but he did not at all agree with it.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had thought it right to place before the Committee the views of the managers, but he would not press the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CANDLISHsuggested that as the offences to be dealt with would sometimes amount to manslaughter, and as a person who had been punished under the Mines Act could not be subsequently put upon his trial for manslaughter, the imprisonment ought to be for six instead of three months.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYpointed out to the hon. Member that, in cases where the injuries inflicted by wilful negligence were likely to result in death, the magistrates would have power to adjourn the hearing of charges brought against the offenders in order that the result of the injuries might be ascertained, and, where necessary, charges of manslaughter might be preferred under the existing law.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 59 (Summary proceedings for offences, penalties, &c.)
MR. BROGDEN MR. BROGDEN moved, in page 35, line 2, after "summary jurisdiction," add—
"Provided always, That no proceedings shall be taken by any Inspector or other Government officer, after the expiration of three months from the commission of the offence, unless notice was duly given within that time."
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 62, agreed to.
Clause 63.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Mr. LIDDELL)SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Mr. LIDDELL) moved, in page 36, line 33, after "applies" to insert—"in which the offence set forth in the complaint shall have been committed" with the view of making the clause harmonize with the general practice in proceedings in criminal matters.
MR. RODENhoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause as it stood.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought it would be desirable that a stipendiary magistrate should be appointed for hearing complaints and charges under the Act.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwarned the Committee against getting an immense number of inferior men, who could not get on in their own profession, instead of a high class of independent men.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it had been his fate to be called in to act as arbi-
666
trator or umpire on more than one occasion when differences had arisen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Miscellaneous.
Clauses 64 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 68 (Interpretation of terms. 23 & 24 Vict., c. 151, s. 7.)
MR. FOTHERGILL MR. FOTHERGILL moved, in page 38, line 12, after "mine," insert—
"Except so far as such person under the reservations contained in the lease or other instrument by which such royalty is reserved be enabled to regulate the mode of working the mine."
He was the tenant of a large property, the lessor of which had a royalty on the coals which were raised. One part of the coal being in close proximity to a river could not be worked without great danger; but, notwithstanding this circumstance, he was threatened with an action of ejectment unless he worked that portion of the mine. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words to protect lessees from the exercise of such powers on the part of lessors.
MR. BRUCEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that arrangements between lessors and lessees did not come within the provision of the Bill.
MR. NEWDEGATEsuggested that in such cases, or in cases where coal was left as a barrier between the mine and old workings, which might be full of dangerous gases, or of water, the lessor should be committing an offence against the Act if he insisted on the mine being worked in a dangerous manner.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANremarked there was no definition of the term "manager," and he had not the remotest conception of what a "manager" was. He suggested that some definition of the term should be inserted in the Bill.
MR. BRUCEsaid, there was no need for a definition, as the person who was named manager was responsible. The agent or sub-agent might be appointed, and whoever was appointed was responsible.
MR. STAVELEY HILLremarked that the word "panel" was not defined.
MR. BRUEN MR. BRUEN moved, in page 38, line 18, after "State," insert "as to Ireland

667
the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant."
MR. BRUCEsaid, there would be only only one Inspector for Ireland, and it was desirable that he should be under the same jurisdiction as the other Inspectors.
MR. DELAHUNTY, in supporting the Amendment, expressed a hope that before another year elapsed the office of Lord Lieutenant would be abolished.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Postponed Clause 15.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the clause contained two sub-sections, one providing that no wages should be paid in public-houses, and the second, that all wages should be paid in money by the immediate employers of the men. He proposed to omit the second of these sub-sections, as the miners would be sufficiently protected by the Truck Acts. Next Session he should be prepared to introduce a Bill relating to the subject of wages generally.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERwas satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and said he would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

GALASHIELS JURISDICTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend the Act of the thirtieth and thirty-first years of Victoria, chapter eighty five, intituled "An Act to include the whole of the Burgh of Galashiels within the County, Sheriffdom, and Commissariat of Selkirk," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]

SCHOOL BOARDS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Education Department, and make further provision with respect to the Election of School Boards, and for passing Resolutions for an application for a School Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER and Mr. WINTER-BOTHAM.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 224.]

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend "An Act for enabling Grand Juries in Ireland to borrow money from private sources on the security of Presentment, and for transferring to counties certain works constructed wholly or in part with public money," ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 226.]

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (DISTRAINT) BILL.
Select Committee on Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint) Bill nominated:—Mr. FORTESCUE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir DANIEL GOOCH, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. TIPPING, Mr. HEYGATE, Mr. CHADWICK, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. HINDE PALMER, Mr. CAWLET, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. PRICE, Lord EDWIN HILL-TREVOR, and Mr. MUNTZ:—Five to be the quorum.

WILDFOWL PROTECTION BILL.
Select Committee on Wildfowl Protection Bill to consist of Twenty-three Members:—Colonel BARTTELOT, Colonel BERESFORD, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE, Mr. CHARLES DALRYMPLE, Mr. DILLWYN, Captain GREVILLE, Mr. VERNON HARCOURT, Mr. AUBERON HERBERT, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, Sir MASSEY LOPES, Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. MUNDELLA, Colonel PARKER, Mr. PELL, Mr. WALTER POWELL, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. RIDLEY, Mr. HENRY SAMUELSON, Mr. SYKES, Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, and Sir DAVID WEDDERBURN:—Seven to be the quorum.
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.