Commons Sitting of 13 March 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Public Accounts [No. 104].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—County Courts (Small Debts) * [85]; Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* [86].
Second Reading—Fires [7]; Albert and European Life Assurance Companies (Inquiry)* [8]; Public Worship Facilities [18]; Justices' Clerks Salaries [39], debate adjourned.

FIRES BILL— [BILL 7.]
(Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Charles Turner, Mr. Agar-Ellis.)
FIRES BILL— [BILL 7.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'LAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it embodied the main recommendations of the Committee on Eire Protection which sat in 1867. That Committee was appointed to inquire into the existing legislative provisions for the protection of life and property against fires in the United Kingdom, and as to the best means for ascertaining the causes and preventing the frequency of fires. The Committee made five distinct recommendations:—First, it having been proved in evidence that fires frequently arose from the faulty construction of buildings, they recommended a general Building Act for all towns and places in the United Kingdom, similar in its general provisions to the Metropolitan Building Act and to the Building Acts of Liverpool. Secondly, it having been brought out in evidence that without any inquiry clauses were frequently inserted in Bills for the supply of water by companies or local authorities, providing that the water need not be constantly laid on, thereby frustrating the evident intention of the provision of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847, which contemplated a constant supply of water at high pressure, unless in exceptional cases—the Committee, therefore, recommended that every unopposed Water

  1887
  Bill should, immediately after the second reading, be referred to the Referees to inquire and report whether sufficient reasons existed for the insertion of such provisions. Thirdly, the Committee also recommended that where, in any investigation into the origin of a fire, it had been proved to have been caused by the culpable carelessness of some person or persons, they should be deemed guilty of a punishable offence. Fourthly, it having been brought out in evidence that the Petroleum Act of 1862 was quite inoperative, the Committee recommended that it should be amended in various particulars, which was done by the passing of the Act of 1868. And fifthly, they recommended that there should be a judicial inquiry into the origin of all fires. As regarded the first recommendation, few were aware of the great carelessness shown by builders in the erection and alteration of buildings. In new houses, timber was often placed in close proximity to fire-places, flues, and stoves; and in altering old houses, sunlights were placed, stoves erected, and timber laid without any reference to the original construction of the building. It was not possible to prevent fires; but it was quite practicable to insist upon buildings being constructed in such a manner as that, if a fire occurred in them, the risk of losing the lives of those persons in them would be reduced to a minimum. For instance, fires occurred very frequently in small shops, in the floors above which several families resided. Now, it should be made compulsory that in all cases where buildings were composed of shops below and dwelling-houses above, the floor immediately above the shop should be made fire-proof. Again, in many large retail and wholesale establishments the business-rooms were on the lower, and the assistants were lodged in the upper floors. In all such cases the Committee recommended that the floors should be made fire-proof, and that there should be a ready means of escape by the roof in case of fire, and in addition it should be made compulsory on the proprietors of such establishments to have always ready some kind of fire-escape. But if there was reason to complain of the inadequacy of these means in dwelling-houses, there was greater reason to find fault with their almost total absence in public buildings, such as churches, lecture and concert-halls,
  1888
  theatres, &c. It was dreadful to contemplate the effects of a fire in such buildings when crowded with people. The means of egress in all their public buildings were so few that it would be quite impossible for the inmates of the building to make their escape in sufficient time; and probably in addition to the destruction of life from burning, there would be great loss of life from suffocation in the crush which would take place at the few doors. All stairs and corridors should be constructed of stone, with iron or fire-proof supports; yet in some of the best attended theatres in London the partitions of the passages were constructed of the most inflammable material, which would contribute to the rapid spread of fire. He knew of one or two of the most popular theatres in London where the passages to stalls were so narrow that the people could only pass along in single file, and where the passages were flanked by wooden partitions which would cut off all means of escape in case of their taking fire. The next recommendation of the Committee was no novelty in legislation. By an unrepealed Act of Queen Anne a servant who was proved from negligence or carelessness to have caused a fire was condemned to pay £100, or in default to suffer imprisonment with hard labour for 18 months. Proved carelessness in anyone driving a carriage of any kind from which injury to an individual resulted, carelessness in one workman causing injury to another, carelessness in a signalman, in a pointsman, in an engine-driver, and similar other cases of carelessness, had all been deemed punishable offences. Carelessness in the use of lucifer matches had of late become a frequent cause of fires. In London within the last five years there had been an increase of fires from this cause alone from 36 to 90, or taking the proportion to the number of fires whose origin was discovered in 1866 to 1870, from 4½ per cent to 6 per cent. Nor was London singular in the destruction to property from fires caused from lucifers. In a letter which the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) wrote to the Committee, he stated that in three years the number of fires in agricultural property from the careless use of lucifer matches in the Norwich Union Office alone was 133, and had cost that office £13,000. The amount of agricultural property insured

  1889
  by the insurance companies of England amounted to £70,000,000, and as it was reasonable to suppose that there was the same proportion of losses in the other companies, the annual loss to agricultural property in England from fires caused by lucifer matches would amount to £300,000. The witness of the Sun Eire Insurance Company stated that they lost every year from fires from this cause £10,000. One of the principal reasons for such a general use of lucifer matches was the now prevalent habit of smoking. Smokers were, as a class, selfish and indifferent to the consequences of their habit. Frequently fires had occurred, and much valuable property destroyed, from the careless throwing away of the end of the cigar or fusees and matches. In Liverpool, some years ago, most disastrous fires occurred in the warehouses. So serious did these become that the Watch and Eire Prevention Committee of the Town Council told off two policemen for the special purpose of going into the warehouses to see if the men had pipes and lucifer matches about them. In two years 573 pipes were taken from the men, and a decrease in the number of fires was said to follow this step taken by the committee. It was proposed in the Committee of 1867 to recommend a tax on matches; but the majority of the Committee did not agree to it, thinking that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be found bold enough to carry it out, and that it would act as a restriction on trade. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been bold enough to propose the tax, but without success. It might be urged that such a tax would throw many poor women out of employment; but the number deprived of employment by fires was surely much greater. He was lately informed by an hon. Member that a manufactory having been destroyed through a workman treading on a match, £10,000 worth of property was destroyed and hundreds of people thrown out of employment. He believed that before long it would be necessary to legislate on the dangerous and careless use of lucifer matches. As to the last recommendation made by the Committee, almost all the witnesses concurred in the opinion that an inquiry made into all fires would have the effect not only of discovering the causes of many fires at present unknown, but of reducing the gross number of fires. As
  1890
  regarded the increase in the number of fires, it was reported to the Committee that while in 1840 there were 680 fires in London, the number had increased in 1866 to 1,338, and in 1870 to 1,946. While the population had increased in the same period 54 per cent. and the houses 46 per cent. the number of fires had increased 104 per cent. The Committee received similar reports from all parts of the country. In Manchester, in the five years 1846–50, there were 118 fires, and in 1866–70, 276, showing an increase of 130 per cent. In 1832, according to a gentleman connected with the Liverpool and London Company, the proportion of fires in London from unknown causes was 34½ per cent; while in 1866 it had risen to 52½ per cent. Moreover, Captain Shaw, the Superintendent of the London Fire Brigade, handed in a table showing that in 1833 the percentage of fires from unknown causes was only 12; while in 1866 it was 43½. When they found that a great proportion of the fires whose causes were unknown occurred on insured property, they could not help suspecting that there was something wrong in that respect. In London, in the year 1866, there were 589 fires whose causes were unknown, and of those 480 were on insured property. In Edinburgh, in 1869, there were 81 fires, 71 of which were on insured property. In Leeds, in 1870, there were 70 fires, and 60 of them were on insured property. In Manchester, during the last five years, there were 376 fires, of which 179 were on insured property. These facts afforded ground for supposing that there was misconduct on the part of those whose buildings were set on fire. The Committee endeavoured to trace the origin of these fires, and they divided cases of wilful fire-raising into four distinct classes. The first class consisted of those persons who made a living by setting fire to their houses in order that they might obtain insurance money from insurance companies. The second consisted of those who were on the verge of bankruptcy, and who set fire to their houses with the view of defrauding insurance companies and their creditors. The third consisted of thieves, who set fire to premises in order to conceal the thefts of which they had been guilty; and the fourth consisted of those who set fire to buildings maliciously. As regarded the first source

  1891
  of wilful fire-raising, the Committee had abundant evidence. Mr. Fletcher stated that one man was found guilty of setting fire to 60 different houses, and that when he was imprisoned for his crimes, fires ceased in the district where he had committed them. The Superintendent of the Salvage Corps stated that he knew a man who lived entirely by setting fire to houses. That man's mode of procedure was as follows—he induced an insurance company to insure his furniture; as soon as they did so he removed his furniture to another empty house, and then set fire to the house which he had left, and obtained insurance money for his furniture, which they supposed had been destroyed by the fire. That man had obtained insurance money on the same furniture five or six times in one year, by acting upon the before-mentioned fraudulent system. A witness, who had had very large experience as assessor of losses by fire for one of the insurance companies, said he believed that 50 per cent of the fires that broke out were incendiary fires, and that a great part of those fires were caused by small shopkeepers who were on the verge of bankruptcy. Very often it was found that "dummy" goods instead of real goods were in those shops, and that very frequently he found suspicious circumstances about the buildings after such fires—such as the floor steeped in naptha, paper in places where it should not to be; and sometimes the premises had been found on fire in two or three places at once. Very often fires were caused by negligence, and if a fire arose from negligence on the premises of a person on the verge of bankruptcy he took no pains to extinguish the fire. When fires occurred in the shops of people who were not doing well, and had no longer a ready market for bad goods generally, all those goods were burnt, but the insurance policy was always preserved. There was no more ready market than a fire for unsaleable goods. A third source of wilful fire-raising was theft from warehouses. The Chairman of the Liverpool Fire and Watch Committee stated that during the American War, when the price of cotton was very high, a great deal of cotton was stolen from the warehouses in Liverpool, and there were a great many fires in them, and the only origin to which those fires could be traced was the hope that they would
  1892
  conceal the thefts which had been committed. As to fires originating from malice, we knew that some years ago fires originating in malice occurred in different parts of the country, and every now and then fires were caused by workmen setting fire to their masters' premises out of spite; and not unfrequently they were done by workmen in unfinished houses. It was found that those who practiced incendiarism carried on their system most methodically. Last year a man was convicted of setting fire to eight or nine houses; and, so methodically did he go about his work, that he kept a diary of his negotiations with various insurance offices to procure the insurance of his goods at the different houses at which he had resided. If that diary were published, it would be a most interesting publication. As the origin of a very large proportion of the fires was unknown, doubtful, or suspicious, it was but a natural suggestion that there should be an inquiry of some kind or another, on the occurrence of a fire, to endeavour to discover its origin or cause, and dispel all doubts or suspicions. There was in the Committee a great concurrence of evidence in favour of a judicial or public inquiry. The opinion of these witnesses had been corroborated by the results wherever investigations had taken place. Mr. Humphreys, the Coroner for Middlesex, stated that the taking of inquests on fires was revived a few years back in the City of London, and immediately the fires fell one-fourth in proportion. In a village in Cambridgeshire there were 11 fires in as many months, and no sooner was the insurance money paid in one case than another happened; but as soon as the coroner began to hold inquests, the fires altogether ceased. In the South Wales district, some years ago, the Mayor and his brother town councillors were so impressed with danger to life, as well as the destruction of property from fires, that they established a court of inquiry on their own responsibility, without having any law to justify their conduct. The effect was to reduce the fires in the Swansea district most materially, so that two or three years elapsed without their having 10 cases. A bout the year 1830, the Sheriff of the county of Lanark wrote a letter to the insurance agents in Glasgow to the effect that, in consequence of the frequency of fires, every case, without ex-ception,

  1893
  should be investigated before him, or some competent authority, through the medium of the Procurator Fiscal. The immediate consequence was to put a stop to the frequency of the fires. In Baltimore, in the year 1858, there were 130 incendiary fires. A fire-marshal was appointed, whose duty it was to investigate into all fires, and prosecute where necessary; and in the next years the fires fell to 77, 38, 28, 21, and in 1863 to 10. It was therefore clear that the fear of an investigation prevented the dishonest man from setting fire to his house. Then, to whom was to be entrusted the originating and conducting of this inquiry, and at whose expense were the proceedings to be carried on? It might aid in arriving at a conclusion if they knew how these inquiries were conducted in other countries. The Committee ascertained that inquiries took place into fires in Hamburg, Copenhagen, Gothenburg, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, and Havre, and that the police originated the inquiry, and conducted the subsequent proceedings in all those places but Paris. In Paris, the insurance companies were obliged to take the initiatory steps; but the further inquiry was conducted by the Juge de Paix. It was further ascertained that the inquiry was compulsory in all fires, and not only in doubtful or suspicious cases. It had been thought by some that the insurance companies, being deeply interested in the reduction of the number of fires, the responsibility of originating and conducting these inquiries should be entrusted to them. He (Mr. M'Lagan), however, thought that this would be objectionable and unfair, because insurance companies, being merely commercial bodies, should not be called on to act as public prosecutors in cases of crime. Besides, they were interested only in one-third of the insurable property of the country; and by throwing upon them the expense of the prosecutions, they would be under the necessity of raising their rates, and by this plan they would be simply taxing those who insured—the prudent part of the community—to the relief of those who did not insure—the improvident section. Insurance business was like any other business—if it did not pay on account of a large number of fires, the rates must be raised to keep it safe. There was a remarkable instance of this some years
  1894
  ago in Liverpool. The fires in the cotton warehouses there were so disastrous that the insurance companies were obliged to raise their rates from about 12 s. to 35 s. A Building Act, a Fire Protection Act, and other local Acts were obtained by the Corporation, by the operation of which the number of fires was greatly reduced; and the effect was that the premiums of insurance were reduced to their former rate. [An hon. MEMBER: It is now 6s.] It was thus seen that the public—at least, the insuring or prudent part of the public—had a direct pecuniary interest in the reduction in the number of fires. It was well said by one of the witnesses that—
  "These inquiries should take place at the expense of the municipality or country, who have the interest in preventing wilful fires which all well-regulated communities have in preventing fraud and crime."
  Following the example of all those countries in which inquiries into fires are conducted, the Bill proposed that, on the occurrence of a fire, the first step towards an inquiry should be taken by the police, the chief officer of which force should report in writing to the coroner for the place in which the fire had taken place the fact and circumstances of such fire, and in particular whether there was ground to suppose such fire to have been caused or aggravated by the wilful or unlawful act or default of any person, whether known or unknown. The Bill then proposed that the inquiry should be taken up and conducted by the coroner only in those cases in which a chief officer of police had reported to him that there was ground to believe such fire to have been unlawfully caused, or where he was directed by the Secretary of State to conduct an inquiry, or where an application was made to him by a person interested in the fire under restrictions and provisions. The Committee recommended the coroner's court as the most suitable before which these inquiries should be conducted. The great majority of the witnesses were in favour of the coroner's court as the most suitable for the purpose; but he thought it right to mention that Sir Thomas Henry, a gentleman of great experience in these matters, while expressing doubts as to any advantage to be derived from such inquiries, was of opinion that the insurance companies should be the parties to

  1895
  prosecute if anything were found suspicious about a fire. On the other hand, Mr. Humphreys pointed out that it was the ancient right of coroners to take cognizances of felonies, and that as fire-raising was a felony, the coroner was the ancient and proper officer to undertake the inquiry. There was, however, a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in opposition to which no coroner would like to undertake the task. The Committee were unwilling to recommend any new court of inquiry, and finding that the inquiry into fires had been made previously by coroners, and as there was no restriction by statute, he (Mr. M'Lagan) had thought it better, notwithstanding the decision of the Queen's Bench, to recommend the coroner's court as the most suitable for inquiries into fires. The Bill, therefore, if passed into law, would, in a great measure, be only a declaratory Act. In conducting an inquiry into fires, it was necessary that this should be done on the spot. Now, there was no other existing court than the coroner's that could be moved from place to place as circumstances required, and he was thus enabled to constitute his court, and hold the inquiry in the immediate vicinity of the fire. He could, besides, examine witnesses on oath, take a jury's verdict, and bind over the parties to prosecute. It might be asked why these inquiries should not be made in a police court. The difference between an inquiry before a police magistrate and before a coroner was, that before the magistrate could do anything he must have a suspected person apprehended before him, while the coroner simply made an inquiry. If it resulted in nothing, nobody was taken into custody; but if it did result in anything, the person was taken into custody, and handed over to the police magistrate. The Bill provided that an application for inquiry must be accompanied with an affidavit, sworn before a justice of the peace, that the applicant had ground to believe such fire to have been unlawfully caused. The application must also be accompanied by a deposit as a security for costs which might be awarded against such person; and by Clause 9 it was provided that if it should appear that the person at the time of making his application had not reasonable ground to believe the fire had been unlawfully caused, the coroner
  1896
  should direct all the expenses of the inquiry to be paid by such person to the extent of his deposit. The object of that was to prevent any person making such an application out of spite or malice. The coroner having made the inquiry, was required to send a report to the Secretary of State; and in the month of January in each year, or at such other time as a Secretary of State might from time to time appoint, the coroner was required to make a report of all fires which had been reported by the police, and particularly of all fires respecting which he had held inquiries. If at any time it might be deemed advisable for the public interest to assist the coroner in any special cases, power was given by the Bill to the Secretary of State to do so by appointing an assessor to him. The local authorities of some large cities might consider it desirable to appoint a special officer to act instead of the coroner to inquire into fires, who by this Bill would be invested with the full powers of the coroner. It was brought out in evidence that, owing to the great competition among insurance companies, they were too ready to pay claims without due inquiry, even though there were, in many cases, strong grounds to suspect that the fires were unlawfully caused, and thus encouragement was given to incendiary fires. The Bill, therefore, provided that it should not be lawful for any insurance company to pay or make good any claim for damage consequent on any fire until after the report of the coroner, and a penalty not exceeding £10 might be summarily inflicted for the infringement of this provision. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. As regarded Ireland, he simply extended some of the provisions to that country. The Bill of last year applied to Scotland, but this year he had not thought proper to introduce Scotland, because inquiries were conducted there by the Procurator Fiscal where a fire occurred. No doubt in many cases they were conducted very properly; but he should like to see a clause introduced into the Bill requiring investigations in Scotland to be conducted in public. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. AGAR-ELLIS, in seconding the Motion, expressed his full concurrence in the exhaustive remarks of his hon. Friend, and the hope that the House

  1897
  would pass this Bill, which would he of great public advantage to Ireland as well as to England. He believed that people would act more cautiously with reference to fire when they knew that an investigation would he made into the origin of a fire. As to the tax which was proposed on matches, he thought it was one of the best ever suggested, and regretted that the proposition was so speedily put aside.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)
  MR. TURNERsaid, the House must unanimously admit the necessity of making a judicial inquiry into the origin of fires. Nothing showed the necessity more than the fact that from 30 to 50 per cent of the fires which occurred involved the loss of very valuable property, as in many cases the origin could not be ascertained under the present system, and there was strong reason for supposing that the majority of fires were occasioned by culpable negligence or fraud. That the use of lucifer matches and smoking by workpeople in warehouses had a deal to do with the frequency of those occurrences was evidenced by their diminution following upon the more rigid rules which were now enforced among operatives in regard to smoking. It was quite a common fact, whenever a very large fire took place, involving damage to £10,000, or even £100,000 worth of property, that the cause was set down as "unknown." Although some hon. Member might find objection to a few of the details, he hoped that the House would at least pass the principle of the measure, not merely in regard to the interests of insurance companies, but for the public good.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, the appointment of the coroner to investigate the cause of fires was a decided advantage; for it was well known, under existing circumstances, that many insurance offices lacked moral courage in prosecuting cases of special fraud. The chief difficulty consisted in the evanescent character of the proof, and this the measure would meet by directing an inquiry, without much loss of time, and before guilty persons had much chance of removing the traces of their guilt. At present, there was not only delay, but the expense incurred by offices in
  1898
  the prosecution of supposed offenders not unfrequently approached the amount of the insurance itself; and whenever this was likely to occur they were disposed to make a compromise rather than prosecute. These fraudulent fires were by no means confined to urban districts, and several of the fires which prevailed in Yorkshire some time ago were due as much to the low price of corn as to anything else. With regard to fires in agricultural districts, it would be generally found that it was in the best fields and in the best seasons that they broke out. The Bill was, in his judgment, a complete measure, and the insurance companies would welcome it.
  MR. C. S. READsaid, he did not think it was creditable to our domestic legislation that five years should be allowed to pass before the House proceeded to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on this subject—a Committee of which he was a Member, and over which his hon. Friend, who now moved the second reading of the Bill, presided with so much ability and patience. He concurred in the funeral oration which had been delivered on the deceased match tax, because he happened to be that Member of the Fires Committee who moved the resolution for the taxing of all matches that might be lighted anywhere, and not on the box only; for he contended that such a restriction would tend considerably to diminish the danger arising from the use of lucifer matches. He brought that resolution before the Committee, but had no one to second him, and was very much in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he passed through Westminster Hall, after proposing the obnoxious impost. The proper officer to make inquiry in England was the coroner. It was an old custom to have a fire inquest, and it would be a good one to revive. He had himself sat on such an inquiry about 20 years ago, and although the result did not enable them to bring a criminal indictment against the person suspected, it had the effect of diminishing the frequency of fires in the neighbourhood. The holding of a fire inquest was quite germane to the office of coroner, and not to that of magistrate, who could not make any investigation unless some person was suspected and brought before him. He also agreed with those who thought that the insurance companies were not the proper parties

  1899
  to conduct the investigation, or even to originate it. But there was one question to which he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend—namely, who was to pay the expense of the investigation? It was proposed to add it to the county rate, in support of which it was said that the benefit which the county would derive from a reduction in the number of fires would more than counterbalance the increase of the rate. But that argument applied with still greater force to insurance companies, because they would reap a benefit—a vast pecuniary benefit—from the diminution of fires, and he contended they should bear the burden, and not the ratepayers. That was the only question he had to raise. In all other respects he gave the Bill his most cordial support.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had been connected for 20 years with an insurance company, and he could state that the directors would not have the slightest objection to bear a portion of the expense. But if there was to be an inquiry, the essential thing would be to follow it up, and that could not be so well done by the companies as by some public functionary, because there was a great deal of competition between them; and if such a duty were imposed on them, they would often feel themselves put into an awkward position. He regretted very much that Scotland was not included in the Bill; but he knew his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) would be the last man to make the omission if he did not think that Scotland would be benefited by the delay. There was a strong feeling in the country as to the importance of the measure, and he trusted the Government would give his hon. Friend every assistance in carrying it into effect. He did not think there was ever a better tax in itself than the match tax; but because Bryant and May turned out all their workpeople to make a demonstration near Westminster Hall, the Government got alarmed and would not persevere with it.
  MR. BEACHsaid, he had some experience as to incendiary fires in his own neighbourhood, and found that there was excessive difficulty in arriving at any conclusion as to the author of them, because there was no proper officer on the spot to take cognizance of the matter. In two cases there had been an entire failure; but, fortunately, in a third case more prompt action was taken, and the
  1900
  criminal was convicted at the Assizes on the strongest possible evidence. If there were a public prosecutor, such as there was in Scotland, the difficulty would cease. The public prosecutor would be instructed to take action at once; he would be the responsible officer, and no difficulty would ensue. He did not concur in the idea that the coroner was the best officer to institute the necessary inquiry. If the duty were thrown on the coroner there was a provision that he should receive an increase of fees or an increase of salary. But this must lead to an increase in the local rates. If there was a public prosecutor he would undertake it, in the first instance, at the expense of the country, but the money would eventually be paid by the Treasury. No doubt there was now very great difficulty in getting back county money from the Treasury; but he hoped that difficulty would soon be removed. He entirely concurred in the general scope of the Bill.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, that in Liverpool the insurance companies got into the way of selling the goods damaged by fires by auction, and a class of persons sprang up who bought the goods, altered their condition, and obtained very high prices for them. In that district a very strong opinion had long prevailed that in the case of fires a coroner's inquest was necessary, and the rather in the smaller than in the larger cases. In a fire which took place in Liverpool there were indications of fire both at the top and at the bottom of the house; but the insurance company did not prosecute, from a fear of an impression that would be created that they were desirous of shirking their engagements. He thought that some power should exist to enforce inquiry in these cases. In all cases of fire an inquiry ought to be enforced. At present the investigation took place only where there was strong suspicion. The certainty that an inquiry would take place would have a deterring effect on the carelessness which now prevailed. There ought to be some penalty imposed on municipal bodies which did not provide their districts with steam fire engines. The scope of the Bill might be extended with advantage if ships at sea and in harbour could be brought under its operation.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he cordially joined in the general praise of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) for the great interest

  1901
  he had taken in this matter, and for the care and ability with which he had prepared the Bill. If there had been more time it would have been a very proper question for the Government to have introduced on their own responsibility. But he was really thankful when hon. Members availed themselves of a portion of their time to introduce useful subjects of legislation; and he only wished that their Wednesdays generally were occupied in the consideration of such measures. He was not going to make any prolonged observations on the subject, because, on the whole, he approved of and could see very little to object to in the Bill. Though the coroner might, under the circumstances, be the best officer to intrust with the conduct of the inquiries contemplated by the measure, it must be admitted that the choice was not altogether satisfactory. He knew that these inquiries required very often considerable judicial power, and they knew that a number of the coroners were gentlemen who had not received a judicial education. Still, the powers possessed by the coroner were more strictly analogous to those required by an official who ought to be entrusted with these investigations than those of a justice; and in case of need an assessor might be appointed. There was one slight omission in the Bill. It did not provide for the manner in which that assessor, when appointed, should be paid. As to the question of contribution to the expenses by insurance companies, much was to be said on both sides. On the one hand, the interests involved might be said to be those of the public. On the other hand, the companies were interested in having the causes of fires thoroughly investigated, and there were several precedents for persons so interested being called upon to make contributions. For instance, though all the subjects of Her Majesty were entitled to have their property protected, yet in many instances extra police were employed by the owners of valuable property, who paid for their services, though those police were under the general guidance and control of the chief constable of the district. But these were details which might be considered in Committee. The Bill seemed to have been very carefully prepared, and on the part of the Government he would give it every assistance. There was one matter, however, to which hon. Gentlemen
  1902
  had alluded, and to which he wished to refer in the interests of historical accuracy. It had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) that the withdrawal of what now appeared to be a very popular tax was due to a certain procession and the exhibition of force by interested parties. But he could assure his hon. Friend that the determination of the Cabinet to withdraw the match tax had been arrived at several days before the procession. The Government had ascertained that other forces were arrayed against them, and that they had but little chance of carrying the tax to a successful issue. It was on that account that they withdrew the proposal.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the coroner was not an officer of sufficient legal intelligence and training to undertake such responsibilities as would be thrown upon him by the Bill, which was wholly inadequate as far as the proposed tribunal was concerned. The fire at Chicago had further complicated the matter, for it had given rise to very many important questions, and its origin was still involved in great obscurity. In fact, we had no security here at home against the occurrence of such a fire. He would not, however, oppose the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed, for Thursday 4th April.

ALBERT AND EUROPEAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (INQUIRY) BILL.
(Mr. Stephen Cave, Mr. Kirkman Hodgson, Mr. Burnett, Sir Thomas Bazley.)
ALBERT AND EUROPEAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (INQUIRY) BILL.

  [BILL 8.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BARNETT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for New Shoreham (Mr. S. Cave), whose Bill it was, he hoped the House would consent to the Motion, and at a subsequent stage allow his right hon. Friend to state his case in favour of the measure. The collapse of great companies, whose liabilities amounted to several millions, was calculated to throw discredit on the whole system of life assurances unless matters were properly explained. He had no doubt the result of the inquiry would show that, with ordinary prudence in the management of life assurance business, such catastrophes could not occur.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Barnett.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should not then canvass the merits of the Bill, but should on a future occasion take exception to Clause 4, which provided for the payment of the expenses of the inquiry out of the public Exchequer. Such a course taken in the case of what was essentially a Private Bill was very irregular, and would establish a bad precedent.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANpostponed any remarks he wished to make until the Bill went into Committee. He would merely say that anything fair and just in the shape of a tribunal to inquire into the failure of these companies would meet with his approval.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) had done good service in bringing in a Bill to make an investigation into a Society which had brought ruin to thousands of families; but he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the expenses of the inquiry should not be paid out of the public Exchequer. He would suggest that some of the gentlemen who were receiving pensions from the Government should be appointed to the office of Commissioners under this Bill, and should be obliged to accept the appointment or abandon their pensions. He trusted the action of the Government with respect to the Bill would be closely watched, because it was not with an economical, but an extravagant administration that the House had to deal.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, there was no doubt that if the sanction of Parliament was to be given to the proposal that this Commission of Inquiry should be carried on at the expense of the State a very strong and exceptional case should be made out. But he believed, for his own part, that the case was of a very exceptional character, and he could not help looking with some favour on the proposals of his right hon. Friend now absent. The arrangement proposed was a perfectly fair one, and meanwhile Members should suspend their judgment on the question.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he was sure his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Cave) would feel very grateful to the House for the consideration it had
  1904
  extended to him, and that he felt it to be a great disapointment not to be able to attend on this occasion. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) agreed in the necessity that the House should suspend its judgment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 10th April.

PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.
(Mr. Salt, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Dimsdale, Mr. Akroyd.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.

  [BILL 18.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SALT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would not take long in explaining its clauses. Last year an Act called the Private Chapels Act was passed, which contained a clause relating specially to chapels attached to private houses. That clause was rejected in the other House. At the same time, it received so large a measure of support in this House and elsewhere that he felt at liberty to re-introduce it this year, if possible, in an amended form. The 1st clause of his Bill provided that—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any pariah, new parish, or ecclesiastical district was situated, containing more than 2,000 inhabitants, might license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform such offices and services of the Church of England as might be specified in such license, in any school-room, or other suitable building or chapel, whether consecrated or unconsecrated, situated within such parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district,"
  The 2nd clause provided that—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any hamlet or place was situated, containing more than 20 inhabitants, and lying more than two miles from the church of the parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district in which such hamlet or place was situated, might license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform such offices and services of the Church of England as might be specified in such license, in any school-room or suitable building, or chapel, whether consecrated or unconsecrated, situated in such hamlet or place, or within 200 yards from the boundary thereof."
  The 3rd clause provided that—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any chapel was situated belonging to a private residence, provided that such residence together with the premises belonging thereto or occupied therewith contained more than 20 inhabitants and was the property of and maintained by the owner of such residence, might license or consecrate such chapel, and such chapel should be a free chapel and independent of the control of the incumbent of the parish in which such residence was situated."

  1905
  And the remaining clauses were more or less limiting clauses, as, for instance, that the solemnization of marriages should not be included under these licences, and that in no chapel or room so licensed should seats or pews be let for hire, so that there might be no unnecessary interference with the incumbent. The 9th clause required that—
  "The bishop should, before granting a license to any clergyman under this Act requiring him to officiate in any parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district, give notice in writing to the incumbent of such parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district of his intention to license such clergyman at least one month before such license was issued, in order that such incumbent might have an opportunity of making any observations or objections upon or to the issuing of such license."
  And the 10th clause provided that—
  "If such incumbent should be desirous of objecting to the issuing of such license he should, within one month after the receipt by him of such notice as last aforesaid, forward to the Bishop a statement in writing that he so objects, and of his reasons for so doing, and if the Bishop should not, within a period of one month after such statement should have been forwarded as aforesaid, comply with such objection or objections, it should be lawful for such incumbent, if he thought fit, at any time within a period of two months after such statement should have been forwarded as aforesaid, to appeal to the archbishop of the province in which such parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district was situated, and the decision of such archbishop should be final, and after such appeal no such license should be valid unless it should have been allowed by such archbishop, such allowance thereof being signified by the signing thereof by such archbishop."
  The object of the Bill was simply this—to impart a greater degree of elasticity and freedom to our present ecclesiastical system, and the effect of it would be, that in certain parishes the Bishop would be able to introduce a clergyman who would practically act as a missionary clergyman, and who would often lay the foundations of a new parochial district of Church activity. The Bill would also confer the power of providing clergymen in very populous places. At present, church building and church endowment were confined almost wholly to very rich persons. Those who were possessed of only moderate means had no opportunity of providing independent services, however anxious they might be to do so. The Bill was in no respect aimed at the clergy. He felt too deeply and sincerely how much society was indebted to the labours of the clergy of the Church of England ever to be the conscious instrument of offering them a slight. He might also say that in his own neigh-bourhood
  1906
  the Bill had met with no decided opposition from the clergy, and in many cases had been received with warm approval. In another diocese the Bishop had called the special attention of the clergy to the Bill; but he had failed to elicit any marks of disapprobation from them. He thought that he sufficiently justified the introduction of the measure when he showed that it had met with the substantial approval of the majority of the clergy; because he could not conceive any grounds on which laymen could object to it. He might pile up a heap of grievances to prove the necessity for the measure. He might point to large parishes where the religious instruction of numbers of people was wholly neglected, and to many outlying hamlets where the inhabitants never saw a clergyman, and never went to church. But he would abstain from occupying the further attention of the House, and would say no more than this, that the Bill would do good, ann could do no harm, because wherever the clergyman of a parish was able and willing to do his duty, there was no possibility of the Bill being brought into operation; while in contrary instances its utility was unquestionable. He hoped that the House would sanction the measure, and would thus help to remove the restrictions upon church building and on the extension of Church services which had grown up in the course of time, but which were never intended to exist either by the law of the Church or by the law of the land.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Salt.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in rising to move the rejection of the Bill, said: I must own that I have been disappointed in not hearing from my hon. Friend stronger and more direct arguments for its acceptance. No doubt he has stated many things which are admirably true. I do not think he has made a single statement which I have not repeatedly heard in the many sermons one listens to when collections are made for church building, or any such popular object. No doubt vice and ignorance do abound in our populous cities. No doubt the clothes we wear are not the same as the clothes our ancestors wore 200 years ago. No doubt church building is a good thing, and no doubt it ought to

  1907
  be a cheap and not a dear luxury. I grant all this, and still I am as far off as I was a quarter of an hour ago from seeing any reasons for the support of this Bill. I must ask the House to look at the Bill from a somewhat different point of view from that of my hon. Friend. He has brought his project before the House as if it were a very little matter—as if it only involved a slight alteration of the parochial system or some interpretation clause to remove a little hitch. I can assure the House that be it for good or be it for bad it will effect a revolution in the Church of England in the matter of its parochial organization—that parochial organization being, as all know, a main corner stone on which the existing Church is built. Pass this Bill, and you may have a better Church of England, or you may have a worse Church of England than it is now; but at any rate it will be a totally different Church of England from that which at present exists. I appeal to the House to say whether it is treating the Church with proper respect to bring in a Bill of this importance without giving proper notice to all interested parties. Some two or three private friends have been consulted; but the sense of the Church itself has not been adequately, or rather has not been at all tested. My hon. Friend says that he has made some personal inquiries in his own neighbourhood, but in all probability those to whom he addressed himself did not understand his questions. His only conclusion briefly put is that he received no great amount of opposition nor any great amount of approbation; the only direct and tangible opinion to which he refers being that of a Bishop who has condemned the measure in explicit terms. If it had been a question of winding up an insurance company, or of dealing by statute with fraudulent fire-raising, we should have required more explicit evidence. It is, however, a measure relating to one of the most active and important institutions of the land—no less than the Church of England. Is the Church of England incompetent to manage its own affairs on points which concerns its de bene esse? Have there not lately been questions of the utmost interest to the laity as well as to the clergy—questions relating to the conduct of Divine worship—remitted by the Government itself to the Church's chief assembly? And
  1908
  have we not seen that assembly buckling itself to the consideration of these questions and concluding, without distinction of parties, and in the most broad and liberal manner, upon the recommendation of large and comprehensive reforms? And have we not seen equal activity on Church questions among the laity, without whose co-operation the exertions of the clergy would have been comparatively fruitless? I lay great stress upon this, for I am one of those who absolutely repudiate the heresy that the Church is the clergy only. The Church is the clergy, no doubt; but the Church equally includes the laity, and the opinion of the laity ought to be gathered on all controverted ecclesiastical matters. In England at the present day united gatherings of the clergy and the laity are becoming increasingly common. We have in the Recess to live up to meetings in Archdeaconries, and of diocesan conferences harmoniously discussing matters of great interest to the Church; and yet in the face of all this activity we are told to sit down on a sleepy Wednesday afternoon and give our assent to a measure which will absolutely revolutionize the Church of England, without taking any steps to test the opinions of the members of the Church, whether they be clergy or laity, men or women, as to the necessity or the possibility of this amateur Church Reform Bill. If I had no other objection, I would say "No" to the second reading of a Bill which my hon. Friend has not taken steps to bring before the consideration of any assembly of the Church, whether formal or informal. I should oppose it because it deals with a question upon which he has not invited any public opinion, and because it affects interests which he has left buried in the obscure recesses of a vague and uninstructive title. This policy is not to deal fairly with the House; still less is it to deal fairly with the institution, the interests of which he professes, and intends—I am sure most conscientiously—to serve. When I look upon his Bill I find that it bristles with good intentions, but that they are cast in a shape which will make the measure more mischievous in its operation than if it were intended to vex and weaken instead of strengthen the Church.
  Now, let us proceed to consider the substance of the Bill. The measure divides itself, roughly speaking, into

  1909
  three main heads. The 1st clause provides that—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district is situated, containing more than two thousand inhabitants, may license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform such offices and services of the Church of England as may be specified in such license, in any school-room, or other suitable building or chapel, whether consecrated or unconsecrated, situated within such parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district."
  The building so licensed may be situated on the opposite side of the street from the Church, or it may be even next door to the Church, with only a party wall between them; and the clergyman so licensed might be one whose doctrines and method of conducting worship were intentionally, as well as overtly, opposed to those of the incumbent. He might be a Ritualist pitted against an Evangelical, or an Evangelical or a Broad Churchman opposed to a Ritualist. It might, I say, assume either form of oppugnancy, for I am not arguing the question in the interest of any Church party. All such parties represent different phases of opinion in the Church, and all alike are entitled to protection and encouragement within sufficient regulating limits. But then you may say you will have a safeguard against many calamitous outbursts of parochial civil war in the Bishop's licence. I shall speak hereafter of the value of these safeguards; but I take a preliminary objection to the efficacy of Bishops' licences. Bishops are like other men. No doubt they live in the light of rational public opinion, but they live also under the pressure of public turmoil, of political agitation, and sometimes of sectional intimidation. They are subject to the criticism of the public Press; they are subject to the stress of noisy meetings; they are subject to the irritation of unfriendly coteries. On all sides there are dangers—on the right hand and on the left—and the Prelate finds his popularity menaced. Well, when he is striving, as he thinks, to keep things together, some energetic mouthpiece of opinion, lay promoter, or expectant clergyman comes to him to say that he wishes to open a fresh channel for the preaching of the Gospel, or for the performance of the rites of the Church. If he belongs to one party he will phrase his application in one way, if to another party he will adopt the other expression. The Bishop may not be quite strong-minded, he may
  1910
  be susceptible and thin-skinned; afraid of public meetings, afraid of journalists, afraid of the associations with £30,000 at their backs, to persecute as well as to prosecute; and so he will prefer to do the easy, good-natured thing, and give the licence rather than expose himself to the trouble and ill-will of testing, analyzing, and discriminating the merits of the application. For if he refuses the first licence he inevitably exposes himself to the trouble of giving his reasons for granting the next one, and vice versâ, while he will dread the unvarying odium of an impartial and continuous refusal. The Bishop will be pestered with applications from all sides; he will not only have applications from individual clergymen and promoters, but he will have applications from joint-stock companies formed for the purpose of propagating their peculiar opinions within the limits of the Establishment. If he licences on the one side and not on the other he will be pelted by the partizans of the neglected interest; if he licences and refuses alternately he will be pelted by the partizans of both sides; if he deals with each case upon its own merits he will gain no credit for his conscientious trouble, while he will make enemies of all whom he has refused. Take the case of our Bishops generally, and remember that as a rule they are overwhelmed with work. Consider that many of them are advanced in years, and you must own that, with regard to the Bench all round, this safeguard of a Bishop's licence is scarcely worth the paper on which it is printed. The Episcopate would seek safety in the theory that the Act was imperative, and the licence would be granted almost as a matter of course. So, in spite of Bishop and Archbishop, you would have a chapel on the opposite side of the street to the parish church, wherein a clergyman would be set free to preach doctrines of the most opposite character to those of the vicar of the parish. My hon. Friend has dwelt on the desirableness of cheap churches. Let me point out to him that there is some advantage in not over-cheapening the market. At present there is ample machinery provided for the sub-division of parishes, with or without the incumbent's consent. It is a mere question of money, and when the money is provided, let a clergyman be ever so obstinate and ever so unwilling, he finds himself in the end unable to resist the determination of those who insist

  1911
  on having the parish sub-divided. As matters stand now it is, I repeat, only a question of expense. The thing is possible, but it is not too easy. And so, under this state of things, that blessed result called compromise comes in; and in this case compromise means wisdom, compromise means peace, compromise means charity. In the first instance, some one comes forward and proposes to cut up a parish. The clergyman does not see his way to so great a change, and public opinion among the laity of the parish is divided; then other parties intervene, and in the end a new church is got up under conditions intended to do justice to the conflict of opinion. Perhaps the man who was first proposed for it is withdrawn, and another minister is appointed who is not so antagonistic to the incumbent and to his friends, and so the end of further church accommodation is gained, but not at the expense of charity. But if you take the rough-and-ready process of this Bill, there will be no time or place for any compromise; for without any attempt to meet the clergyman half way, without any attempt to ascertain the feelings of the parishioners, without asking the consent, but even the opinion, either of clergymen or of the flock, a licence will be applied for, perhaps, by an outsider, and the chapel started on its career of piracy. These are some of the objections which I take to the Bill under its first head. I come now to the still more extraordinary proposals contained in the 2nd clause. That 2nd clause is—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any hamlet or place is situated, containing more than twenty inhabitants, and lying more than two miles from the church of the parish, new parish, or ecclesiastical district in which such hamlet or place is situated, may license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform such offices and services of the Church of England as may be specified in such license, in any schoolroom or suitable building or chapel, whether consecrated or unconsecrated, situated in such hamlet or place, or within two hundred yards from the boundary thereof."
  If this clause has any foundation, it must be the hypothesis that no parish has any neighbours. Does my hon. Friend suppose that this school-house, or other suitable place, will be merely frequented by the inhabitants of the parish in which it stands? If he does not, all his provisions against abuse are practically worthless. The only person
  1912
  who has a right to appeal to the Bishop is the clergyman of the parish in which it stands. But this room is to be situated in an outlying district two miles from the parish church, and, therefore, in all probability, not quite two miles from the boundary of some other parish. Take the case of some man, with a mind of diseased activity, who wishes to disturb a neighbouring clergyman, perhaps, because he is too High or too Low, or, perhaps, because he is neither High or Low enough, but is doing his duty peaceably, quietly, and thoroughly. The clergyman of the next parish is a man of a different stamp—lazy, may be, or careless, or ill-disposed to his brother clergyman, and a bitter partizan. Well, then, will the promoters set up a chapel in any part of the parish of the clergyman whom they desire to annoy, and risk the effect of that clergyman's appeal to the Bishop? They would be very unwise to do so, provided the next parish fulfils the geographical conditions. They will much rather go to its clergyman, and say—"We are not going in opposition to you; the place where we intend to open a chapel is full two miles off from you, and no one will leave your church to go there. But it is only a mile and a-half off from Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones is a person whom neither you nor we like; grant us leave to open a chapel there, and we guarantee that we shall not drain your congregation at all." The bargain is struck; the promoters go to the Bishop; the clergyman makes no objection; the licence is, of course, granted, and by-and-by, Mr. Jones finds that his congregation is drained; that his teaching is treated with contempt; that his charities are starved, and that his parochial organizations are upset. His own staunch followers share in his distress; but of the laity, as a body, the Bill makes no account. They look to the Act to find redress, and they have the consolation of observing that they are deliberately and completely shut out. The 3rd clause is—
  "The bishop of the diocese within which any chapel is situated belonging to a private residence, provided that such residence together with the premises belonging thereto or occupied therewith contains more than twenty inhabitants and is the property of and maintained by the owner of such residence, may license or consecrate such chapel, and such chapel shall be a free chapel and independent of the control of the incumbent of the parish in which such residence is situated."

  1913
  Now, I have myself a house containing more than 20 inhabitants, and in that house I have a chapel; but I should scorn to avail myself of such a permission as this. Why, I ask, are we to give such an exclusive privilege to a rich man that he should be able to withdraw himself from the salutary control of the parish clergyman, and stand apart from his fellow parishioners in the matter of common worship, and all the other works of piety which arise out of the parish? It is said that every Englishman's house is his castle. If you pass this Bill, every rich Englishman's house will become his temple also, where he may wrap himself up in gloomy and proud isolation, and leave his poorer neighbours to tramp to that inferior building, the old parish church.
  Now I come to the 6th clause, and this, I confess, fairly staggers me, for such an outburst of sacerdotal tyranny I did not expect at the present day. It provides that the offertory and alms collected at any public service in these new chapels shall be disposed of as the officiating clergyman shall direct, subject to the control of the Ordinary. The House will recollect that under the present law the offertory is subject to the joint disposal of the clergyman and of the parish churchwardens. The churchwardens are put in as representing, and rightly representing, the laity. Practically, it is true, the clergyman in most cases is allowed to dispose of the offertory himself, but he does so because it is known that he will not abuse his privilege; because the churchwardens have confidence in him, and leave the matter in his hands. Let a clergyman abuse this privilege, and the common law right revives, and the churchwardens can, and no doubt do, interfere. But under this clause there is no protection for the lay portion of the congregation whom you have enticed to come into this novel conventicle. The clergyman alone is to dispose of the offertory. He is not called upon to give any account of its disposal; he may entertain the wildest ideas; he may use it to support a scheme for converting the Patagonians by the Chinese missionaries, or for any of those eccentric projects that germinate within diseased imaginations. But then, it is said, that this control is to be subject to an appeal to the Ordinary. But who is to put the Ordinary in motion? Who is
  1914
  to make the appeal? Who is to give information to the Ordinary? Suppose a man were to assert that on a particular Sunday he had given 6d. to the offertory, and were to say—"I have reason to believe it went to the support of the Patagonian Washerwomen's Association,"—how could it be expected that the Bishop would waste his time in the investigation of such a trifle? He would tell the man—"Then why did you go there?" You simply put it in the power of these fillibustering ministers to empty the parish churches and starve out their organizations for any wild and eccentric object. But the clause is not so idle as it might seem at first sight. A subsequent clause throws light upon the subject. The 8th clause—about the only good one in the Bill—says that no seats are to be let on hire, and no fees are to be charged for admission to divine worship. That looks all very well, but when the offertory bag has gone round the gentleman who has provided the chapel, and presented the minister, may have a very clear and curious knowledge of how much goes into it. I think this is a very good reason why the 6th clause has been introduced, and that it must be read with the 8th as its interpreting clause.
  The 7th clause provides that these chapels shall not be licensed for marriages. Is the permission, then, to be held to include all the other rites of the Church? Are we to have clandestine baptisms? Are we to have burials with any form, or with no form of service? The exclusion of one particular rite implies the admission of every other, and I point this out to the House to show how dangerous such concessions to these privateering clergymen may become without such clearly drawn and comprehensive limitations as this Bill forgets to provide. I need only call the attention of the House to the manifold evils of a loose system of death registration.
  Now we come to another clause, enacting that the Bishop, before granting his licence, must give notice in writing to the clergyman of the parish, who will have one month to object in. But the licence may be applied for when the clergyman is absent from home. The people who work these chapels will be clever enough to apply to him when the clergyman is away from

  1915
  his parish; and as only one month is allowed to object, that clergyman may find at any time that the licence was granted when he was abroad or ill, and that the whole life's objects for which he has been labouring in his parish is passed away from him, owing to a four or five months' necessary absence.
  I proceed to the 10th clause, which is entitled the "Appeal to the Archbishop" against the decision of the Bishop, although it also includes the prior appeal to that Bishop. The supporters of the Bill may say that this clause is founded on precedents derived from present Church legislation. But that present legislation rests on something like respect for the pre-existing state of things. This measure is founded upon the general rejection of that parochial system which we have been always taught to believe in and to value. The clergyman of the parish in which the chapel is to be localized may give notice of objection and of appeal to the Bishop, but there is virtually no provision that he shall have, I do not say a fair hearing, but any hearing at all, or even any reply. The Bishop is not to act as a judge; he is simply to be a gentleman to whom the clergyman may send a letter—he has no means of getting at the Bishop, he has no means of stating his case verbally. The Bishop may be a gentleman wishing to act fairly, but he has committed himself beforehand to the licence; he has promised the promoters he will do it; he will then simply tell the clergyman that he has no objection to the chapel, and that he wonders anyone else can have any. Is the Bishop, I repeat, bound by this measure to give the clergyman a hearing? No. Is he bound to give him any answer at all? No. In his abundant courtesy he may send him a halfpenny card—"The Bishop of Islington presents his compliments to Mr. Smith, and acknowledges his communication of the 14th instant." But the licence goes forth, notwithstanding. Then the clergyman flies to the Archbishop. The Archbishop will probably go to the expense of a penny stamp, and will enclose his missive in an envelope, informing him—"The Archbishop has received Mr. Smith's communication, but that, as he has perfect confidence in the wisdom and discretion of the Bishop, he is unable to perceive any necessity for his interference."
  1916
  I say, if you are determined to persecute the clergyman, let him be persecuted in the open daylight. Let him go in person to the Bishop, let him have a hearing in the presence of his antagonists, and let him then plead his cause in a similar manner in his appeal to the Archbishop; otherwise you will fall into that worst form of mal-ad-ministration—a paternal despotism, and paternal despotism is only another name for general discontent. I think, Sir, I have said enough to show that this is a measure for revolutionizing the Church, and that you will have the Church in a flame in six months if you pass this Bill. You will light that flame in those parishes where the licence is granted, you will kindle it in those parishes where it is refused, you will spread the conflagration wherever the clergyman stands up for his rights, and you will leave it smouldering in the hearts of the quiet laity wherever he is weak enough to succumb. Why, then, all this? Simply because you want to pass a measure, and place it on the statute book, which has been languidly considered in the House of Commons on a Wednesday afternoon. I know that the parochial system is capable of reform. I know that more chapels and mission stations are needed. I have always stood up, and I shall always stand up, to plead for such reforms. But it is because I feel the system is in need of development that I call upon you to reject this crude and vague scheme. Let the Church—meeting in Convocation, and meeting in diocesan conference—examine into its own wants, and propose some scheme of its own which shall be satisfactory to the clergy, grateful to the laity, and just to the country at large. Fully believing that the Church is competent to deal with all these questions by itself, I oppose this Bill, and I move that it be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. MONK, agreeing with the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the revolutionary nature of the proposed change, wished to second his Amendment. He took exception to almost every clause of the Bill, and looked at it as a forward step towards the disestablishment of the Church. He supposed the measure would obtain the support of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall); but if disestablishment was desirable he

  1917
  thought that point should be settled first, and that the present measure should be introduced afterwards. Convocation was preparing a measure on the subject which would shortly come before Parliament, and he thought the House should wait for it. In his opinion it was very undesirable that any room should be consecrated as a chapel in a private residence, unless it could be secured for ever for the celebration of Divine worship. The appeal to the Archbishop was a delusion; he never knew a case in which an Archbishop reversed the decision of a Bishop. The Bill was so disastrous to the Church that he hoped the House would refuse to give it a second reading.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE, while sincerely desirous to further parochial sub-division, could not ignore the character and existence of the Church of England. The great body of the Church had been in no way consulted or considered. The clergy of the Church occupied a certain position. They were subject to a certain discipline. It was competent under the existing law for the laity to appeal to tribunals which ought to support that discipline. That was a principle which ought never to be lost sight of in the Church of England. So long as that Church remained an Established Church, its members were privileged as being officers of a corporation which had a discipline. The laity must never give way to individuals amongst them, or give to the clergy or the Bishop the power of dispensing with that discipline, which the law regarded as their security.
  MR. NORWOOD, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, everyone must be aware of instances in which the clergyman of the parish was always quarrelling with the majority of his parishioners, and this Bill was required to meet such cases. He knew of a case of a parish containing 5,000 inhabitants, in which a lady left £7,000 or £8,000 to rebuild a chapel of ease on an enlarged scale, and the clergyman, who was a very old man, was offended at that bequest, and did all he could to prevent the carrying out of the object. In another case of which he was cognizant
  1918
  the clergyman was opposed to nearly all his parishioners, and they said that if the Bill were passed they would soon be enabled to place matters in a proper position. He did not see any objection to the machinery of the Bill, for it provided that no action should be taken unless with the consent of the parishioners or the Bishop, and the right of appeal was given to the Archbishop. As to the question of expense, he could not understand why, if people were ready to provide for a stipend and other charges, they should not be allowed to do so. He believed that legislation of this kind would do more than anything else to put down the cry for the disestablishment of the Church of England, and believed that, so far from being a revolutionary measure, that it would effect a great improvement in the condition of the Church.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that when he saw the name of his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt) on the back of the Bill he felt convinced that he had brought it in with the sincere desire of advancing the interests of the Church. Upon reading the contents of the Bill he viewed the matter differently from the way in which the hon. Member who had just sat down regarded it. If the House looked at the Bill it would see that this was not a question of dividing parishes, but of dividing parishioners; and though it was in many instances a very good thing to divide parishes, it never could be a good thing to divide parishioners within the same church. It was proposed, on the ground that the incumbent of a parish was opposed to what was desired to be done, to set up another incumbent in opposition to him; and that, because a certain portion of parishioners were not satisfied with the ministrations of the clergyman of the parish, a stranger should be brought in to whom they might transfer their allegiance. Within the Established Church a clergyman having the cure of souls over the whole of his parish, and responsible alike to the Bishop of his diocese and to his parishioners for the cure of those souls, was to be brought into collision with his parishioners, and afterwards into collision with his Bishop. No doubt, where there was not sufficient ministration for the whole of a parish, and there were means of dividing the parish itself, that parish ought to be divided; but that

  1919
  was a totally different thing to what was proposed by this measure. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Norwood) had referred to the case of a parish containing 5,000 persons, which was insufficiently provided for, although it had both a parish church and a chapel of ease, and in relief of which a lady had left a large sum of money to rebuild the chapel of ease. But this Bill would not touch such a case as that at all; for the principle of the Bill was based on building, not a chapel of ease, but an opposition church altogether. A chapel of ease would still be under the authorities of the parish; but what was contemplated here was an establishment in opposition to the incumbent. If that were not so, the Bill would not be necessary, because where the incumbent of the parish agreed to what was proposed to be done, there would be no difficulty whatever. No doubt in certain parishes there might be clergymen who would run counter to the wishes of those over whom they were set; but it would not be a wise thing, because such cases happened here and there, to alter the law with respect to the whole Church. The hon. Gentleman who supported this Bill seemed to have an entire belief in Bishops and an entire disbelief in incumbents; but it should be borne in mind that there were Bishops who differed in opinion in all sorts of ways. Would the Bill cast a duty on Bishops or not? If it did not, it was pretty certain that the Bishops would not move in the matter, because the difficulties they would get into if they did would be so great. But if it did cast a duty upon them, they might think themselves bound to exercise it, and so it would be placed in the power of 25 or 26 Bishops to legislate as each might think proper, with an appeal to the Archbishop; but it would be an invidious appeal—an appeal from the diocese to the province; an appeal from local knowledge to no knowledge at all; an appeal which must be disagreeable to the Bishop, and which could not be very agreeable to the Archbishop. Suppose in one of these parishes there was a clergyman considered to be "too High" for some of his congregation, and the Bishop, who might be of "Lower" views, were called upon to put a clergyman of his own opinions in the parish, would not that be an inducement for other Bishops of different opinions in
  1920
  other dioceses to act in the same way with respect to the clergy in their dioceses? It would be much better for the peace and interests of the Church if hon. Members would give up some of their feelings, and remember that, though they might not like the sermons or some of the proceedings of the clergymen of their own parishes, they would find plenty of other parishes where the incumbents were men of their own way of thinking. The passing of such a Bill as this would, he believed, only introduce schism and discord, and have the effect of dividing parishioners into hostile parties, and he therefore hoped that it would be rejected.
  MR. HENLEYremarked that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), looking at the Bill from a clerical point of view, picked plenty of holes in it; but there were two sides to the question, and there was the side of the people as well as the side of the clergy. Anyone who considered the spiritual state of the metropolis for the last 70 years must come to the conclusion that such a Bill as this was necessary. At an early period of the present century, it was a common saying at every dinner table that it was easier to get a seat in Parliament than a licence for a place for Church of England worship. At the end of the War, Bishops and clergy stood up for what they called Church extension, and got £1,000,000, but they could not get another halfpenny more. After a time there was instituted the first Bishop of London's Fund, and now there was a second Bishop of London's Fund, and everybody admitted that, notwithstanding the large sums subscribed, the spiritual wants of the people were not overtaken. In a great many places the clergy, to their infinite credit, had been actively working in their vocation, but there were other places where such was not the case, and then a Nonconformist clergyman came in. He could not shut his eyes to these facts, and in voting for the principle of the Bill, all he voted for was that there should be power vested in the Bishop to licence an additional place of worship in any parish where it might be wanted. If some difficulties on ecclesiastical grounds were to be met, they were matters for consideration in Committee. The population of the country was fast outrunning the

  1921
  means of providing for immediate spiritual wants, and from the cumbersome necessity of getting a district formed, before the means could be got of building a church and endowing it, he thought some such Bill as this would be a great advantage, if it could, even in a very humble manner, fill up the great existing want.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON, though a strong Churchman, would vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill, in the interests of the Church. He believed, if the measure was properly modified in Committee, it would do infinite good in remedying many abuses which now existed. It had been urged as an objection that it would give power to the laity as against the incumbent; but were the Bishops to have no power? The chief principle was the power of decision given to the Bishop, with an appeal to the Archbishop. Surely the Bishop would never act in opposition to the interests of the incumbent. He could not see that any case had been made out as to the evil working of a Bill, the principle of which was good.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEthought that the laity ought to have a voice in these affairs as well as the clergy and the Bishops; and he felt an objection to the Bill, because he found no recognition of the wishes and powers of the laity in any part of it. An incumbent might exercise his power arbitrarily and capriciously, and it was very desirable that it should be balanced. The House had been told to have confidence in the Bishops; but he had more confidence in the power of the congregations to express their wishes on the subject. It was taken for granted that the Bishop would consider the wishes of the parishioners; but there was no machinery in the Bill by which those wishes could be ascertained; and the Bishop, on receiving a memorial, which did not represent the feelings of the parishioners, might appoint an additional incumbent distasteful to them. He agreed that it was desirable that the objects which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Salt) had in view should be attained; but he feared that the Bill, by failing to give to the parishioners some organization by which their feelings might be made known, would make matters worse rather than better, and inflict an unnecessary blow on the parochial system, which must be
  1922
  mainly relied on for the improvement of the Church.
  MR. COLLINSsupported the Bill, because it did not deprive an incumbent of any rights, though it did confer a right on certain members of the laity. In the view of the Church a Bishop was the sole incumbent of a diocese, and he was the person who was spiritually responsible for the souls of all the persons in his diocese. [Laughter.] That, at all events, was what he believed to be the doctrine of the Church upon the subject. This Bill, therefore, simply carried out the doctrine of the Church, by allowing a Bishop to license any person to have a chapel in any part of his diocese. The incumbent of a parish was put in no worse position, because he retained his benefice and all his revenues, nor were any of the parishioners put in a worse position. It should be remembered that the parson was made for the parish, and not the parish for the parson. There were certain clauses that might be amended in Committee; but the principle of the Bill was good, and he should vote for it.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, there were reasons why the Bill should have been brought before the House for consideration; but he did not think they were sufficient to justify the passing of the Bill in its present form. He could hardly imagine a worse position than that which would be held by a parish into which a clergyman should beforced by then Bishop, contrary to the opinion of the incumbent. The incumbent himself would also be placed in an unpleasant position towards his Bishop, and the clergyman appointed would have no cure of souls. The system would cause inconvenience to the Church, and would be injurious to religion. If the Bill went into Committee, he should ask for the insertion of clauses requiring that the Bishop should only take action at the request of a number of parishioners, and giving greater powers of appeal.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought that the House should listen with favour to a proposal like the present, brought forward by warm friends of the Church. He admitted that if he were now called on to agree to the third reading of the Bill, he could not vote for it in its present form, for he regarded it as defective in many important respects. It would have been as well if the hon. Gentleman who had

  1923
  charge of it had studied a Bill introduced some eight or nine years ago, as he would then have been able to meet many of the objections now urged against the second reading. That Bill had been introduced for a somewhat similar purpose, to meet the case of a Welsh clergyman who had refused to allow a religious service to be performed in English for the convenience of English people residing at a seaside place in Wales. That Bill was opposed upon grounds similar to those mentioned in the course of the present debate. It provided, however, that an application for the appointment of a clergyman should be made by a certain portion of the parishioners; that the incumbent should be called upon to nominate a clergyman; and that only when he declined to do so should the appointment pass on to the Bishop; and there was more careful provision for appeal to the Archbishop than had been made in this instance. Many of these provisions might be adopted with advantage. Although incumbents generally were anxious to supply the spiritual wants of their parishioners, yet, in some localities, the provision for the purpose was insufficient. He heard, not along ago, of a case in which the circumstances were similar to those for which this Bill was intended to provide. A Prelate, observing that in his diocese there was a clergyman who neglected his duties, after trying various methods to improve the condition of the parish, at last engaged another clergyman to reside and open a school in the parish, and thus by indirect means to supply the religious influence that was wanting in the parish. It would be better to divide parishes, rather than to divide the Church; and it might be useful to provide that, wherever a clergyman was appointed against the wish of the incumbent to a parish with a large population, the Bishop should set apart the district to be under his special charge. In the statute relating to Wales a provision was made that some stipend should be secured to the clergyman; but there was no similar provision in this Bill. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—that the wants of the parishioners, rather than the wishes of the incumbent, were to be considered, and, provided care was taken to prevent the occurrence of vexatious disputes, he thought the House might safely pass the second reading of
  1924
  the Bill, the principle of which was, in his opinion, sound. At the same time, he gave fair notice that, as far as the Government were concerned, they would not allow it to pass through a third reading without considerable alteration.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, that the present measure ought to be entitled "a Bill for the Total Destruction of the Parochial System." If words had been inserted in the Bill providing that the proposed facilities for public worship should be given with the consent of the incumbent, no one would have been more ready to vote for it than himself; but, believing that, as the Bill was framed, it would sow division and strife between the incumbent and the parishioners, and between the incumbent and the Bishop, he would cordially vote against it.
  MR. SALTsaid, if the Bill passed the second reading, he should fix the Committee for some day after Easter, so that ample time would be allowed for considering the valuable suggestions made in the debate.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 93: Majority 29.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 16th April.

JUSTICES CLERKS (SALARIES) BILL.
(Sir David Salomons, Mr. John Gilbert Talbot, Mr. Magniac, Viscount Holmesdale, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
JUSTICES CLERKS (SALARIES) BILL.

  [BILL 39.] SECOND READING
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Greenwich (Sir David Salomons), he had been requested to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Its object was to carry into effect one of the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1850 on which had been founded the permissive clauses of the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir George Grey's) Act of 1861, with reference to the payment of judicial officers by salaries instead of fees. A number of small fees had escaped the operation of the first measure, and what was called "Justices' justice" had been much impaired by the inefficient means for its

  1925
  exercise provided by the Legislature. Hon. Members would be acquainted with such cases as were sometimes mentioned in the newspapers, where for damaging a fence to the amount of 6d., a nominal fine of 2d. and costs, which meant in reality 17 s., was inflicted. Everyone knew what a dismissed case was. The person charged had offended; but the offence was so small that the Judge could not let him off altogether, and therefore he imposed a fine over which he had no control whatever. In agricultural districts a case dismissed with costs meant a fine of 8s. 6d., for, perhaps, a potty inoffensive larceny. Accumulated fees became very hard when for the same offence perhaps three persons were fined. These fees placed the clerks to Justices in a very unfair position—as if they had a pecuniary interest in the conviction of the accused. He believed, on the other hand, that Justices' clerks performed their duties in a very proper manner; but, at the same time, he had no hesitation in saying that their payment by fees was a wrong which called for a remedy at the hands of the House. The Returns which had been supplied to Parliament on this subject had not been so full and ample as they might have been; but it might be gathered from them that the enabling clauses had been availed of to a very considerable extent. Twenty-four boroughs and seven counties had availed themselves of these clauses; and if a chance was given to the other counties where the system had not been carried out, it would confer some satisfaction and benefit upon the ratepayers. Sufficient experience had been gained to show that the Act would work well. The object of the Bill, as stated in the Preamble, was "to provide for the payment of clerks to Justices by salaries in lieu of fees, and to regulate the appointment of such clerks." There had been a timidity in the framing of the Bill; and he did not think that the 5th clause of the Bill sufficiently carried out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir George Grey's) Act, the intention of which was to pay Justices' clerks by salaries in lieu of fees. What he proposed was to put that question beyond doubt by eliminating the latter part of the clause and also the 11th clause. He thought sufficient care would be taken of the rights of the suitors and Justices' clerks, and
  1926
  not less of the rights of the Justices themselves, if exceptional cases were left in the hands of the Secretary of State for the time being. With regard to the 3rd sub-section of the 5th clause, it had been thought right to carry out the recommendation of the Committee which sat in 1850. That Committee had guarded carefully the rights of the clerks of the Justices. It was believed that it was secured by the three years' average, and he understood that that average had worked perfectly well. Two other clauses would be necessary to save existing arrangements under the enabling Act of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), and it was not proposed to disturb exceptional cases during the lives of the present occupiers, except at the will of the Justices themselves. The 6th clause involved quite as important a principle as the 5th, and empowered the Justices to make tables of fees for the business before them. For that the sanction of the Home Department was required. At present, those tables were diverse and varied in every possible way. Changes of time, of place, and in the condition of the people had made them very little suitable to the wants of the case. He hoped that the provision requiring the tables to be sent up to the Home Department would be the means of producing uniformity throughout the whole country. He proposed to add a clause after the 8th clause giving the Justices power to remit the fees in cases of poverty. The 13th clause, he believed, was one which would create a great deal of discussion, and for the satisfactory adjustment of which discussion was necessary. It had been said that in the case of an unwilling prosecutor the prosecution should be conducted by the clerk to the Justices, and on the other hand he had been informed that it was a most unsatisfactory thing that the clerk to the Justices should have this duty imposed upon him. The information possessed by the House would enable it to arrive at a proper conclusion. In regard to depositions, they did not come before the Justices at all, and very good reasons could be shown why there could be no possible objection to Justices' clerks making them out. However, some did not agree with that, and objected strongly to a clerk to the Justices doing anything, except what he was called upon to do by the Act. The only remaining point

  1927
  on which he needed to refer was the question of qualification. It was at present required that the clerk should be a fit and proper person; the Bill proposed that he should be an attorney-at-law. At the present time, the clerk held his office at the will of the Justices; the Bill proposed that the appointment be made for life. These were two changes which were much too important to pass over in silence. One of the most curious objections to the Bill was, that the counties would make profit out of the transaction; but he did not see why the possibility of their making a profit should be a reason for their paying the clerk to the Justices more than he was entitled to. Looking at the probabilities of the case, the counties would rather lose than gain. If the second reading was carried the Bill should be remitted to a Committee in order that it might be printed again, with a view to bringing the Amendments he had indicated within the knowledge of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in seconding the Motion, said he was exceedingly glad to hear from the hon. Member who had just sat down, and from the hon. Baronet who had introduced the Bill (Sir David Salomons), that they were prepared to accept Amendments which he had considered necessary. One of the most important Amendments was referred to in connection with the 3rd clause, by which, instead of a combined payment by salary and fees, the remuneration would be entirely by salary. He had been for some years a strong supporter of the principle advocated by the Bill, and he had done so for reasons stated by the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill, because the magistrates would be thereby relieved from many difficulties when they wished to remit fees in eases where they conceived them to be a hardship. It would also relieve the clerks themselves from a suspicion which was entertained by the public at large, that business was encouraged on account of the remuneration attached to it. And such a system would be an improvement on what already existed, as it would bring about a uniformity in the mode of keeping accounts throughout the country. He thought an Amendment would be necessary on the 5th clause—namely, that in case the
  1928
  clerks did not or could not return the amount of fees or disbursements, in order that the calculations as to their salaries might be made, the return should be taken from the average incomes of the last three years. He thought that there were details which would require amendment in Committee; but, at the same time, he had no doubt that some measure of this kind was strongly required.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Magniac.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Motion for the second reading had been brought on at so late an hour in the afternoon, that the arguments in its support had been got over in a very hurried manner. Now he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) protested against a Bill of this importance being treated in such a manner, and against the arguments in its favour not being amply stated. As one of those who opposed the Bill, he felt that, if the change it proposed were to be made at all, it ought to be made upon the authority of the Government, and not at the instance of private Members. He felt it to be his duty to move the rejection of the Bill for several reasons. The statement that confused accounts were kept at present furnished an argument against rather than in favour of the Bill, because the manner in which the accounts were kept was a matter of no importance except to those who received the fees. If the Justices' clerks kept confused accounts now that they were personally interested in their, correctness, might not the Bill open a door to mistakes, and possibly to fraud upon the counties or boroughs, which could not be committed now because the authorities were in no way interested in the amount of the fees, and therefore had nothing to do with the keeping of accounts relating to them. He doubted very much whether the administration of justice at petty sessions would be improved by the proposed change. At present, in the event of a committal, the clerk was paid according to the number of depositions, and he had a direct interest in taking as many as possible, and, therefore, in seeing that the case was made out clearly; but if the clerk were paid by salary he would have no such interest, and there would be great risk of his duty being discharged

  1929
  in a perfunctory manner. If prisoners were committed for trial without full depositions being taken, the result might be the failure of prosecutions which would have succeeded under the present system. But his main objection to the Bill was that the proposed change was likely to place an additional burden on the county rates. He admitted the individual hardship of such cases as had been put, in which the costs were so exceedingly disproportionate to the penalties imposed; but such cases only proved the necessity for a revision of the existing scale of fees. If the fees were revised as they ought to be, and adapted to the circumstances of these petty cases, there would be no hardship in exacting the costs as at present. If that was done, where was the necessity for this change? But the arguments of the supporters of the Bill implied that there would be a very considerable remission of fees in the future, in the case of poor persons or of persons guilty of trivial offences. If the salary of a clerk was fixed upon an average of fees received in the last three years, and if many fees were remitted in the future, the salary would be in excess of the fees received, and the balance would have to be paid by the ratepayers. That would be a charge of anew description, because the county ratepayers were not now legally liable in any way for the salaries of clerks to Justices, unless their representatives at quarter sessions of their own free will adopted the permissive Act. This Bill would make the permissive Act compulsory, and it would impose upon the already overburdened ratepayers a charge for the administration of justice, the cost of which hitherto had not been met out of local rates. If it were preferred to pay clerks by salaries, the magistrates were at liberty to make the change now; but though the permissive Act was passed more than 20 years ago, it had been adopted by no more than five counties in England and two in Wales, with the result that in four cases the rates were burdened, and in three the counties were gainers. In one the tender-hearted justices had remitted within a year no less than £500 in fees. More than 150 boroughs in England and Wales still paid their clerks by fees, and only 24 paid them by salaries. The proposed change, therefore, was clearly in opposition to public opinion; and, for the reasons he had stated,
  1930
  he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that so important an officer as a magistrate's clerk might well be paid by salary; but still the change proposed was one of great importance, and would certainly carry with it a claim which could hardly be gain-sayed for super-annuations. It was worthy of consideration, that as the matter now stood there was no book-keeping between the clerks and the county, whilst possibly under the new system there would be expensive book-keeping. A system of stamps, however, might remedy this. No doubt, as a general rule, the proposed change would place a burden upon counties, and it had hitherto been contrary to our practice to place such charges upon counties. He should have preferred that the Government should have taken up the subject.
  VISCOUNT MAHONsupported the measure, because he thought that in many cases under the present system justice had miscarried. He had known a case where a man had been fined 1s. and 19 s. costs. In those counties where the permissive Act had been adopted there had, upon the whole, been a saving, and Surrey gained £300 a-year by the change. He cordially approved of the measure.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was sorry to differ from his hon. Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but in so doing he acted upon his own experience. The question was, whether it was desirable that the legal advisers of the magistrates in petty session should have any pecuniary interest in the cases which came before them. He believed it was not, and on that ground he should support the Bill, which, however, would require to be amended in details. The payment of fees by stamps under the Local Stamp Act would facilitate its operation. Salaries had been paid for two years in the county of Northamptonshire; the county gained one year and lost the other, and the two years had nearly balanced each other, fie had not heard that there had

  1931
  been any lack of attention to their duties on the part of the clerks. He advised his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment; but to assist in making the Bill as perfect as possible.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM, reserving what he had to say until the Bill got into Committee, stated that the Government heartily approved its two objects—compulsory payment by salaries instead of fees, and compulsory revision of the table of fees.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought that the subject had not received so full attention as it merited.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  COUNTY COURTS (SMALL DEBTS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BASS, Bill to abolish Plaints in County Courts for Debts under forty shillings for goods sold and delivered, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BASS and Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 85.]

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES, Bill for the better prevention of Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections, and for the establishing of a tribunal for the trial of the validity of such Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. CROSS, Mr. LEATHAM, and Mr. RATHBONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 86.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.