HC Deb 13 March 1872 vol 209 cc1886-902

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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 12s. to 35s. 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 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 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 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. TURNER

said, 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. DALRYMPLE

said, 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 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. READ

said, 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 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. KINNAIRD

said, 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. BEACH

said, 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 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. MACFIE

said, 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. BRUCE

said, he cordially joined in the general praise of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) for the great interest 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 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. BREWER

said, 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.