Commons Sitting of 8 May 1874

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—FOR Stroud, v. Sebastian Stewart Dickinson, esquire, and Walter John Stanton, esquire, void Election.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Holyhead Old Harbour Road* [51], Mr. Leveson Gower discharged. Lord George Cavendish added.
Report—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment* [12–96].

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.—QUESTION.
MR. SMOLLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Question put to that Department on the 22nd February 1872, whether the instalments due to the Government of India by the Madras Irrigation Company in repayment of debentures have been regularly made; and, if so, from what sources these payments are met, from money borrowed or from profits accruing from irrigation or canal dues; and, whether any negotiations are pending for the transfer of the entire works to the India Government, and upon what terms?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the total amount of the debenture debt of the Madras Irrigation Company due to the Secretary of State for India was £600,000; of this amount £228,000 has been repaid as the instalments became due, leaving £372,000 still to be paid. The Secretary of State, however, has recently given, for reasons which it is not necessary to state now, an additional two years' grace for the repayment of these debentures. The previous repayments have been made with borrowed money, and no negotiations are pending for the transfer of the works to the Indian Government.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—HERTFORD, SHIRE—QUESTION.
MR. A. SMITHasked the First Commissioner of Works. Whether it is true that the Ordnance Survey of Hertfordshire has been suspended; and, if so, when the work will be resumed?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, he regretted that it was true the survey of Hertfordshire had been suspended; but he hoped it would shortly

1927
be resumed in connection with that for the county of Essex.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—WATER SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Whether he is prepared, if duly requested by local authorities, to afford the aid of the Government, through the agency of the Board of Health or other-vise, to obtain reliable information and promote arrangements for a better supply of water in those cases where it may be expedient to combine several towns or districts under one comprehensive system of water supply?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the Local Government Board was empowered by the 26th section of the Public Health Act to combine several sanitary districts into one for the purpose of procuring a common water supply. In the event of their being requested to do so, the Local Government Board would be most happy to furnish any information or render any assistance in its power to promote the desired effect.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL—THE LICENSING SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland. When he proposes to lay upon the Table the Clauses affecting the licensing system in Ireland which he has stated he intends to move for insertion in the Intoxicating Liquors Bill recently introduced by Government; and, whether he will afford the people of Ireland as long a period to consider those Clauses as the people of England have had to consider the Intoxicating Liquors Bill affecting them?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that on Monday next he would lay on the Table the clauses affecting the licensing system in Ireland intended for insertion in the Intoxicating Liquors Bill. He, however, feared it would not be in his power to afford the same time to the Irish people for considering them as the English people had had for considering the Bill of his right hon. Friend; but then one of the most important proposals in the Bill of his right hon. Friend was not intended to apply to Ireland—that which related to
  1928
  the hours of closing. The chief clauses of the Bill which he proposed to extend to Ireland were the 6th, with regard to early closing licences; the 11th and 12th, with regard to the record of convictions and penalties; the 13th and 14th, with respect to the regulations as to the right of entry into premises: the 15th, 16th, and 17th, with respect to occasional licences; and certain other clauses, the most important of which were two—one which provided for Ireland the same power of granting exemption from closing for the convenience of fairs, markets, and certain trades, as in England, and another, which would afford a more complete registry of licences than at present existed.

SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
MAJOR BEAUMONTasked the First Commissioner of Public Works, if he has had under his consideration the Correspondence relative to the floors of the new buildings for the National Gallery, which was laid upon the Table of the House last Session and printed (No. 294). and if, for the sake of security from fire and of decoration, he intends to substitute mosaic for wooden floors?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, his attention had been drawn to the Correspondence in question; but that it was not his intention to reverse the decision of his predecessors, the more so that that decision was in entire accord with the wishes of the Trustees of the National Gallery.

NEW WRITS.
MR. DISRAELI: I beg, Sir, to move. "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relative to the Stroud Writ." While I make that Motion, I may be allowed to give Notice of the following, which I will put on the Paper:—
"That every Motion for a New Writ, of which Notice has been given, pursuant to the Resolution of the 30th day of April last, be appointed for consideration before the Orders of the Bay and Notices of Motions."
Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—BOROUGH OF STROUD—ISSUE OF NEW WRIT.
LORD KENSINGTON LORD KENSINGTON moved the issuing of a new Writ for the Borough of

1929
Stroud in the room of Mr. Sebastian Stewart Dickinson and Mr. Walter John Stanton whose election had been determined to be void.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud, in the room of Sebastian Stewart Dickinson, esquire, and Walter John Stanton, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Lord Kensington.)
MR. C. E. LEWIS, in rising to move an Amendment,
"That no new Writ for the electing of Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud be issued until after the shorthand writer's notes of the Evidence and Judgment have been laid before this House."
said, that very few words of his would be sufficient to show that the course which he recommended was in accordance with established precedent, and was not only consistent with the proprieties and necessities of the case, but that if the House pursued any other, it would be reversing the policy which it had adopted during the last two or three Parliaments in order to put a check to bribery and corruption. The Amendment proposed the delay of the Writ not for an indefinite period, but until the House had an opportunity of reading the evidence upon which the judgment was founded. By the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, sec. 11, the Judge was required to report whether corrupt practices had, or there was reason to believe they bad, extensively prevailed at the election, and the same section went on to empower the Judge to make a special Report as to whether anything had occurred which ought to be submitted to the consideration of the House of Commons. The Report of Baron Bramwell, which was laid on the Table on Monday last, contained these words—
"I further report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the Petition relates."
It would be observed by the House that that was the most severe form a Report could assume as regarded a constituency. With respect to the individual Members, the Report stated that, though they were unseated for treating, it was treating without their knowledge, but for which the law made them responsible. If the Report stopped there, what would have
1930
been the duty of the House in its desire to check corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections? Would it have been its duty, or consistent with its practice, to take no notice of such a severe Report. He apprehended the answer to that question must have been most decidedly in the negative. The House could not have been silent, nor could it, have issued the new Writ without taking notice of the subject matter included in the Report. How was the matter changed by the particular facts reported by the Judge? It was only fair to the constituency that he should state exactly what they were. The learned Judge said—
"The facts and reasons on which I report this are the following:—On and before the day of the Election, beer, bread and cheese, tea, coffee, and meat, were provided for and given to voters. These were consumed by a very large number of voters and others. The portion that each voter had was probably of trilling value; but the voters who were thus treated were generally poor labouring men. And when it is remembered they were wholly illiterate, knowing little more of the matter than that one party was called yellow and the other blue, incapable of understanding that they had any duty in relation to their vote, it is impossible to doubt that this treating not only had a strong influence in causing them to vote for those in whose favour the treating took place. And also it is impossible not to find, that those who gave and provided this entertainment, did so to cause the voter to vote for those in whose favour it was provided, It follows that this being the motive or one of the motives, or at least the contemplated result of the treating, it was corrupt."
He would refer to the next paragraph presently. He wished merely to call the attention of the House to the fact, that it was clearly on those grounds that the Judge made that Report against the constituency, and he desired, in passing, to point out that the Judge did not express it as a matter of doubt or belief, but that he found it as a fact, that corrupt practices did prevail. There were, however, two others matter of an important character. In the first place, he wished to call attention to the preceding—the second paragraph of the Judge's Report, which was to the effect that—
"There was evidence before me to show that many persons were guilty of corrupt practices at the election; but as the Respondents gave up their defence, confessing the determination of the Petition must be against them, did not call all the witnesses they otherwise might have called, the persons against whom such evidence was given were not heard. I cannot therefore find that corrupt practices were proved against them, and ought not to return their names as persons against whom corrupt practices were

1931
proved. Their names will be found in the shorthand writer's notes."
Upon that part of the Report he would make no observation; but he could not help saying, that apparently, judging from it, it was quite clear that the whole truth in connection with the Election had not conic out. The case was exit short by the submission of the respondents, and he believed the petitioners' case had not been closed when the respondents submitted. Another special matter was mentioned in the last paragraph of the Report in these terms—
"I have further to report that there is reason to believe that Edward Stevens, Hoary Asher, and three other persons, whose names I cannot give with certainty, absconded from the neighbourhood of Stroud to prevent an inquiry into a charge of bribery by Stevens of the four other persons."
In other words, an inquiry which had been instituted in due course of law had been intercepted as regarded the alleged bribery, to which live persons were said to be parties, by the absconding of those persons from the neighbourhood of the place where the Judge held the inquiry. He wished the House to consider whether the issuing of Writs where elections had been decided to be void on account of bribery and treating, ought to be left to a scramble and a chance division as each case arose, or whether the House should endeavour to act on some definite principle, so that the decision in a particular case might not wear a party aspect, and all delinquent constituencies might be treated alike? There was a principle upon which the House had already acted, and it was that where a Judge had found, in the words of the statute, that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, the Writ should not issue, until the House had been informed of the materials upon which the Judge came to the conclusion. All that he asked the House to do now was simply that—to hold its hand until it was in possession of the evidence; in order that it might be seen whether it was necessary that anything further should be done to vindicate the law of purity of election; or whether this was one of those exceptional cases in which it would be right to issue a Writ, and not to keep the constituency any longer in suspense. He could suppose cases in which the detailed Report might draw the sting of the report that corrupt practices had exten-
1932
sively prevailed; he could suppose a case such as that of Norwich, in which the Report might be so specific and detailed as to put them at once in possession of the materials necessary for forming a judgment on the case. In this case, however, it did not at present appear how many persons had been treated, and the inquiry had been baffled by the premature submission of the respondents, and by the absconding of the persons charged with bribery. He had searched the Journals of the House with reference to the course pursued after the General Elections of 1865 and 1868 in similar cases. There was no case in 1865 where corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, in which a Writ was issued immediately, before the publication of the evidence, and its circulation among Members. In the four cases of Brecknock, Hereford, Stafford, and Westbury, in which the Members were turned out for corrupt practices on the part of their agents, Writs were issued immediately, before the evidence was printed; but the words of the Report were directly negative of the words of the statute, and it was declared that there was no evidence of corrupt practices having prevailed extensively. In the cases of Bewdley, Bradford, Drogheda, Youghal, and Dublin City, the Writs were delayed until the evidence was printed, although in no case, was the Report in the direct words of the statute, which were but partially adopted. In 1866, in the four cases of Devonport, Helston, Windsor, and Nottingham, where the Members were unseated for bribery, or treating by their agents, Writs were issued immediately; but in each case, the Report negatived the prevalence of corrupt practices. In the one case of Bridgwater, the Report was laid on the Table on the 25th of April, and the Writ was not issued until the 31st of May; but in that case, as in that of Stroud, it was reported that corrupt practices prevailed extensively; and the Writ was not issued, until the evidence had been five weeks before the House. The course which was now suggested was, therefore, abundantly established by precedent. It was, however, only right to say there was a palliating sentence in the Report, which was—
"But I feel bound to add that it was don, so openly, at least in most of the instances, I am satisfied that those who were guilty of it had

1933
in some way persuaded themselves that it was not unlawful."
If that were not the statement of a learned Judge, he should describe it as somewhat naїve. Many poisons were in the habit of treating conduct as not being unlawful, when they thought it would, perhaps, not be found out, or not punished. At its best, the paragraph was a double-edged sword; for though it might absolve the guilty from the charge of wilfully breaking the law, it might imply that corrupt practices were so wide-spread, and had prevailed so long that people had become accustomed to them. One mitigating circumstance, however, might be pleaded, and that was, that full effect ought to be given to the circumstance that Stroud was not a place with an unsavoury history, like Bridgwater, Youghal, Windsor, and Lancaster. That was, he believed, the first Petition against Stroud; and one could not help recollecting that it had been represented in this House by a noble Lord who now adorned "another assemblage" (Earl Russell); by a right hon. Gentleman still a Member of that House (Mr. Horsman); and in the last Parliament by an hon. Gentleman whose talents were admired and thoroughly appreciated (Mr. Wintorbotham). He thought, therefore, such a constituency which had been so represented in that House might fairly claim favourable consideration under the particular circumstances of this case. He had not travelled out of the four corners of the Judge's Report, and had not sought to aggravate the case by introducing into it any outside elements. What, then, was to be done? He should very much mistake the temper of the House, if there was any indisposition to stay their hand till they had possession of the evidence, or, at any rate, until the particulars had been received. He would not press the question upon the House; but he thought that it was a case in which responsibility must rest on the House and its recognized Leaders; and he hoped more general and impartial rules would be laid down which would prevent these questions being made the mere shuttlecock of party, and at the same time protect the character of the House for sincerity and straightforwardness in putting down corrupt practices. There was nothing in the circumstances of the anticipated contest for Stroud which
1934
should give it greater interest on one side than on another. Stroud had long-been considered one of those robust Liberal constituencies which could not be moved by a Conservative candidate, and for years it had resisted every effort. It had, indeed, rather changed of late; but there was nothing in the present circumstances of the borough to give any party tinge to this question. He hoped they would, at all events, have the advice on this subject of the Law Officers of the Crown and of those who were the recognized Leaders on both sides of the House, and that in the result it would be impossible to say that the House had wilfully shut its eyes to the existence of corrupt practices as reported by the Judge who tried the Election Petition, and positively refused to delay issuing the Writ for a few days till the evidence on which the Judge had reported was placed in their hands. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no new Writ for the electing of Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud be issued until after the shorthand writer's notes of the Evidence and Judgment have been laid before this House,"—(Mr. Charles Lewis,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that al-though the Motion was proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Haverford-west (Lord Kensington) there was no desire on that side of the House to press it forward in a party sense. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had called the attention of the House to circumstances which, in his opinion, would justify the suspension of the Writ, and he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he suggested that the House would do all it could to slay corrupt practices; but it was certainly incumbent on him to show that from the suspension or delay of this Writ, some practical benefit would accrue. This question must be dealt with—they were bound to consider the constituency to some extent. Technically, the consti-

1935
tuency had a right to be represented in that House, and substantially, it should not be kept from being represented, unless for good reason. If the House allowed him briefly to call attention to the statutes affecting the subject, he thought he would be able to show that, if the proposed delay took place, no possible step could be taken afterwards. It would be observed that the whole tendency of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was, that the House should have an opportunity of reading the evidence taken before Baron Bram-well in the Stroud Election Inquiry; but he did not tell them what subsequent steps the House could take. Hon. Members were aware that the power of investigating such matters was by recent legislation removed from the House and vested in the Judges of the Superior Courts. Now, so far as he was aware, there was only one step the House could take after receiving the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Petition, and that step could only be taken when the Report took a particular form. They could not re-try the Petition. They could not enter into any question as to whether or not witnesses had absconded. They could not deal with any fact reported to them unless the Report was in a particular form; and then, if they came to the conclusion that the Report of the Judge was correct, they must act in accordance with the Report. The Act that regulated the matter was passed in 1852, and, with much deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, bethought if he had referred to that statute, he would have found that in the present case they could take no practical step whatever after reading the evidence. The Report of the learned Judge stated—
"I further report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates," and added "the facts and reasons on which I report this are the following."
He then proceeded to state in what form the corrupt, practice of treating prevailed. He stated that treating, the corrupt practice to which he referred, extensively prevailed. Now, suppose they found in the evidence that the Report of the Judge was entirely sustained by the evidence, what step could the House take? The hon. and learned Member had referred to many precedents and instances; but he had not referred to any proceeding that had ever taken
1936
place on a similar Report to this. And for obvious reasons. All they could do in any case was to appoint a Commission to inquire into corrupt practices; but any Commission they might appoint had no power to inquire into corrupt practices which simply took the form of treating. It was very strange that it should be so, but such was the state of the law; and the result was, they had no power to inquire into anything but bribery. Consequently, there had never been any instance in which an Address had been presented praying for an inquiry into treating. He therefore asked the hon. and learned Member what he proposed to do when they had the evidence. They might read it, they might study it, they might give their opinion that the conclusion come to by the learned Judge was right or not; but—and he spoke under the correction of the Law Officers of the Crown—they could do no more. They could not inquire any further. They could not issue a Commission that would have any effect. If that were so, he asked the House, what would be the result of suspending the issuing of a new Writ? They could do nothing. He was anxious not to be misunderstood. He did not think treating was a trivial offence; but, unfortunately, it did not come within the corrupt practices that could be inquired into by a Commission. An alteration of the law might be desirable, and if the hon. and learned Member moved in that direction, he might rely on his support. Inasmuch, however, as at present treating could not be inquired into, and consequently as no practical result could come from the proposed delay, he thought the Amendment should not be pressed.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton was, that a Commission could not inquire into treating, and that, therefore, they ought not to send down a Commission. But under the 1st and 2nd sections of the Act of 1852 the two Houses might address Her Majesty to send down a Commission when it had been reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. Baron Bramwell, in the case of Stroud, did not limit his finding to the existence of corrupt practices in respect of treating only, but added that there was reason to believe that certain persons had absconded from the neighbourhood to prevent a charge

1937
of bribery against a person named Stevens. Therefore, under the terms used by Mr. Baron Bramwell, there were grounds for a Commission to issue. But the hon. and learned Member for Taunton said that the Judge based his decision only upon certain treating. That finding, however, did not limit the previous finding of the learned Judge, that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in the borough. But even if that were so, the hon. and learned Gentleman had overlooked the last paragraph of the Report, because in that Mr. Baron Bramwell did not limit his finding to treating, and therefore there certainly was a primâ facie case for a Commission to issue. The House might look leniently upon the borough of Stroud because it had been well represented, and there had been no previous conviction against it; but he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member, that upon a Report such as this the House was in any way bound to issue the Writ at once.
MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, it was not the fact that in all cases where it had been reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed a Commission had been issued. He was a Member of an Election Commission for bribery in the case of Galway, which sat in 1866, which did not unseat either of the Members, although they found that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. He thought at that time that some action on the part of the Government would follow in the way of moving that a Commission should issue, and he had asked a Question on the point, of the right hon. Gentleman Sir George Grey, then Homo Secretary, who answered that it was not the intention of the Government to move for a Commission, but that if the Chairman of the Committee, or any other Member moved for it, the Government would give the Motion their support. He thereupon communicated with the Chairman, who declined to move in the matter, and the whole thing dropped through. He quite agreed that some principles should be laid down on the subject. Either the Government should undertake the matter, or there should be some self-acting rule by which certain words in a Report should be held to be sufficient for a Commission to follow. In the present case, as the only independent Representative of Stroud now in the House, he
1938
might be allowed to add that it had been eminently distinguished for the character and ability of its Representatives, and until now not a single word had been heard against the purity of its elections. No doubt, a clerk in a local bank and four working men who had been brought into communication with him had absconded, and Baron Bramwell was amply justified in reporting the circumstance. But although the treating which prevailed on the present occasion—which was the result of over zeal on the part of certain young ladies and Dissenting clergymen—and although the absence of these persons were suspicious, they hardly constituted a sufficient ground for the issue of a Commission, and he trusted that the House would allow the borough to proceed to the election of new Members without further delay.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he entirely concurred in the hope and belief expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. E. Lewis), that this question would be approached without reference to party feeling. He had endeavoured to do so himself, and having given his best consideration to the Report of the learned Judge and to the law on the subject, he was unable to arrive at the same conclusion with his hon. and learned Friend. It was not a case in which the House would, he thought, be of opinion that the issue of the Writ should be suspended. It was only in extreme cases that the House would suspend the issue of a Writ, with the view of issuing a Commission under the Act of 1852, and its practice was not to suspend it even for a few days unless it was of opinion, from the facts before it, that there was a primâ facie case for issuing a Commission. He very much doubted whether the corrupt practices reported on by the Judge were such as Commissioners appointed under the Act could properly inquire into; but assuming that, upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament, Her Majesty should appoint Commissioners, and that the Commissioners so appointed should make the inquiry, he ventured to ask the House whether it thought that, even if all the alleged facts were established, the case was one in which the borough of Stroud should be visited with heavy punishment. It appeared from the Report of the learned

1939
Judge, that although treating extensively prevailed, the parries concerned were under the impression that they were not doing anything which was unlawful. It was also admitted that Stroud was a borough respecting which there were no unpleasant recollections; and for all these reasons he trusted the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry would consider he had sufficiently discharged his duty by bringing the matter forward, and would consent to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. FORSYTHsaid, he was sorry to differ both from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). On one point the hon. and learned Mover of the Amendment was mistaken; for by the Act of 1868 it was imperative in the case of Election Petitions that a copy of the evidence should accompany the certificate to the Speaker, and there was no doubt it did so in this case. What the hon. Member probably meant was that the evidence should be printed. But the reason he differed from the Attorney General was this. The statute said, that when it was found that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed—and those were the very words used in the present instance—the same consequences should follow as followed while the House retained its jurisdiction in these cases. The Act of 1852 showed what those consequences wore. On a joint Address of both Houses of Parliament a Commission might be issued. He was by no means contented with the exposition of the law so authoritatively laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton. He did not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong; but he was not satisfied that he was right. The Commissioners would go down to inquire into corrupt practices generally, and as they were appointed on a joint Address by both Houses of Parliament, the scope of their inquiry would not be limited to the exact terms of the finding of the Judge. He could not help thinking that under the circumstances it would be premature to issue a new Writ at once.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that because a Judge reported that treating had extensively prevailed, to issue a Commission to inquire into bribery was very much like a magistrate
1940
committing a man for larceny and a Judge trying him for murder. But for the high authority of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone Mr. Forsyth), he should be very much disposed to doubt whether this was the law. The question was, whether the Commission, if appointed, would have the power to inquire into the question of treating. He was sorry to say he thought they could not do so, for that was a power which they ought to possess. No one in that House would contend that treating was not as heavy an offence as bribery. He considered it was a more insidious and a meaner method of corrupting a constituency than bribery—[laughter]—and that it ought to be dealt with by the law quite as severely. He was sorry to find that there were hon. Gentlemen who were not so anxious to put down treating as he was. Another question was, whether the 6th section did or did not apply to it. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had quoted two lines from the beginning of the section; but if he looked at the end of it, he would find that such Commissioners should from time to time report to Her Majesty the evidence taken by them, and what they found concerning it, and also the names of all persons guilty of corrupt practices, as well as those who had given bribes for the purpose of purchasing the votes of others, or had themselves received money or other valuable consideration. Every word in that section applied to bribery, and there was not a single word which would give the Commissioners power to report on treating. If the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry was so anxious about this matter, why had he not made that Motion in the case of Wakefield, where bribery was not only reported to have extensively prevailed, but where eight persons were scheduled as bribers by the Election Judge, instead of reserving it for this case, where there were only two?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, he thought that according to the Act, the Commissioners had the power of calling before them every person in the place adjudged guilty of bribery and treating, and could proceed backwards through all preceding elections until they found a pure election. He had sat on one of those Commissions himself, and well knew what sort of an

1941
inquiry it was. It was unlimited in its range, capable of being applied to every person, altogether exceptional, and only to be resorted to when the Report of the Election Judge showed the clearest ground on which to found it. Now, what was the Report in the present instance? It said there was no doubt treating; but it was accompanied by a statement from the Judge that most of the persons concerned in it, both those who received and those who gave, appeared to him not to view it as an unlawful act. As regarded bribery there were one or two isolated instances, and one person had absconded. Those were not sufficient grounds on which that House ought to apply to Her Majesty's Government to put in motion powers of an exceptional nature, which were justified only in very flagrant instances of bribery and corruption. He therefore believed the present case was not one demanding such a harsh course of procedure as had been called for by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, the subject had been argued as if it were a question of issuing a Commission. The House had always been very desirous, when there was an allegation that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, to take the fullest opportunity of judging of the whole question before they determined what steps should be taken, and whether a Commission of Inquiry should issue or not. The only issue raised by the present Amendment was, whether, on the information which the House had before them now, and which consisted solely of the finding of the Judge, without any of the evidence, they were to determine that a new Writ should issue at once. The statement of the Judge was, that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the late election. There was also an allegation that among those corrupt practices there might have been bribery as well as treating, and, according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament which tried to put down corrupt practices, treating was an offence which incapacitated any candidate proved to be guilty of it from voting again at a subsequent election. It was important that the House should be in possession of evidence in support of these facts before they determined that there was no case made out for suspending the Writ, and that it should be issued forthwith.
1942
Could any harm happen if the Writ were suspended for three or four days? If the facts were as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton seemed to think, then probably the opinion of the House would be that the Writ ought to be issued; but if corrupt practices extensively prevailed, the House should take notice of the matter. At all events, they would lose nothing by suspending the issue of the Writ for a few days.
MR. DISRAELI: I am sorry, Sir, the opinions of hon. Gentlemen of the long robe have not been uniform, for I, and I am sure the House, have every wish to be guided by their superior experience and learning. It struck me there was this fallacy in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and who upon ail subjects, but especially those affecting our constitutional rights, is listened to with the greatest attention. The right hon. Gentleman argued the case as if the recommendations had been founded on the Report of an Election Committee, not on the Report of a Judge. The fact is, that we are to take the judgment of the Judge upon the evidence, and upon that judgment we must really rest our conclusions. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, I am myself indisposed to arrest the issue of a new Writ where there is a feeling—I will not say a thorough conviction, but a general feeling—in the House that we should not in the case have recourse to ulterior proceedings. I think the character of the borough ought to be considered, and, as the opinions of hon. Gentlemen of the long robe are so various, we must look to considerations of that kind. I rest upon the opinion given by the Judge on the evidence. The Judge has given us that opinion to guide us, and on the whole I am disposed to think it is our duty not to oppose the Motion for issuing a new Writ for the borough of Stroud.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought that was a question which ought not to be precipitately decided. The balance of the opinions which had been stated was to the effect that if the borough of Stroud had made a lapse, it might say, like the young lady in a scrape, that it was a very little one. At the same time, after the Report of the Judge, a good deal might be said in favour of not issuing the Writ—that was, if the Reports of Election Judges were worthy of the

1943
respect of the House. As an amicable way of getting out of the difficulty, he would suggest that the debate be adjourned, ["Oh. oh!"] If the House would not accept that suggestion, he should not put it to the trouble of a division; but if they did, it would be letting the borough of Stroud down easily, and yet showing that it had some regard for the purity of election and for the Reports of the appointed Judges. It would also give the House an opportunity of forming its own conclusions upon the whole of the evidence before it took a decisive step.
MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, that having regard to the opinion expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the two front benches, to whom he appealed with reference to the proper course to be pursued, he thought it would only be consistent with the tone he had throughout endeavoured to assume, if he said he would prefer not to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Stroud, in the room of Sebastian Stewart Dickinson, esquire, and Walter John Stanton, esquire, whose election has been determined to be void.

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

DWELLINGS OF WORKING PEOPLE IN LONDON.—RESOLUTION.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, in rising to call the attention of the House to the urgent importance of the problems connected with the present condition and future improvement of the dwellings of working people in London, and to the memorials on this subject lately presented to Her Majesty's Government by the Royal College of Physicians and by the Council and Dwellings Committee of the Charity Organization Society (Sessional Paper, Nos. 118 and 127); and to move—
1944
"That, in the opinion of this House, a necessity exists for some measure that will provide for the improvement of the poorest classes of dwellings in London, and that this question demands the early attention of Her Majesty's Government,"
said: * I can say with perfect sincerity and earnestness that I regret that such an important subject has not fallen into abler hands than mine, and I must explain to the House briefly how it comes to pass that this subject is in my charge. Some time ago, in the late Parliament, I drew the attention of the House on more than one occasion to the state of our system of water supply in London; and I became conscious from the study of that subject of the great difficulties which stood in the way of any reform on account of the very defective condition of a large proportion of the poorer habitations. Last year, at the commencement of the Session, in common with many other Members of both Houses of Parliament, I received an invitation from the Charity Organization Society to serve on a Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the dwellings of the poor. It was in the course of the deliberations of that Committee, and in consequence of the evidence which was laid before us, that I became aware of the real magnitude and national importance of this question. And, after waiting to see whether any other Member of the House would bring it forward, I determined with the concurrence of that Committee, to give Notice of the Resolution which I am now about to move. Moreover, the two memorials to which I call attention have been prepared and presented to the Government—one by the Royal College of Physicians, the other by the Charity Organization Society; and these have been followed by a correspondence in some of the public journals, which appeared to me to bring the subject into so ripe a condition that it might be promptly dealt with by Parliament. If I needed any justification of the course I am now pursuing, in asking the attention of the House to this question, I should find it in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Cross), in introducing his Licensing Bill the other day, dwelt earnestly on the necessity which existed for improved habitations for working people. Again, the

1945
right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), in explaining his Budget, used language on this subject which led one to hope that he was about to sketch out some measure by which the long-wished-for result of improving the dwellings of the working classes might be achieved. To go back a very little further, Lord Derby, in his speeches in the North of England, has repeatedly called attention to these sanitary questions. And the right hon. Gentleman who is now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in laying down his programme at Manchester, adopted as his motto—"Sanitas Sanitation, omnia Sanitas." However, the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to words, and the country is now in expectation of the acts which ought to follow on those words. Sir, if it should be the good fortune of the Government who now occupy those benches to legislate wisely on sanitary matters, especially as regards the habitations of the working classes in London, they will not only confer enduring benefit on the metropolis, but will surround their names with lustre, and the history of their Administration with credit. If hon. Members wish to have an authoritative statement with regard to the special needs of London for improvement of the dwellings of the working classes, I will refer them to a Report prepared and presented in 1865, by Mr. Simon, then the Medical Officer to the Privy Council and now to the Local Government Board, in which he named numerous towns in which the poorer houses were practically unfit for human habitation, but said that they were worst of all in London and five other towns—Bristol, Merthyr, Newcastle, Plymouth, and Sunderland. To step down from that very high authority to the very humble authority of the Member who is now addressing the House, I have made it my business during the past few weeks to visit various parts of London and to see for myself to what extent the evil existed. Amongst other parts, I have been to courts in the neighbourhood of Holborn, pretty nearly all over the parish of St. Giles, through the neighbourhood of Drury Lane, and also through one of the very worst portions of London—the district called Bedford-bury—but which I hope hon. Members will not connect with the name of the
1946
Duke of Bedford, whose property is of a very different character. I could not describe to the House the full details of what I saw in the course of my visit to those localities. Hon. Members in taking short cuts through the town, as, for instance, in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn, may, perhaps, see places in which they would be very sorry to have to reside; but I do not think that they have any real idea of the character of large masses of the dwellings which exist in our immediate neighbourhood, nor is any such idea possessed by 99 out of every 100 of the wealthy inmates of luxurious West End houses. Sir, I my-self had no better knowledge of the true state of the homes of thousands of the people who live around us until I visited some of them recently. I will just toll the House two or three of the things which I saw during my excursions into these comparatively unknown regions. In the first place, there are a great many courts which are not only extremely narrow in themselves, but are approached by tunnels passing under other houses. These houses close one end of the court, and the other end is also completely closed up, so that it is impossible that the houses in the court should have any ventilation. There are other houses which are built back to back, so that no air can pass between them. There are other houses which are, perhaps, even worse than these, because, though a very narrow space is left between their backs, this space is almost dark, and at its base is filled with everything that is filthy and abominable; consequently the air that enters these dwellings from the rear is anything but pure, and is constantly liable to be laden with the most offensive odours, and with the germs of disorder and disease. There are some houses the fronts of which look closely upon the backs of the opposite houses, and hon. Members can easily imagine what must be the consequence of that arrangement, because, of course, the sanitary offices—if the term "sanitary" can be properly applied to them—of all the opposite houses are immediately under their windows. The construction of these houses is antiquated and utterly bad. Possibly some hon. Members would be surprised to learn that among the mischiefs of which complaint has to be made are the following:—I saw a row in Bedfordbury

1947
that is entirely built of wood; and many of the houses in the neighbourhood of Drury Lane are built of mere lath and plaster. Not only must such dwellings he dirty and unfit for human habitation, but in the event of a fire breaking out during a strong wind, it is quite impossible to say where the consequences might end. Many of the houses I have described, and probably all of them, were built before any Building Act existed for London. We have now a Building Act for the Metropolis, the defects in which I am glad to see we are to attempt to remedy by the Bill which the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Metropolitan Board of Works (Colonel Hogg) has brought in. When the houses to which I refer were built, no sanitary arrangements of any kind were enforced. The dwellings were often erected in back yards and in gardens; and, consequently, the means of approach to them were most inconvenient and most inadequate. [The hon. Member having read a vivid description of the condition of some districts of the metropolis—"places unfit for human habitation—places in which by common consent even moderately healthy life is impossible to human dwellers,"—from the 8th Report of the Medical Officer of Privy Council, 1865, page 13; and similar testimony to the state of things existing in 1874 by the Medical Officer of Health of the Whitechapel District Board of Work's and the Medical Officer of Health of St. Marylebone proceeded to say]—Now, with respect to these poorest houses in London—they fall under two heads—they are either improvable or they are unimprovable. The houses which fall under the following category may be considered past all improvement. First of all, those which stand back to back, or in so confined a space as to be incapable of free ventilation; secondly, those old tumble-down houses which are not worth spending money upon; thirdly, those that are built of wood or of lath and plaster; and fourthly, such as are incapable of having proper sanitary arrangements provided for them, one for every family, or at least one for every two or three families. Well, in what I have been describing to the House, I have been describing large areas available as sites for building improved dwellings for the working classes; for all those great spaces which are now
1948
covered by those bad dwellings could shortly be made use of if they were cleared, and would be made use of, if Parliament said clearly that they should be used for proper habitations for the poor. But there is another class of sites which exists in London, and in referring to them I shall appeal to the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), the late Lord Mayor of London, who has identified himself so honourably with the movement for providing better habitations for the poor, and who can tell the House more than I can with respect to this subject. In April, 1872, in a letter which he wrote to The Daily News, he described the existence in London of large waste places, and explained what a mistake it was that they should exist, for the sake not only of the people who live in them, but of the owners of the adjoining property. This is what he describes in April, 1872.
"Commercial Street—Shoreditch to White-chapel—wax opened in 1852; Southwark Street in 1862; and in both streets large plots of land still remain uncovered. The new Farringdon Road is another case in point. It was opened in 1858, and very little of the surplus land has yet been built upon. The frontages are from one end to the other almost a dreary waste; the loss in the interest of the money alone amounts to nearly the whole of the principal; so that even were the land to he now sold for double what it would have fetched in 1858, the Corporation would only just recoup the loss sustained by this 14 years waiting. Meanwhile other and more serious losses have been going on. The district has lost the whole value of the parochial rates and taxes which would have been paid on inhabited houses; it has lost the increased value on the surrounding property which increased trade would have brought."
Now, if any hon. Member will walk through Farringdon Street and near the Holborn Viaduct, he will still see large spaces of this kind surrounded by buildings; these spaces lying waste, to the injury not only of the Corporation or other persons who may own the land, but of the occupiers of surrounding property, the shopkeepers, the ratepayers, and above all, of the working classes, who are living over-crowded in the neighbouring parts of London. I have a letter which was kindly addressed to me by the Surveyor of the Trustees of Mr. Peabody, which shows that there also exist other sites, some of the class I first mentioned, some of the class I last mentioned, and some partly of the one class

1949
and partly of the other, which though they exist cannot be obtained by those anxious to build for the working classes. I think I am justified in reading this statement to the House, coming as it does with all the authority of the Peabody Trustees. The letter says—
"There are many large sites in and around London, suitable; for dwellings for working men, and such sites have been in the market for years unsold, simply because the price asked is far above the value. I know of one in Lambeth for sale since 1868, in which year I offered a fair price for the Peabody Trust. There are now unsold several suitable sites in Westminster, one in Goswell Street, one in Whitechapel, one in City Road: land in Westminster little used belonging to trustees who cannot sell without compulsory powers: laud in Paddington kept in a useless state by an old man quite incapable of dealing with his property, and this land is in a situation much wanting help with clean houses: a property in Westminster consisting of two plots of land, both too small to be dealt with separately, but having some of the worst houses in Westminster between the plots. These houses cannot be purchased without compulsory powers."
The statement which I have quoted shows the existence of sites to a large extent which might be used for the purpose of building proper dwellings for the poor. There are other spaces also which might be made available, where, under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868, passed by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), the Medical Officers of Health have stopped in and have moved the vestries to demolish buildings unfit for habitation. In some of these places sites have been cleared, and still remain cleared, without being made useful or productive for any purpose. I saw one of these properties, belonging to the Foundling Hospital, in Bloomsbury, near Russell Square, which scarcely can be utilized, partly because there are not proper approaches, and partly because, though tolerably large, it is not sufficiently extensive to be made use of by the Peabody Trustees or others, unless compulsory powers could be obtained over the adjoining property. In this space, when I saw it the other day, there were heaps of offensive refuse thrown from the neighbouring houses, and the vestry were employing several men—naturally not without expense to the ratepayers—to clear the rubbish away. I think, then, I have shown the House that there exists in London a plentiful supply of sites which might be used for
1950
the purpose of erecting good dwellings; sites at present occupied by houses unfit for habitation; sites which cannot be turned to account in consequence of the too high prices asked for them by their owners, and sites too small to be made available themselves, because there are no compulsory powers of dealing with adjacent property. I purpose now to show that there exists in London a large demand for such sites. The trustees of Mr. Peabody, whose name—although he was not a native of this country—must always be mentioned as that of one of the greatest benefactors that our metropolis has ever had, not only inform me, in the letter I have quoted to the House, that they have been endeavouring, without success, to get the sites I have mentioned; but they state in their last report that, out of a total fund of £578,000—including all the bequests of Mr. Peabody, and such profits as have already been received from the dwellings they have built, while they have spent on land £102,000, and £198,000 on buildings, making £300,000 in all—they have still left about £278,000 available for the purposes of the trust. There can be no doubt that the trustees of Mr. Peabody would lose no time in employing that money, if they could only meet with the sites which they want, and yet I have shown to the House that such sites exist in great quantity. Then, I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, who will second my Motion, that his company have refused money which they would be glad to put to use if they could only get sites. The great difficulty is to obtain sites, and if my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cross) sees his way to get over that difficulty, I have no doubt the demands on the part of philanthropists, semi-philanthropists, and those who desire to build for their own private gain, will do the rest. If my right hon. Friend would only bring the supply to the demand, he would do a great and most useful work. I am told by the secretaries of other societies and companies that their hands are tied behind them, that they are crippled for want of land. Well, then, here we have this plentiful supply of sites, and this demand for sites, and the question is how to bring this demand to touch the supply. It reminds me of cases which used to interest me very much when I was a student of chemistry. When you have apparently

1951
in close contact two substances which have a strong affinity for each other, they may remain in contact for years and years without any union taking place; but once apply heat or the electric spark, or some other power which will bring them into more than mere mechanical contact, and you set up an action of an interesting and important character. That electric force can only be applied in this case by the action of Parliament. [The hon. Member having referred to the various Acts connected with the Public Health passed since the outbreak of cholera in 1831 said]: I now come to the Act which is of most importance in reference to this discussion—I mean the Act passed by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) in 1868, and called the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. The Bill, as passed by the House of Commons, contained provisions for four purposes—compulsory repair, demolilition, compensation, and rebuilding. In the House of Lords, the last two provisions were struck out, and consequently the Act provides only for compulsory repair, and for the demolition of dwellings unfit for human habitation. Yet this Act has been of great value. Indeed, I did not fully realize its value until the other clay, when I went through the parish of St. Giles, where Dr. Ross, the Medical Officer of the Vestry, has put the Act into force with considerable vigour and courage. About 100 houses have been improved or demolished in his district. The Act has been also employed with effect in Marylebone, Clerkenwell, Islington, Holborn, St. Luke's, Whitechapel, Mile End Old Town, and other parishes. It may be worth while to point out how the Act may be considerably improved. Not only should the powers of rebuilding, which the House of Lords unfortunately expunged, be restored in some form by new legislation, but the experience of Dr. Ross in enforcing the Act induces him to offer these practical suggestions:—First, the Medical Officer, in addition to the Re-port required by the Act, should be directed to detail the grounds upon which his opinion is based; and, secondly, the report of the Medical Officer of Health, condemning certain houses as unfit for human habitation, should be forwarded to the Local Government Board, in order that a Medical Inspec-
1952
tor may examine the premises, and report thereon, previous to the reference to the Surveyor of the local authority. The medical officers of health are in the service of the vestries, and the members of the vestries are, to a large extent, property owners; and yet it is to these vestries that the medical officer of health has to make his report that property is unfit for human habitation, and ought to be demolished. The effect of adopting the suggestion would be that the report of the medical officer would be made with much greater confidence. At present, he sometimes shrinks from condemning places which are unfit for human habitation because he knows his report will be unsupported when it comes before a body who, naturally enough, will be somewhat prejudiced in favour of the supposed rights of their own property. If he were supported by an Inspector of the Local Government Board, he would have more confidence in recommending the resort to the measures now authorized by what is known as Torrens's Act. There are other respects in which the Act will not work efficiently. A medical officer of health shrinks from condemning property because, in the first place, he knows there is no power to re-construct. That is a fault which might have been avoided by passing the provisions of the Act that were rejected by the House of Lords. Further, the medical officer knows that the site of the property, if it were condemned, could not be utilized for any purpose unless adjoining property could be dealt with as well; but that may not be unfit for human habitation, and therefore he is not able to condemn it. He knows that if the houses to be condemned are demolished, the site will remain vacant and no property will be erected. This points to the necessity of some powers for obtaining neighbouring property, even though it be not of a character to render it unfit for human habitation. We have now seen sufficiently what Acts have been passed by the Legislature in recent years, and I pass on to show what precedents exist to guide us in the future, and what circumstances there are to encourage us. To go at once to the root of the matter, I point to the examples of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and what has been clone in those places. When I was a member of the Committee of the Charity Organization Society, one of the most interesting

1953
meetings was that at which the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the City Architect, and the Town Clerk attended to give evidence of what they had been able to do in Glasgow. They obtained, in 1866, an Act called the City Improvement Act. Before the passing of that Act, the Lord Provost told us the City of Glasgow was even more crowded than London was. There were 50,000 people huddled together on 80 acres, which made 600 to the acre, while in Westminster, a very crowded part of London, the population is 235 to the acre. How did the Corporation propose to deal with this evil, and how did Parliament enable them to deal with it? The Corporation deposited plans of the parts of the town they desired to improve, and they obtained power to borrow a million and a-quarter of money. They were empowered to pull down all the places which were shown in these deposited plans, and to rebuild upon the sites thus obtained, or sell them for the purpose of being built upon. They were also empowered to levy a 6d. rate. They did not find this necessary for more than a year; they had a 4d. rate for two years, then a 3d. one, and now, I think, it is reduced to 2d. The Corporation did not use their power to rebuild except to a very limited extent. In order not to discourage speculators and prevent their stepping in to do what was necessary, the Corporation exercised their powers of re-constructing in only two cases; they built two lodging-houses for 500 people, which are quite models of their kind, and which have paid 10 per cent. The rest of the building operations have been conducted throughout by private agencies which came at once to the aid of the trustees, and acted readily under certain prescribed restrictions of sanitary construction. One provision in the Glasgow Act prevented the removal of more than 500 persons at once without a certificate from the Sheriff that accommodation for the number removed was obtainable in the neighbourhood. Following the example of Glasgow, the people of Edinburgh were induced, in 1867, by Dr. William Chambers, to obtain an Act which enabled the Corporation to borrow £350,000, restricted them to removing 500 people at a time, and gave power to spend £10,000 in rebuilding. They exercised this power by building a block of 36 houses, con-
1954
sisting of flats, which were eagerly purchased by working men, at prices varying from £170 to £185. Liverpool, in 1864, obtained a special Act, called the Sanitary Amendment Act, which was on the same basis as Torrens's Act—subsequently passed for London and other towns—but the Liverpool Bill contained the principle of compensation, which was struck out of the hon. Member for Finsbury's Bill in the House of Lords, so that Liverpool possesses a power of which the authorities of London are deprived. Let me state very briefly what have been some of the results of this legislation. I will restrict what I have to say to the Glasgow case. The results in Glasgow have been very remarkable with reference to crime. The total number of crimes have singularly diminished. According to the Report of Captain McCall, Chief Constable of the City, for the year 1871, the number of houses of an immoral kind have been reduced from 204 to 50. Captain McCall adds—
"I should consider that I fell short of my duty were I not to acknowledge that the operations of the City Improvement Trustees and the Directors of the City Union Railway Company, have contributed to the results. Through these operations the city has been cleared of the foulest dens of vice and profligacy, and their occupants have been scattered among a population breathing a purer moral atmosphere."
I have also got the statistics of what has been done with regard to the number of dwellings which have been removed in a return by Mr. Nichol, Secretary to the Improvement Trustees. The return is dated the 14th April, 1874, and states that—
"The number of dwellings in the central district of Glasgow removed by the Improvement Trustees within the last six years was 3,085 (allowing five to a family, 15,425 persons). The number in the same district removed by the City Union Railway Company represents 8,000 inmates, giving a total of 28,425."
I take it, therefore, that what has been done in Glasgow may be pointed to as, at least, a hopeful precedent, when we come to consider the way in which we are proposing to deal with the evils that exist in London. I know it will be said, and I admit, that the cases of Glasgow and London are very different. The case of London is, in many respects, totally different from that of any other town in the Kingdom. No doubt, very greatly improved legislation is required with reference to the dwellings of the labour-

1955
ing classes in every town of the Kingdom; but with respect to London it is particularly so, and I admit that here in London we cannot follow altogether the example of Glasgow in one particular. We cannot meet the necessities of the case by erecting dwellings in the suburbs in the stead of those demolished in the City. The suburbs of London are so much farther removed from the centre than those of other towns, that at least those people whose work is not at regular times cannot live in the suburbs and follow their occupations too. Those, for instance, who have regular work between fixed hours in the morning and the evening, who do not work extra hours and who have sufficient means to enable them to go to and fro by railway, and to bear the increased expense of taking their mid-day meal apart from their wives and families, these may benefit by living in the suburbs. But a large class who must take their work to their employers at various uncertain hours—I might mention the case of tailors, for instance—and those who depend on having their mid-day meal with their families, and those whose wives or children earn money in town occupations, cannot go to dwellings in the suburbs. I may say parenthetically that it would be a misfortune in my estimation to have the large mass of working men toiling far from their homes all day while their families reside in the suburbs. Men would lead a working life quite distinct and apart from their home life. It is a happy thing for them to be able to return to their families for their mid-day meal; and, where they cannot do that, to have the wife or child taking the dinner to the father, and sharing it with him. That would be materially affected by obliging the working classes to any great extent to avail themselves of railways to travel to and from their work. I say, therefore, the case of Glasgow is very different in that respect from London, where the centre of the town is so far distant from the suburbs. But there is this similarity, that there existed in Glasgow large districts where the buildings were overcrowded, where the sanitary arrangments were bad, which were perfect rookeries of crime, disease, and every kind of disorder, and which could only be got rid of by demolition. And we have the same, evil to deal with in London as in Glasgow. It may, there-
1956
fore, be profitable, and it is not uninteresting to examine what has been done. What is it that we propose to do in London? What is it that the memorials which have been presented to the Government by the College of Physicians and the Charity Organization Society point to? They both point to compulsory powers being obtained by local authorities for acquiring building sites for working people by the demolition of dwellings unfit for human habitation. And though I should not presume to sketch in detail a plan by which this course may be adopted, I think I need only point to one or two facts to show that we are, in some respects, in a better position than Glasgow for giving such compulsory powers. The first respect in which I think we stand in a better position is, that we have in our employment medical officers who are ready and competent to report, in accordance with the hon. Member for Finsbury's Act, that the houses to be removed are unfit for human habitation. That smooths away a great many difficulties; their powers being applied only to the class of houses unfit for human habitation. Sites would thus be obtained, not at an unfair, but at their real value. People who had allowed their property to get into a bad condition, and who kept it in a bad condition, would not be able to extort the altogether improperly high prices they now obtain for such property. In another respect I think we should stand better than in Glasgow for the exercise of those powers; the Metropolitan Board of Works, if entrusted with such functions, can issue stock at the moderate rate of 3½ per cent. and are thus enabled to obtain money much more cheaply than the Glasgow authorities could find their £1,250,000. But I must come to the main difficulty in that part of the proposal which seeks to confer these powers on certain authorities in London. It is objected that we have not got in London a great active reforming Municipal Corporation like that of Glasgow, with powers extending to the whole of the town, and directly representing its inhabitants; and that, no doubt, is true. I say, without disguise, in presence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, that I am one of those who call themselves municipal reformers, and who look forward to having some day a real

1957
municipal government for London. I am not satisfied with the Metropolitan Board of Works; and I hope the time will come when we shall have a directly representative Corporation governing the whole of the metropolis, and replacing existing bodies. But I do not think we ought to delay improving the dwellings of the poor till this reform takes place; and I do not shrink at all from saying that I think the proper course for the Government and Parliament to pursue is to invest the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the noble Corporation which presides over the City, with compulsory powers for this purpose, similar to those given to the Corporation of Glasgow. Let me say to anyone who distrusts the Metropolitan Board of Works at once—Suppose they do not exercise these powers wisely, or if they do not exercise them at all—at the worst, what will be the result? The powers will be ready at hand for those who must be appointed their successors, if they neglect their duties. If the Metropolitan Board of Works, possessing these powers of dealing with this great mischief, do not avail themselves of them, so much the worse for the Board. If they do avail themselves of them, proving in that respect a reforming body so far as their powers extend, I shall be ready to reconsider my distrust of a body, elected as the Board of Works is, and to give them credit for what they have done. It will be a great opportunity for them. If they avail themselves of it, so much the better for them; if they do not, so much stronger will the argument be for that of which I am an advocate—the formation of a real municipal government for London. If we give these powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and if they do not properly exercise them, we shall be enabling those who may hereafter take their place, if it be necessary some other body should supersede them, we shall be enabling their successors as soon as they come into office to avail themselves of these facilities, and do in earnest the good work we wish them to do. With respect to the necessity of those compulsory powers, I think I have yet one point to show. The Peabody Trustees and the Building Companies and Societies, when they succeed in obtaining land on which to build, are frequently very much hampered for want of power to deal with some buildings ad-
1958
joining what they acquire. A remarkable example of the damage done from want of compulsory powers occurred on the southern side of the river. The trustees of Mr. Peabody acquired from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, at a fair price, a large and convenient site, and they erected lofty buildings upon it. There was, however, a strip of miserable property held by several owners, and overlooking the trustees' land, which they took steps to acquire. This property contained a public-house. When the owners found out who wanted their property, they asked prices so outrageous that the trustees, after considerable delay, were obliged to give up their proposal to purchase, and thus to a great extent neutralize the good they proposed to do. When it was found that the trustees did not feel themselves justified in giving the sums demanded, and after the new buildings were begun, several of the owners of this adjoining property commenced proceedings in Chancery. In the case of the public-house, which was a leasehold for about 18 years, at a rent of £60, it was stated by the lessee in Court that it cost £1,600 some years before. Yet before any proceedings were taken the trustees were asked to give £4,000 for this lease. The owner of this property was so anxious to press the trustees to buy his property that he brought an action against them for loss of light, and it was unfortunately decided in his favour. The Court gave judgment for £200, and this, with costs, inflieted a loss upon the trustees of probably £400. Much worse than this was the lasting loss inflicted upon the trustees by the proximity of this low and miserable property. It will remain there a nest of disease and probably of crime, interfering with the comfort and usefulness of the new and excellent buildings, because the trustees were unable to acquire it on anything like fair and reasonable terms. It may be said that what I am recommending is virtually a proposal to rebuild London out of the rates. I beg to say, however, that I propose nothing of the kind. I do not propose to rebuild London, or any part of London, out of the rates, nor should I think of offering any arguments in favour of such a scheme. All that I should propose would be that land should be bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works under powers similar to those

1959
conferred upon the Corporation of Glasgow. The land thus bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works would be again sold or leased by them at little or no loss. The loss—if any—would alone come out of the rates. It might be desirable to give powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, as was done in the Edinburgh Act, to rebuild to a certain extent. The greater part of the building, however, would be effected by private enterprise. All that is wanted is to enable private builders and philanthropic persons to meet the demand that exists for a better description of dwellings. If suitable sites were provided, private enterprise would do the rest. The Memorial of the Charity Organization Society suggests that—
"To provide against contingencies it would be expedient that these bodies should themselves have the power of rebuilding in certain exceptional cases and under proper limitations,"
the limitations referred to being those of the Edinburgh Act—restricting the right to rebuild within a definite outlay. It might be useful, as at Glasgow, to build some satisfactory common lodging-houses as models, and there can be little doubt that they would pay, as those at Glasgow give a return of 10 per cent. My proposal then is not to rebuild London out of the rates, but only to enable private enterprise to have scope for action—namely, to acquire at fair prices ground now inaccessible because of the protection given by law to powerless, indifferent, or unscrupulous owners or leaseholders. These compulsory powers are necessarily conferred both upon railway companies, and, in order to carry out-street improvements, upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. Not a Session passes without powers being given to railway companies and various public bodies for this class of improvements; and I shall be glad if any hon. Member will tell me why these powers should not be given for a matter of much greater national concern even than the construction of railways and the opening of more convenient thoroughfares—namely, for an object deeply affecting the welfare of the working classes. It will be necessary to meet the case of improvable; buildings—of those dwellings which are not so bad as to require to be taken down, but which are packed so closely together to be unwholesome. Much has been done towards improving
1960
this class of buildings, although there is often, I fear, a good deal of waste of money in improving dwellings which it would be better to take down altogether and rebuild. Many of these cannot be improved, and are not worth the large sums which have been expended on them. If you attempt to improve unimprovable dwellings—in the first place the result is not satisfactory as far as the dwelling is concerned, and in the next place it does not pay. The Association inaugurated in 1844 by Lord Shaftesbury, to his great honour—the "Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes"—has done an excellent work, of which I desire to speak with great respect. Another society, the London Labourers' Dwellings Society, of which a constituent of my own, Dr. Greenhill, is the indefatigable and excellent Secretary, has done much to improve the dwellings of the working classes in London; whilst a sister Society of older date at Hastings (1857) has done similar work there under the guidance of the same Secretary. I have seen a large number of these dwellings which have been improved, but I am aware that one cannot fairly judge of the work that these associations have accomplished unless one had seen these places before they were improved. I am afraid that a great many of the London improved dwellings, after all that has been done, are in an unsatisfactory condition. But others have been converted into fit dwellings for working men and their families; for example, in some cases chambers which were formerly occupied by barristers and persons of the higher classes, and which have been allowed to fall into a state of dilapidation, whilst occupied by a poorer class, have been repaired and drained, and again put into a fair sanitary condition. This is some of the good work that has been done by these associations. But that good work ought to be extended. It has been effected for the most part by benevolent societies; and, although I do not ask the Government itself to undertake the repair and improvement of such better dwellings, I appeal to hon. Members and to the public to give to this movement the aid and encouragement it requires and deserves. Such an Act as that passed for Glasgow would enable us to deal with the worst parts of London, and with dwellings that are

1961
unimprovable—and these I fear constitute the larger class—but it would leave much to be done in those parts of London which are capable of being improved. I must next speak of the work which is being done—in building improved habitations—by various societies and companies, some of a philanthropic character, others half philanthropic and half commercial, some of a purely commercial character, many of which were set on foot and are carried on by private individuals who have shown an example for others to follow. The oldest association that attempted the erection of model dwelling-houses was the Metropolitan Association, formed in 1841 for improving the dwellings of the industrious classes. I have seen many of the dwellings of this association, which provides already for about 4,000 inhabitants, and which, when its Farringdon Road buildings are complete, will have 1,049 tenements or separate dwellings, of which only 20 are in old converted buildings. The dwellings of this association are most excellent models to be followed by those individuals who may avail themselves of the sites which we may hope will be set free by the powers proposed to be given to the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The trustees of Mr. Peabody have built several blocks of buildings of the most interesting and useful character, and which are largely in demand by the more provident of the working classes. The Company of which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) is the Chairman, has provided accommodation for no less than 6,340 persons in its buildings. I must also refer to the Baroness Burdett Coutts, whose name should be mentioned with special honour in connection with her Columbia Square Buildings for working men and their families. Mr. Gibbs, in Rochester Buildings, near this House, has erected model dwellings for working men which are well worthy of imitation. The Corporation of the City of London have done something in this direction, and the benevolent persons represented by Miss Octavia Hill have provided accommodation for 1,500 persons in their dwellings. The right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurncy) should also be named among those who have been foremost in this good work. I must now mention
1962
one or two facts relative to the experience of those who have attempted to provide better accommodation for working men. One fact bears very much upon the necessity for compulsory powers, and it is that the associations I have referred to have to pay such varying sums, such large sums in most cases, and such extortionate sums in other instances for the sites on which to erect their dwellings. I will mention some figures to show the varying amount of ground-rent which the companies find it necessary to levy per family per week in order to recoup themselves for the ground-rent under which they sit as owners of these buildings. In one of these buildings it is necessary to charge a ground-rent of 1s. 1d. per family per week; in another, 1s. 6d. In one case this payment is as low as a 1¼d.; in another it is 3¾d. The House will, I hope, realize that heavy ground-rents are the result of leaving these associations to obtain their sites at fancy prices; and that the consequence is that a working man with a family cannot in some blocks obtain the accommodation which these associations provide for him without beginning by paying 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week for ground-rent, to which, of course, the rent of the rooms must be added. When the House duly considers this state of things, it will, I hope, see how very important it is that Associations formed for these benevolent purposes should obtain sites at such reasonable prices as arbitrators would fix. There is also another point in the experience of these philanthropic pioneers which is instructive; and that is, that on the sites that are cleared, where people have been living in an over-crowded state and in great misery, these associations are able to house many more people than before, without any of the drawbacks of the former crowding. I have already stated that the population in Westminster numbers 235 to the acre. In the Farringdon Road Buildings the population will be about 1,600 to the acre, though nearly half the site is left uncovered for the purposes of recreation and ventilation. Whilst the Metropolitan Association will have provided for the unprecedented number of 1,600 people to the acre, several associtions and companies are building blocks which will accommodate 1,000 to the acre. I ought also to mention the fact that there is a great demand for these

1963
buildings. People have sometimes said that the working classes do not care to go and live in this new kind of habitation; that they do not like to go upstairs and to live in flats. On the contrary, I find that, as soon as one of these blocks is constructed, there is immediately a great demand for tenements. In the Farringdon Road Buildings, for instance, although it will be four or five months before they will be completely ready for habitation, and although there will be accommodation for 253 families only, yet for this accommodation already no less than 275 applications have been received. And with respect to the Pea-body buildings, the number of applications is still more largely in excess of the accommodation supplied, although that is, no doubt, partly due to the fact that in this case the tenements are let below their value. There is another fact to which I must allude, and that is the remarkably small loss that arises from the non-payment of rent. One would imagine that, owing to various causes, there would be frequent instances in which the rent would not be paid. But, in reality, the loss from this cause is very small. In the case of the Metropolitan Association, the gross rent receivable amounted to £12,257 5s., and the rent actually received was £12,082 11 s. And that difference of £174 includes the loss arising from rooms empty during repairs or removals. These are very remarkable facts. And now I come to an important point, and it is one which can be spoken to with special authority by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The question is, whether the erection of these buildings is so profitable an investment as to tempt builders to step in? Will these sites be taken up by people who desire to make profit on buildings for the working classes or not? I say most confidently they will, because my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, and others have set the example, and have shown that it is profitable to build these classes of dwellings. Let me state what the dividends are. In the case of the Metropolitan Association, the dividends have been kept down. They were pioneers in the work, and all honour to them. But, owing to this circumstance, experiments were tried and mistakes made which naturally affected the dividends. But in spite of these experiments and
1964
the losses which were incurred, they are now paying 4½ per cent. They hope very soon to be able to pay 5 per cent. The Strand Buildings Company pays 5 per cent. and the London Labourers' Dwellings Society 5 per cent. I am told that one or two of the blocks erected by the Peabody Trustees pay 4 per cent. The Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, the Company presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, pays 5 per cent. and has done so from the very commencement. The dwellings built by the Corporation of the City of London pay 4 per cent. and those erected or improved by Mr. Ruskin, Lady Ducie, and the other persons whose good work is managed by Miss Octavia Hill, pay 5 per cent. Some companies, it must be admitted, have been failures; others have paid very little; but when wisely managed they have set an example which private individuals and speculators may follow, for they show that dividends at the rate of 5 per cent can be obtained. It would be unpardonable if I did not say a word or two on the demolitions which have been effected under powers obtained by Railway Bills and Bills for other public improvements, and with respect to the duty that devolves upon Parliament of seeing to these matters, and of insuring that the injustice and misery which have been inflicted in the past are not repeated in the future. I need not dwell at any length upon this subject, because it is so familiar to hon. Members, and because they know that railway after railway taken through London has displaced a very large number of working people, who have thus had to find other habitations, and to over-crowd places already too full. Let me direct the attention of the House to the precedent laid down by the Metropolitan Street Improvement Act of 1872. When that Act was passed, there were Bills before Parliament which would demolish 1,152 houses and displace 3,870 persons, nearly all of whom were working people. A clause was then introduced into it—very much, I believe, at the instance of the hon. Member for Maidstone—which obliged the Board of Works to set aside certain plots for dwellings of the poor, in connection with the clearances they made for streets. Now, I hope we shall insist in this House that similar clauses are inserted in Bills

1965
which are attended by this mischief. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has taken one step in that direction in the ease of the Midland Railway Bill of the present Session, and I hope he will take others. This is a matter that we ought not to leave to be dealt with in "another place." The House of Lords' Standing Order on the subject provides that before the second reading of any of these Bills takes place, a Return shall be furnished of the number of houses it is proposed to pull down, and the number of persons it is proposed to remove under the compulsory powers to be given. This Standing Order has, no doubt, acted beneficially, but it is not enough; and we ought not to leave a matter of this kind to be dealt with in "another place." We ought to deal with it ourselves. And not only ought we to know how many people are going to be displaced, but in passing such Bills we ought to see clauses inserted, which would compel the companies to provide space for accommodating an equivalent number of people to the number removed. But the evil does not arise solely from the conduct of the railway companies, and from the neglect of Parliament to require due provision of sites for dwellings in their private Bills. I am sorry to say that we, or the Government, in times past, have been guilty of similar mischief. I refer particularly to the clearance of the space for the new Law Courts. The space cleared was very large—it still lies void and vacant—and about 4,000 people were turned out, causing very great misery. I need only allude to that to show how careless we have been of the comfort and interests of the working classes. I regret to be informed, too, that some of the measures taken by the School Board of London have more recently inflicted similar misfortune on working people by dismissing them from their homes. In all these cases provision should be made for those who are displaced. I was going to fortify myself upon this point by some high authorities who refer to the results of Railway and Improvement Bills. But, Sir, I think the House is awakened to the necessity of doing its duty in these cases, and I do not think I need say any more on the subject. I shall, therefore, close what I have to say by moving the Resolution which stands in my name.
1966
But, before I do so, I must not omit to draw the special attention of the House to the words of the memorial which has come before it with the high authority of the College of Physicians. It was presented to the First Lord of the Treasury, and ordered to be laid upon the Table of the House. They make this statement—
"That it is well known to your Memorialists that overcrowding, especially in unwholesome and ill-constructed habitations, originates disease, leads to drunkenness and immorality, and is likely to produce discontent among the poorer portion of the population. That it is within the Knowledge of your Memorialists that the wholesale demolition of the houses inhabited by the poor which has been carried on of late years under various railway and improvement Acts, while it has been serviceable in removing many very bad streets and dwellings, has incidentally caused much distress to the persons displaced, and has almost uniformly driven them to crowd into neighbouring quarters, which were already as full as, or fuller than, was consistent with healthiness. That private enterprise is powerless to provide the fresh and improved house accommodation which is required for those who have been expelled from their former habitations, in addition to that which is called for by the constant increase of the population, by reason of the impossibility of securing suitable sites for building. Even so rich and powerful a body as the Trustees of the Peabody Fond has been repeatedly foiled in particular attempts to obtain land to build upon."
They conclude thus—
"That your Memorialists believe that the mere enabling powers which are at present entrusted to various authorities have proved, and must prove, insufficient to effect the desired object. That in the opinion of your Memorialists a remedy for these evils is urgently required."
Sir, I need not again refer to the great dangers to the community at large from crime, from epidemic, from fire, arising out of the neglect of a great evil, nor to the far worse misery and degradation inflicted upon the poorest classes of the people by the existence of these wretched houses which, whilst they exist, are sure to be inhabited. I appeal to the Home Secretary not to confine himself to mere words in any reply he may make to what, at too great length and with insufficient ability, I have ventured to bring forward, but to tell us what will be his acts; to tell us that he intends to take the subject in hand and to carry through such a measure or such measures as the national urgency and importance of the subject imperatively demand. The time is past for admitting the evil and for declaring that something must be done.

1967
Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, ought to be done, and let him say that he intends to do it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW*, in seconding the Motion, said, I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in support of the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Hastings. The subject is one in which I have taken the greatest interest for many years past. It has never been treated as a party question, and I trust never will be. On the contrary, from my own experience, I have found that right hon. and hon. Members of this House, whether sitting on the right or the left of the Chair, have rather vied with each other in their expression of sympathy with the object of the Resolution, and I trust that we may hope from this that it may be found acceptable to those who are present here to-night. I do not purpose to take up the time of the House by dwelling upon the evils of overcrowding, or drawing a picture of the wretched habitations in the narrow courts and alleys of our metropolis, in which so many of our labouring population are compelled to reside. I say compelled to reside, because it is as important to the mechanic, the costormonger, and the huckster to reside near to the place of his employment and to the markets for his trade, as it is to the merchant, and perhaps more so, since the poor man cannot afford the daily cost of transit. The proof of this is found in the high prices paid for rooms near the centres of labour. I once asked a poor woman who proposed to remove from the outskirts into London, how she could afford the extra 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week for their two rooms? She replied that she should save much more than 1s. 6d. per week when her husband could come home to his breakfast and dinner instead of taking it in a public-house. There can be no doubt that it is absolutely essential to the well-being of the community that the labouring population of our great metropolis should continue to reside near to their work. The cheap workmen's trains and the tramway cars are, no doubt a great convenience, but only available where the head of the family is the sole bread-winner. If the earnings of the wife and the children form part of the weekly wages, the family must re-
1968
side near their work. During the last quarter of a century efforts have been made by several philanthropic societies, public companies, and private individuals to lessen the evils of overcrowding and to improve the dwellings of the labouring class. Much good has, no doubt, been done by these means, and the rents of working-men's houses would, but for these efforts have risen much higher even than they have done. But these efforts do not reach the real evil. In very few cases have the building companies been able to purchase and remove the houses unfit for human habitation. As a rule there are such a variety of interests in this kind of property that it is impossible to clear any large site without compulsory powers, which ought, I think, to be exercised only by a public authority. The philanthropic societies have, in fact, been working with their hands tied, and wretched houses unfit for human habitation remain as nests of fever and pestilence, foul blots on the face of our fair metropolis, doubling the rate of sickness and death among the occupants and spreading contagion throughout the immediate neighbourhood. I feel sure that we shall all agree that this state of things ought to be remedied, that this great and crying evil ought to be abated; the only question that I apprehend can be asked is, in what way can Parliament alleviate this evil without throwing too great a burden on the ratepayers, or dealing unfairly with the rights of private property? In what way can Parliament assist in this work, which has hitherto been left so entirely to private philanthropy? What we ask is that this House, recognizing the local authority which the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London exercise over the districts under their control, should impose upon these two public bodies the responsibility and the duty of submitting to Parliament, from time to time, schemes for public improvements involving the destruction of houses unfit for occupation, and the appropriation of the sites when cleared for the reconstruction of tenement-houses suitable for the labouring population, upon plans to be approved by the local authority, in the manner provided by the Metropolitan Improvement Act of 1872. Notices would be given, and the various interests in the property would of course be dealt with in the same way as if it

1969
were taken for a street improvement. I am quite prepared to admit that these improvements would throw some temporary burden on the ratepayers, a small annual charge which would, I think, be more than compensated by immediate and future advantages. The principle upon which such improvements would be carried out has been constantly recognized by Parliament. The Metropolitan Board of Works have frequently applied to the House, and have obtained compulsory powers to make new streets in order to facilitate the circulation of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic of the metropolis, charging the cost on the ratepayers. If this charge is cheerfully borne, it can scarcely be doubted that an improvement calculated to ensure the better circulation of fresh air in the most crowded parts of our City, and the consequent reduction of the death and disease rate, could not be objected to. If we consider the figures for a few moments, we shall readily see that the annual charge will be very small. The present rateable value of property in the metropolis is nearly £21,000,000. A rate of 1d, in the pound will produce nearly £90,000, or sufficient to pay the interest on £2,000,000 and redeem the principal in 40 years. If the money was raised by issuing Metropolitan Consols at 3½ per cent £2,000,000 would go a long way in paying simply the difference between the purchase money of the land and the sum recovered on its resale, or the sale of the ground-rents. I venture to say, from many years' experience of the subject, that £2,000,000, or a rate of 1d. in the pound for 40 years, applied in the mode suggested, would remove to a very large extent the houses in the metropolis at the present time unfit for human habitation. Having glanced at the probable cost, let us look at the return to be derived from the outlay. The leading physicians of the metropolis, in the Memorial recently presented to the Prime Minister, expressed an unanimous opinion that the disease and death-rate among the labouring population were very largely increased by the unhealthy condition of their houses. This statement has been constantly confirmed by the reports of the sanitary officers of the large metropolitan parishes, and is fully proved by the Registrar General's Returns. These Returns show that in 1872 the rate of mortality throughout the me-
1970
tropolis was 21·5 in the 1,000, while the mortality in the improved dwellings for the working classes was only 15·8 in the 1,000. If we take the average over a longer period, we find that, in the eight years ending 1872, the death-rate in the metropolis was 24 in the 1,000, against 16 in the 1,000 in the improved dwellings. The disease rate has been calculated to be about double the death rate, that is to say, for every person dying there are two persons afflicted with acute disease, preventing them following then-ordinary work. Now those who know anything of the causes of the increase of late years in the local taxation are well aware that it arises to some extent from the constantly increasing cost of the construction and maintenance of the asylums for the care of the sick poor under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the Central London Asylums Board. A reduction of the disease-rate to anything like the extent shown by the figures I have just given would soon recoup the proposed addition of 1d. in the pound. Should it, however, appear on a closer examination of the subject that rather more than 1d. in the pound was required to carry out the proposed improvements, I venture to think that no better time could be selected than the present, when local taxation is proposed to be so largely relieved by the Budget: of the present Session. Passing away from the mere pecuniary view of the question, I could appeal to the House to support this Motion upon higher and more forcible grounds. The people of this country are never tired of subscribing money for the religious education of the poor. The whole country has recently been very properly taxed to provide secular education for every child. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that if the labours of the ministers of religion are to produce the hoped-for result, if the work of the schoolmasters and the school boards is to bring forth good fruit, the homes in which the working population in over-crowded cities are compelled to live must be improved. We, I fear, as a nation are too prone to consider our own civilization as far in advance of the civilization of other countries, and when we read of the indifference with which the lives of human beings are sacrificed among barbarous nations, of the ruthless manner in which infants are placed in the baby towers of

1971
the East, we are too apt to cry—"Thank God! we are not as Wicked as other nations;" but if the statements of our leading physicians, if the Returns of the Registrar General, are to be relied on, who can doubt that thousands of persons, and especially children under two years of age, die annually front preventable causes? If this be true, I would ask the House to support the Resolution, with the hope that some suitable solution may be found for this great and important problem. If in the dealing with this question I have spoken too warmly or too strongly. I trust House will excuse me, and will attribute it to my great interest in the subject rather than to any want of respect for the House itself.
Amendment proposed.
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, a necessity exists for some measure that will provide for the improvement of the poorest classes of dwellings in London, and that this question demands the early attention of Her Majesty's Grovernment,"—(Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he had pleasure in congratulating the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) on the able manner in which he had brought that subject before the House. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board was as anxious as ever it had been to do everything in its power to benefit the metropolis at large, and he certainly thought that nothing was of more importance than to endeavour to improve the character of the dwellings of the poor. He had himself gone through some places so horrible that he did not know how human beings could dwell in them. His hon. Friend who had made the Motion wanted to bring sites to those who had a demand for them. There would, he should think, be no great difficulty in that. If people who wanted sites were willing to pay the money asked for them, they would get them. The Metropolitan Board had done something to procure sites, and he was now in communication with his hon. Friend (Sir Sidney Water-low) with a view to the occupation of
1972
these sites as soon as possible. He was exceedingly anxious that his hon. Friend's company, or some other, should build new houses on those sites, so that the poor should not be driven away from the places in which they had been accustomed to live; but he wished to point out that in the Metropolitan Streets Act of 1872 there was a special clause providing that whenever buildings were swept away from the poor neighbourhoods, the land should be reserved; but all public bodies, when they had land to let, were bound to get a fair and proper recoupment for the ratepayers' money. He was sorry his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings did not seem to have confidence in the Metropolitan Board; but, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was ready to invest them with considerable additional powers, so that it would appear that his hon. Friend's actions indicated greater confidence than his words. The powers which the hon. Gentleman would confer would require to be used with the greatest possible caution, because, while one man might think a house ought to be pulled down, the owner might be of a very different opinion. He had not been deputed by the Metropolitan Board of Works to say what their views might be; but he could promise that if the House chose to give them any further powers, the Board would exercise them to the best of their ability. With regard to the district surveyors, it was not intended in the Bill he was about to introduce to abolish them; but to make them more responsible to the Board in their respective districts, while, with respect to the question of money, if the House granted the Board the necessary powers there would be no difficulty at all, for a few weeks since they had asked a loan of £2,000,000, and in six hours had been offered £22,000,000.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the object of the Motion which his hon. Friend (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had supported with so much ability was to call upon Government to give their attention to that very important question, and to see whether they could not devise some means for remedying a great and admitted evil. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a case for legislative action. The hon. Gentleman had prudently not sketched out any plan, it being clear that the Members of the Go-

1973
vernment, no doubt, would be anxious to give their attention to the subject; and with the power which they had both in that House and in "another place," they were in a position to do so with effect. And then there was a better opportunity now than in former years for taking up the matter, which was clearly one that must be dealt with by the administrative Government. The evil must be a great one before a case could be made out for Government interference, and one would be glad that the matter could be left to the action of supply and demand. But, it must be admitted, such was the condition of the population that we could not expect them to be well housed unless something more was done. There could be no doubt about the existence of the evil, and the danger in which it put almost all the inhabitants of the metropolis, from the disease engendered by these miserable dwellings. His hon. Friend was quite right in stating that the time had come when compulsory powers must be given to some authority in the metropolis to pull down, and if obliged to do so, to build up again; although he shared in the belief that private benevolence and enterprize would step forward and build up that which was pulled down. They must all be grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this matter forward, for, as he said before, a strong case had been made out for legislation, and, with the present local government of London, any additional administrative responsibility must be cast upon the Corporation in the City, and outside it on the Metropolitan Board. The Government, with its present majority, was in a position to carry a measure, and perhaps the Lords might be induced to reconsider their former decision, and to pass provisions for compulsory reconstruction, as well as demolition.
ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCEsaid, there was one subject which the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had not touched upon—namely, the influence of what he would term "vicious legislation" with respect to the dwellings of the working classes. At the time when the window tax was imposed, the effect of the tax was to cause a very large number of windows to be closed up in order to lighten the burden of
1974
taxation in houses inhabited by poor families, and before its abolition he had visited houses where the staircases were in perfect darkness, not a ray of light being lot in upon them, the consequence being that the means taken to shut out the light also shut out the air, and disease and misery were the result. He rejoiced when that tax was repealed; but, unfortunately, another tax had been imposed which affected injuriously the dwellings of the poor, and had been the main cause of large spaces not being built upon. He referred to the house duty, which did not affect places where land was cheap, and where small houses could be built, but spaces in large towns, where land was dear for the grouping of houses. Although it was only 9d. in the pound to owners, it fell with the weight of 1s. or 1s. 6d. in the pound upon the occupier. To avoid that the Industrial Dwellings Company, in building their flats, made the approach by an open staircase, for each set of tenements was then valued separately, and being under £20 escaped the duty, whereas were there an outside door for each building—that was, a group of flats—would be valued, and the value being over £20, it would be taxed accordingly. It seemed a monstrous anomaly that if anyone erected a dwelling to be laid out in flats, and if there were a front door, that structure would be liable to duty; whereas, if a front door were omitted, it would not be subjected to the duty. Besides that, the open staircase created a great deal of annoyance to the police, who stated that it was a refuge to vagrants and to persons of loose character. As an easy method of dealing with a portion of this question, he would suggest that the Government should direct their assessors to assess each range of tenements separately, and thus all tenements under £20 a-year would be free from the house duty. The loss to the revenue would be very slight, but it would give a great impetus to those persons who wished to build on large vacant spaces.
MR. PRAEDsaid, he wished to confirm, from his own observation, what had been said of the dwellings of the London poor. The supply of dwellings for the working classes in London was utterly inadequate. The removal of a large number of houses to make way for the railways had driven the people into

1975
other localities, and houses which had been built for one family were now occupied by six or seven, every room, even the cellar, being occupied by a family; not only that, but in too many instances, they were deficient in air, light, space, and water, and in everything that made life tolerable. That was mainly because the houses were owned by small proprietors who had invested their savings in the purchase, and who wished to get as much return for their money as they could, and who would make no repairs but such as were absolutely necessary to prevent the property tumbling down. For the rent paid for a single room by the poor in London a labourer in the country would get a cottage, a garden, and other conveniences. The advantages of providing improved dwellings for the artizan class in London would be very great. The public health would be improved and the poor rates reduced. Beyond that, the evil to be remedied was growing fast in consequence of the demolition of houses occupied by the working class for the extension of railways, and in consequence of the wonderful increase of our town population. That increase had been something like 17 per cent on the number in 1861. He hoped, as this question had been so prominently brought forward, something practical would come of it, for it was well always to strike while the iron was hot. He was sure the success of the movement would tend very much to promote sobriety and self-respect among the artizan population, and would do more to beget a good understanding and kindly feeling between the upper and lower classes of society than anything else that could be done. In that view, then, the immediate necessity of some great scheme for improving the dwellings of the poor could not be too much pressed on the attention of the House, and he hoped the matter would receive the careful attention of the Government.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he wished to compliment his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) on the very able speech in which he had introduced the subject to the notice of the House, who, although he thought he had wisely abstained from giving the details of any measure to remedy the evils to which he had called attention, had indicated some of the re-
1976
medies it would be desirable to adopt. If six years since the Bill which had been brought in by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had passed in the complete shape in which it had left that House, there could be no doubt that many of those evils would by this time have been removed, He could not, he might add, understand why the powers which had been conceded to Glasgow and other towns should not be extended to the metropopolis, while he quite concurred in the opinion, that the question was one which affected not only London, but other important places. What had occurred in Liverpool and Glasgow ought, he believed, to encourage great confidence in local Government, for much had been done in those towns without infringing the rights of property. He did not think the proposal now before the House involved any large building speculations. All that seemed necessary was, that compulsory powers to take certain properties should be given, and there would be no difficulty in disposing of them for the erection of proper dwellings for the working classes. The cost likely to be incurred had, he could not help thinking, been greatly exaggerated by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and there was much reason to hope that the Metropolitan Board of Works might be able to obtain the properties required for sums which would be the real measure of their true value, and having obtained them, to dispose of them to companies for building purposes. He trusted the Government would deal with the question. They possessed great facilities for doing so, for they were under no suspicion of being disposed to act in a spirit adverse to vested interests; while the support which they commanded in the other House would enable them to carry a more complete measure than had hitherto been passed.
MR. SCOURFIELDsympathized with the object of the Resolution and was willing to support it, although he hardly knew what it was that he was to support. He was sure it was a very amiable Motion, but not one that was likely to lead to any great practical result, unless the House was prepared to assent to very strong measures indeed. He thought it must ultimately resolve itself into a question of rates, and he had a suspicion of its sounding something like

1977
an indirect proposition to dispense with the house tax. However, if any practical measure on the subject could be devised, which would not throw unfair burdens on the ratepayers, and would not involve any violent and unnecessary interference with property, he would be very glad to sec it adopted.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he regarded the Motion of the hon. Member for Hastings as one of an exceedingly modest character, and one well deserving the best consideration of the House and the Government; but the great obstacle he saw in the way of giving practical effect to any measure in the desired direction was the multiplicity of governing bodies which existed in and about the metropolis. In answer to a remark of the hon. Member in reference to the borough which he (Mr. Gourley) represented (Sunderland), he wished to point out that whatever might have been the unhealthy condition of that town before 1865, since that year its local authorities had expended over £100,000 in sanitary improvements, the effect of which was that the death-rate in Sunderland had been greatly reduced, and would now bear favourable comparison with that of any other town in the Kingdom.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, in explanation, said, that he had quoted from Mr. Simon, Medical Officer of Health, who in 1865 described Sunderland as one of the worst places in regard to the dwellings of the poor. He had not alluded to what had been done in that town since 1865.
MR. EARPcalled attention to the difficulty of obtaining land for the purposes contemplated by the Rosolution. The town he represented (Newark on Trent) was surrounded by entailed estates, and it was impossible to extend it in any direction. He would suggest that when the Home Secretary brought in the measure on this subject promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be well to insert a provision in it for obtaining possession of land and extending the boundaries of towns. Without some such provision, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) would be futile. It was time that the Government should deal with this important question, and once for all make some decent provision for the accommodation of the labouring
1978
classes, not merely in London, but throughout the country.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the question of providing suitable and healthy dwellings for the poor was in certain respects even more important than the question of providing them with education. Education, properly speaking, began at home; but it was utterly hopeless to expect anything good being achieved in such a direction as long as the poorer classes were so wretchedly and inadequately housed. All the instruction that could be given in the most palatially built schools would be utterly valueless, as far as raising the morals of the people was concerned, as long as they were crowded into close and incommodious dwellings, where even the sense of decency could not be preserved; and he felt sure the Government would give a favourable consideration to the matter. To procure sites for proper dwellings it was necessary to destroy nests of disease and immorality: but the more dilapidated and wretched those buildings were the greater was the difficulty of acquiring them on reasonable terms. The reason for this was that the landlord crammed human beings into them in a way impracticable in decent houses and intolerable with decent people, and if, as in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth), the number of occupants was five times the proper number, the rent was also five to one, so that though the sum per head was very small the total was large. As to leaving the necessary provision of dwellings for the poor to the competition of capital, they must first remove the obstacles which precluded the action of competition and the application of capital. They must provide a legal power of acquiring sites whereon to build. When the State removed the obstacles, competition and capital would easily profit by the opportunity then open to them. Nothing short of a severe despotism would meet these cases; and instead of allowing men to profit by the misery, disease, and numbers of their unfortunate fellow creatures, and to found claims on the experience of their past misdeeds, he would allow them only compensation proportionate to the nature of the property. He trusted that the discussion would induce the Government to take up the subject introduced with so much ability by the hon. Member for

1979
Hastings, and that they would prepare some measure calculated to remedy the evils which had been exposed.
MR. YEAMANsaid, he took great interest in the matter under discussion, He was surprised that seeing the action that had been taken in some large provincial towns for carrying out public improvements, no compulsory powers had been adopted in London. In other towns this evil had been remedied, and that in a practical way. But the difficulty pointed out in London was this—that it was the duty of those who displaced the people from their houses to provide other dwellings as a substitute, He was convinced no private association, whether its object was profit or philanthropy, could effectively deal with the evil; for there were so many provisions connected with property that although they might be able to arrange for the purchase of a number of houses, there might be so many rights and servitudes in connection with a single house in this or that narrow lane as to put a stop to all improvements. It was quite impossible for private enterprise to carry out any great improvements, and he thought they must fall back on compulsory powers—powers which might be acted on without inflicting any great hardship on the working classes who inhabited these houses. His own opinion was that a Bill might be passed giving compulsory power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to remove the houses in crowded parts of the City, to purchase large blocks of houses suited for conversion into dwellings, and pieces of land on which to build. There need be no great hardship inflicted in these operations. The number of inhabitants to be removed by any one operation might be limited to 1,000 and according to the accommodation that could be provided for the families turned out. That was the one practical way of getting over the difficulty. They had in the town of Dundee powers just now to expend £130,000 in widening and improving their streets, and in rooting out the places which had been described as the houses of disease and crime. He believed that anywhere where they carried out such improvements, if they did it economically and on a good plan, the money expended would be nearly recouped in the prices realized for the properties when they were sold. If
1980
there was any loss it could not be very much, spread over the whole of London. But it was necessary to borrow money and to give security for it, and therefore the imposition of a rate was indispensable.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEtrusted that if any measure was introduced in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Hastings, the state of the country towns would not be forgotten, for there were in the small country towns as crowded and as filthy habitations as there were in the metropolis. They had no Peabody trusts and no largo benevolent societies to help them; and, indeed, he had still greater reliance upon self-help than upon such organizations, for he could not help observing that the labouring population had greatly improved their dwellings by means of their own savings, and by building societies established and carried on by themselves.
MR. ANDERSONstated that £1,300,000 had been expended by the City of Glasgow in the purchase of property extending over 85 acres out of 6,000, and 23,000 out of a population of 500,000 had been displaced. The financial results would be satisfactory; and in any large town large operations in real estate must, owing to the enhancement of the value of the property, have a successful financial result. The great question, however, was the social one—namely, what became of the vast population that was displaced? Was the effect a good or bad one? Was it really to improve the lowest class of society, or was it to corrupt the classes immediately above by spreading among them the lowest classes. Now, on that point he did not think they had sufficient evidence in Glasgow or in any other place. A good deal might be said bearing in both directions. He had endeavoured to ascertain what became of this population which was displaced, and he found that it was almost necessarily raised to the classes above it, and to a certain extent carried a corrupt influence with it. On the other hand, these other classes, being better, would to a certain extent, improve those who came among them. That there was a balance of good in the result he was satisfied; but that it was a large balance had yet to be proved.
MR. W. M. TORRENSexpressed his satisfaction that a subject in which he had long taken a deep interest had been treated by both sides of the House in the spirit evinced during the debate. It was now some years since his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), in conjunction with himself, had brought in a 15ill having for its object the improvement of the dwellings of the poor, and he believed that their efforts to carry that Bill would have been fruitless had it not been for the unsleeping sympathy, the untiring aid, and the true succour rendered them from first to last by the right hon. Gentleman who was now at the head of the Government. When others stood aloof, and were indifferent, they never found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire wanting in sympathy; and when he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had felt it his duty to communicate with the promoters of the Bill to inquire what portion of the charge would require to be advanced on loan by the Treasury if the Bill were carried in its integrity. He heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the great interest he had taken in the subject in the name of those who, without such interest, were indeed helpless and hopeless. Now, that the right hon. Gentleman was in power, he adjured him by all that he valued in his great fame to take up and carry to maturity the work that he (Mr. Torrens) and his hon. Friends had, in 1866, induced that House unanimously to sanction. So lucrative was the property in the worst slums of London, that it could only be dealt with by the power of the Government. He was bound to say a word on behalf of a class who had, he thought, been somewhat harshly spoken of—he meant the middle-class holders of tumble-down property in large towns. It was not owing to their combination that the best clauses of the Bill had been lost. It was by that of noble and wealthy slum owners, who ought to be ashamed of the course which they adopted in preventing the improvements which were so much needed. There happened to be at the time in the other House of Parliament a man of matchless adroitness in the use of words and in legislative artifice, a man possessed of cu-
1982
rious audacity, combined with legal and political subtlety—the late Lord West-bury—and he, when the Bill went to the House of Lords, said he did not understand the theory on which its promoters proceeded, and that half the measure must be struck out. Two parts out of four were accordingly got rid of, and hon. Members knew what was the condition of the Bill when it left the House of Lords. Much praise had been bestowed upon the two first propositions, but he, for one, was prepared to admit that it would not be right to take away any man's property without giving him adequate compensation; yet the House of Lords said that no compensation should be given, and the result was that while a good deal had been accomplished under the Bill, he knew of case after case in his own borough in which he had hesitated to ask the Board of Works to destroy where they had no power to rebuild. Anxious as he was to see proper dwellings provided for the working-classes, he had not the heart or the heartlessness to uuhouse numbers of poor people, and to throw them on the street, or into the workhouse, or what was far worse, on the decent portion of the population around them. He had heard a good many debates in the House on temperance; but, in his opinion, the true Temperance Bill would be one which would give working men when they came home tired a habitable dwelling. They did not give a working man a chance of being sober. They were playing the hypocrite in tolling him to read philosophic magazines in the midst of squalor and stench, and to go home sober to a wretched hovel, when for 2d. he could find brightness and comfort round the corner. He hoped the Government would deal with this question with a firm hand; and if they did, he did not think they would have any great financial difficulty to encounter. Seeing the course he had always taken on the question in that House, he could scarcely be accused of a desire to raise the rates; but in the case of the Bill of 1868, its promoters did not ask that the rates should be pledged for useless asylums or workhouses, or on any unproductive scheme, but for the purpose of creating rateable property, of getting rid of poverty, and therefore doing the very opposite of that which was apprehended by some hon. Members. In conclusion, he would ap-

1983
peal to the Government to take up the subject, and he could assure them that if they dealt with it efficiently, they would entitle themselves to the lasting gratitude of the country.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) need have made no apology either to the House or to the Government for having brought the subject under discussion before them that evening. Speaking for himself, he would say that no one question out of the whole range of those which were likely to come before the House was nearer or dearer to his own heart. He ventured to observe a few months ago—and he was glad to hear the statement reiterated by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—that when they were talking about vice, intemperance, and drunkenness, and trying to keep those evils down, nothing would do that more effectually than by improving the homes where the poor people themselves lived, by making those homes happy ones, and so presenting an inducement to hardworking men to come there as the greatest possible recreation they could have. Many of the present dwellings of the poor were in such a state that no hon. Member would ever set his foot in them on any consideration if he could help it, and yet in these dens, children and families were reared without any chance of getting fresh air, and without, in fact, knowing scarcely what it was to exist properly. What wonder was it that a man with money in his pockets should steal away from his home to the public-house, and spend it there, leaving his wife and children in misery and poverty. The subject had recently been very forcibly pressed upon his attention by important deputations which he had received, and by memorials which had been presented to him by the Royal College of Physicians and the Charity Organization Society. In those memorials the state of the case was very fairly put, and the condition of London was adverted to in terms which were, perhaps, rather within than beyond the bounds of truth. The houses spoken of were represented as being over-crowded, the ventilation and the drainage as being exceedingly bad, and all the sanitary arrangements as being of the worst possible description. And it should be borne in mind that it was not only
1984
adults, but children who were obliged to live in those wretched dens, who had no means of getting fresh air, and who so long as they remained there could never have any proper sense of morality, nor fail to be familiarized with scenes of vice. Under these circumstances, it was due to the House to step in without delay and see what could be done to remedy such terrible evils. A good deal had already been done by those who had the subject at heart. Large numbers of people had succeeded in getting places where habitations could be and had been built for the poor, and he believed that as fast as they were built they were filled, if well regulated. No trust had been more faithfully carried out than the Peabody Trust, nor had any money ever left produced in the short time it had practically been in use such benefit. The hon. Member for Hastings had observed that the trust had experienced considerable difficulties in finding sites on which to put their buildings. No doubt there were difficulties, as there always would be, while the law remained as it was; but the Peabody Trustees had already provided buildings accommodating 882 families, occupying 1,875 rooms, and, though this was a mere drop in the ocean it was an example which others, like the hon. Baronet (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had done much to second. One difficulty the Peabody Trustees had to encounter was severely felt. Although they had been enabled to get a considerable amount of property, it not infrequently happened that there was some small piece of land jutting on to the part they had acquired that they could not obtain without having to pay a large sum of money. Although, too, it was often possible to get the freehold, and perhaps the leasehold, the complicated and subdivided tenures under which so much property in London was held had been an obstacle, some small leaseholder, sub-leaseholder, or, perhaps, sub-sub-leaseholder obstructing the accomplishment of a great improvement. Nevertheless, he thought the hon. Member was not quite aware of the great amount of land which the Peabody Trustees already possessed without any such interference. At Chelsea they had about an acre, in Southward Bridge Road about 1½ acre, and elsewhere about 4½ acres absolutely free and ready to be built upon, and on

1985
which immediate proceedings would be taken. The difficulties had not, therefore, been so insuperable as might have been anticipated. Another evil mentioned by the hon. Member was one which had been greatly felt in the City of London—namely, where persons who had bought property for the purpose of some great undertaking were allowed to turn out all the persons living upon that property, without being called upon to find other places where they might secure proper homes to live in. Certainly, he thought Parliament was, to a certain extent, responsible for what had happened in those cases. They must bear some share of the blame for having turned a largo number of persons out of their houses to make room for the site of the new Law Courts, without finding another place for them to live in. His attention had been called this Session by a deputation to a Bill promoted by the directors of the Midland Railway Company. It was proposed by that company to turn out some thousands of poor persons in order to take possession of their houses and pull them down. They had made certain arrangements with the owners of the property to escape the action of the Standing Order of the House of Lords, by which they would have been compelled, if they had come under its operation, to provide buildings for the persons they turned out of their homes. When he came to consider what power he had to interfere, he found that power to be very slight. However, he had a certain amount which he felt he could use; and, on behalf of the Government, he determined, if the objectionable clause remained in the Bill, he would offer all the opposition in his power to the Bill passing, so long as the clause stayed in it; and those in charge at once, and in the handsomest and most straightforward manner, withdrew the clause, promising that they would take care any future Bill came within the operation of the Standing Order. He believed the proceedings taken in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Liverpool—about which last he knew a good deal—had been productive of the greatest benefit, having been conducted with great care; and, if any measure were introduced by the Government, it should be very carefully drawn, so as to facilitate other measures of the same kind. It was easy in those towns to provide other buildings for the persons
1986
displaced, because they removed to the suburbs, without being too far from their work; but this would not be the ease in London, and it was impossible to provide ample accommodation within a reasonable distance for the people turned out. The difficulty was not so serious as some persons imagined, when the wretched hovels that poor people lived in were pulled down, because, by obtaining a large area on which to build a block of good houses, larger and better accommodation could be provided. Then came the question, to what authority should be given the power to pull down houses of that description? The Corporation of the City of Loudon and the Metropolitan Board of Works had both been named. On that point, however, the Government would for the present reserve their judgment. There were also plans which deserved the greatest consideration on their part. With reference to the question of rates, and the Metropolitan Board of Works having power to impose additional rates, it must be remembered that rates were imposed for different objects. There might be a small rate put on for the purpose of raising these better dwellings; but a much larger amount might be saved in the ease of gaols, lunatic asylums, and hospitals, for any large operation of this kind would so materially improve the condition of the people that, in the long run, he did not say immediately, the rates ought to be reduced rather than increased. In speaking of rates, moreover, the sick and death rate of the Metropolis must be remembered, and the facts which had been stated were so strong that they must have great weight with any Government which considered the question. It had been stated that the average death rate per 1,000 was 21·5; whereas in the improved dwellings it was only 15·8—a very striking fact; and the sick rate being always about double the death rate, the comparison between the improved dwellings and the present houses became still more striking. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield) objected to the indefinite word "something" in the Resolution before the House, because he did not know what the Government would really do, if they were to agree to the proposal. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Government took up this question he might rest as-

1987
sured that any measure they brought before the House would be a practical one, something feasible, and perfectly easy to carry out. It would be a measure that would cause no uneasiness in those quarters where uneasiness had hitherto been created. It would be free from those difficulties which had been shadowed forth by hon. Members who had spoken. The Government had given two pledges of its disposition to act in the matter without further delay than necessarily attended the treatment of such a question, for it had frustrated the attempt of the Midland Railway to escape the Lords' Standing Order, and it had determined to consider what Standing Order should be submitted to the House to prevent a recurrence of such attempts. He hoped, therefore, the House would be satisfied that it was the earnest desire of the Government, the moment they could settle not only the principles, but the details, of the measure, to carry out the spirit of the Motion. The subject was engaging their serious attention, and the moment they could do so, they would introduce a measure with the full intention of carrying it with the view of securing to the people of the Metropolis dwellings equal to those in other parts of the country, in which they could grow up, not slaves, but really men and women, in the enjoyment of happiness and comfort.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that he regarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, not only as an extremely hopeful one, but as one which he trusted he might, without presumption, describe as reflecting the greatest possible credit and lasting honour upon himself and upon the Government. He would now withdraw his. Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA—METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT IN INDIA

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. EGERTON HUBBARD, in rising to call the attention of the House to page 30 of the Abstract of Report of Surveys in India, 1871–2, on which it is stated that—
  "The question of the organization of a Meteorological Department in India is still under consideration: the Despatch from the Secretary of State on the subject, dated the 18th May 1871, and enclosing the Report of the Committee of the Royal Society, not yet having been answered;"
  1988
  and to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will have any objection to lay before the House all Despatches which have passed to and from the Government of India during the last five years, on the subject referred to? said: In the despatch of May 18th, 1871, the Duke of Argyll recommends that India should be apportioned into five local central stations, under one scientific Director—that the instruments used should be uniform, and the method of observing them identical. Mr. Chambers, the Government observer at Colaba, has already made identical recommendations to the Home Government. Mr. Clements Markham in the Blue Book—"Indian Progress and Condition, 1871–2 "—shows that India is naturally divided into five Zones according to their average annual rainfall. (1.) The North West arid Zone, including Scinde and half Punjab with a rainfall of less than 15 inches where irrigation is a necessity of existence. (2.) The Northern dry Zone, a belt 100 to 200 miles wide, including Delhi and Agra, and the Southern comprising the Peninsula between the two Seas from Nasik to Cape Comorin with less than 30 inches, where irrigation is also necessary. (3.) The Upper Valley of the Ganges, Central India and Eastern Madras with a rainfall between 30 and 60 inches, where great distress has been felt from want of irrigation. (4.) The Deltas of the Maharadi and Ganges Rivers with a rainfall between 60 and 75 inches which makes irrigation a luxury; and (5.) Two Zones, one extending from the mouth of the Irawadi River along the Bay of Bengal, up the Brahmaputra River and skirting the Himalaya mountains, the other extending from the west coast between Cape Comorin and Bombay to the summits of the Ghauts, where a rainfall of over 75 inches makes irrigation unnecessary. The Duke of Argyll explaining the conduct of the late Government as regards the famine, stated that he had first implicitly trusted the Indian Government on account of the date at which they first took alarm—namely, the 25th of October. Up to the beginning of September there was no alarm from a previous failure of rain—a deficiency of the ordinary rains in July and August is never fatal if supplemented by rain in September and October, and even a deficiency in the September and October

  1989
  rains is never ascertained till the third week in October. On the 25th of October, Sir George Camphell telegraphed to the Viceroy that there was—beyond the July and August deficiency—an additional failure, and cause for grave alarm. Trusting to these monthly and yearly averages, the Indian Government have spent, and still spend enormous sums of public money on irrigation to obviate drought, and maintains many miles of embankment against the average flooding of rain-fed rivers. Trusting equally to those averages, the English Government delay to provide against the possible starvation of thousands of our Indian fellow-subjects. Surely the records from which these averages are compiled should be, at least, above the suspicion of inaccuracy. In the administration Report 1872–3, Mr. F. H. Bland-ford tells the Government of Bengal that—first, falsification has been deliberately attempted in some cases, and the figures of one year simply recopied for the registers of succeeding years; secondly, that several native observers have been dismissed for carelessness and deception, and have proved untrustworthy without supervision; thirdly, that an observatory at Calcutta and a trained body of observers of a higher class are the only means to remedy these evils. In the Meteorological Abstract of 1872, Mr. Blandford had already complained that the fewness of stations in Madras and Burmah prevent an accurate knowledge of the climate of the Bay of Bengal. In his Memorandum, 1871, he stated that he feared a large mass of meteorological records now accumulating would prove useless—the readings of many barometers being unreduced—their errors and their elevations being unrecorded. He urged the systematic observation of the spring, summer, autumn, and winter rains; of the winds on which they depend; of the barometric pressure which determines and causes the direction of these winds; of the differences in the physical geography of India: and of the variable humidity of the air. Major General Strachey, Mr. Chambers, Dr. Forbes Watson, and Mr. Buchan all agree with these suggestions. India delays to provide against famine—England holds the late Government blameless—trusting to the meteorological observations, which the highest authorities tell us are neither extensive
  1990
  enough nor accurate enough to be entirely trustworthy. Both India and England agree that an extended and reorganized Meteorological Department is necessary. Will the noble Lord tell the House why it is still only under consideration? This is not merely a question of spending public money on pure science. Even our imperfectly obtained inference of Indian meteorology seems to show that famines come in cycles. The North West Famines of 1837 and 1860 both followed several years of climatic irregularity—a phenomenon supposed by Colonel Baird-Smith to be the forerunner of a total failure of the usual rainfall. The Orissa Famine of 1866 arose from the rain ceasing in September, the geographical isolation of Orissa and an inexperience of what was really the famine price of rice, an inexperience now remedied by the Returns of the District Commissioners. Mr. Clements Markham, the distinguished Seceretary of the Geographical Society, from whose public compilations in the few Indian Blue Books so tardily vouchsafed to the English pub-lie, and from whose writings in Ocean Highways I have quoted my facts—himself proves that meteorology can prove a good investment for Government money. Mr. Markham brought—as only a meteorologist could bring—the seeds and plants of the chinchona tree to India from Peru, and millions of chinchona trees now growing on the Nilgiri hills produced a revenue in 1873 of over £13,000, and 33,000 lbs. of bark annually help to prevent the disease that invariably follows famine. My attention was first called to the subject in consequence of myreading a statement which appeared on November 3, 1873, in The Daily News—a paper to which the country is indebted for most talented criticisms in relation to the famine in India—that the average rainfall of the last year was only 42 inches, while the average of the last 19 years was 60 inches. I hope the Under Secretary of State will arrange that the Indian Blue Books are published sooner, and will lay on the Table of the House the despatches for which I have moved.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had no objection to lay on the Table the despatches for which the hon. Member had moved. The last despatch received from Lord Northbrook intimated the noble Lord's intention of organizing

  1991
  a more complete system of taking registers of observations; but he proposed to postpone that system until he had prepared the Estimates, as it would entail some expense. In the Estimates for 1874–5, provision had been made for a system such as that indicated by the hon. Member.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN IRELAND ON SUNDAY.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. R. SMYTH, in rising to call the attention of the House to the present state of the Law and of public opinion in Ireland with respect to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Law which prohibits the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Scotland ought to be extended to Ireland,"
  said: I owe to the House an explanation of, and probably also an apology for, the form in which this question is now submitted to the judgment of Parliament. The House is aware that I introduced a Bill, the object of which was to make compulsory the closing of public-houses in Ireland during the whole of the Lord's Day, that Bill having stood for second reading on Tuesday last. On account of the prolonged and important debate of that evening I was precluded from submitting the measure for discussion, the hour of half-past 12 having been reached before the Orders of the Day were read, after which time, as every hon. Member knows, an opposed Bill in charge of a private Member cannot be considered. I was then informed by Members of long Parliamentary experience that it was hopeless to expect a debate and division on the Bill during the present Session, unless my way was facilitated by the Government. I applied to the Government for a night, but it did not consist with their arrangements to grant my request, and I then at once withdrew the Bill, and determined to take the sense of the House upon an abstract Resolution. The question is one in which the people of Ireland are deeply and all but universally interested, and I am anxious to know as soon as possible how far this House is disposed to make a concession to Irish opinion on a subject which is totally withdrawn from the region of
  1992
  party politics. I wish to say, in all sincerity, that I do not bring forward this Resolution in any spirit of hostility to the licensed victuallers of Ireland. That great general question I let alone, as it lies outside the terms and scope of my Resolution. The traders and the trade in liquor, distilled and fermented, may be most respectable and proper on six days of the week—superior in respectability to many other lawful traders and trades—but what I have to show is this, no more and no less, that it is for the advantage of Ireland, and that it is the wish of Ireland, that this particular trade should be subjected to the same restrictions on Sunday as those which are imposed upon other trades having to do with articles of popular consumption. I find it necessary to say this, because some misconceptions prevail as to the motives which actuate those who are promoting this movement, and as to the method they adopt for compassing the end they have in view. I have here a circular issued by the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Protection Association of Ireland, in which it is pro-claimed that the friends of Sunday closing "employ themselves not in promoting temperance, but in traducing the characters of all who are engaged in the licensed trade." Now, apart from the fact that those who are active outside this House in seeking a modification of the law are men of the most unimpeachable character and unquestionable benevolence, free from every just suspicion of selfishness—apart from that, I must remind the House that a considerable proportion of the spirit dealers of Ireland are in favour of Sunday closing, have petitioned this House to that effect, and are among the most active promoters of the movement. Surely these men, who are in the trade, are above suspicion, and cannot be supposed to be traducing their own character, or writing down their own condemnation. But, whatever some people may say or do outside this House, I emphatically disclaim making the Motion a basis of attack upon a trade which has the sanction of the Legislature, and which is meeting what is still regarded as a want of the community. It is very difficult for Englishmen to comprehend why a movement of this sort should become so popular in Ireland; because there are ideas entertained in England, espe-

  1993
  cially about the use of beer, which seem inconsistent with the adoption of any such law as that which I advocate, and which to the most of Irishmen seem very strange. To illustrate what I mean, I may mention that I had lately a conversation with an intelligent English gentleman on the subject of the brewers' licence, of which he very much complained. Indeed, he appeared to think, and in effect said, that, if it were not for the persecution to which brewers are subjected, England would be the freest country in the world. I urged that, in a matter of revenue, luxuries ought to bear their full share of the national burdens. "And do you call beer a luxury?" he asked, with surprise and almost pity—"I call it a necessary of life, and I would not keep any man in my employment who did not drink two pints of beer in the day." An Irish labouring man who had never been out of his own country, and who knew no habits and customs but those of his own country, would be astonished to hear such a sentiment as that propounded. The Irish poor do not drink beer at all, but a liquor of more potent qualities, which is far more rapid in its action, and, I suppose, more suited to the liveliness of the Irish temperament. I shall revert to that again; but just now I wish this House to consider that by the Act of 1833 public-houses in Ireland were thrown open at 2 o'clock, and the law continued so until 1872. The evils arising from Sunday drinking had become so obvious to the country and to Parliament that, in the Intoxicating Liquors Licensing Bill of 1872, a further restriction was introduced as regards that day of the week, and a compromise was proposed and carried—the compromise, however, not being cordially acquiesced in—that public-houses should be closed on Sunday, except from 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock in some cases, and in others from 2 o'clock until 9. "Why was the change made? Because the country found that to keep public-houses open till 11 o'clock on Sunday night led to growing and intolerable evils. The people were at leisure on that day, and laborious occupations being relaxed, temptation came with a force that it was hard to resist. Parliament, I am sure, never dreamed that by closing public-houses during a part of Sunday it was indicting a wrong upon the people. It
  1994
  was done for their good and for their protection, and no remonstrance has ever come from the people of Ireland that their liberties were unduly invaded. The experiment which Parliament tried has been so far successful that we now ask Parliament to take a further step in the same direction. Drinking has been greatly diminished on Sunday, as police statistics show, and yet there has been no complaint that the people were subjected to partial coercion as regards their Sunday life and practices. Now, what is the evidence we have as to the state of public opinion? There are only two ways whereby the House of Commons can arrive at an accurate estimate of the force of popular opinion. The one is by Petitions, and the other is by the votes of Members themselves, who must be supposed to gauge with some interest the sentiments of their constituents. Well, I am willing that Irish opinion should be measured by these two tests—by the Petitions which have been presented and by the votes which the Irish Members will this night record. As to the first test, we have Petitions from 50 Corporations and Boards of Town Commissioners, from 80 Boards of Guardians, from the Governing Bodies of all the leading religious denominations in Ireland, from the licensed grocers and victuallers of Dublin, from the grocers' assistants in Dublin—a Petition signed by 730 of them—from public meetings, from congregations, from incumbents and churchwardens, and from people of every class and creed, and not one Petition against the measure. It cannot be affirmed that the people do not Petition because they have no fear that the law will be changed. On the contrary, a portion of the trade has been exceedingly active in endeavouring to stir up the people to resist the measure by every constitutional means—and petitioning is the most constitutional of all means—and yet there has been no response. Why? For this simple reason—that, with the exception of a certain class of publicans themselves, the people of Ireland are either favourable to Sunday closing or wholly indifferent. Another argument, drawn from popular opinion, is this—Sunday closing has been tried in three Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland with perfect success. If the people were not either favourable or indifferent there would surely be remonstrances

  1995
  heard from Kilkenny, Cashel, and Kilmore, where the experiment has been tried. But I shall let the distinguished, philanthropic, and patriotic Prelates who have initiated the movement speak for themselves. The right rev. Dr. Furlong, Bishop of Ferns, says, in 1872—
  "The closing of public-houses on Sundays in this diocese dates from June, 1857. It has been since that time faithfully observed; and the seenes of drunkenness and disorder which were in former times but too frequent, have altogether disappeared."
  The most rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel, writes thus—
  "The experiment we have made in this diocese, put to the test of a 12 years' trial, has, thank God, realized my most sanguine expectations. Does it not, moreover, justify my strong conviction of the practicability of applying—and of the great gain to the cause of public morality that must arise from applying—a similar law for closing public-houses on Sundays to the whole kingdom: To be successful, however, in the large towns, it must be the law of the land, with or without the law of the Church. Unaided by the State, the law of any Church forbidding the sale of spirituous liquors on Sundays would not be observed, could not be successfully enforced in the larger towns."
  The right rev. Dr. Conaty, Bishop of Kilmore, says—
  "The closing of public-houses does not in any possible way contribute to illicit sale, as unlicensed houses are unknown amongst us. Any person with an accurate knowledge of the country knows that many of the deeds of daring and violence which have occasionally disgraced our people were concocted and matured in public-houses not able for Sunday traffic. The Sabbath being a day of rest, the young and unwary assemble in the haunts of the idler, the plotter, and the drunkard. Here it is that wicked and designing men ply their victims with drink, and then engage them in societies alike subversive to order and religion. Close the public-houses, and you deprive all those parties of a legalized rendezvous. Their daily toil or necessary avocations will prevent their meeting on week days."
  Perhaps some hon. Members will talk about coercion, and will, in an unguarded moment, call this the foreshadowing of a new Coercion Bill; but I ask the House to determine for itself whether the Irish people are in the habit of petitioning for Coercion Bills. They believe—rightly or wrongly—that they have enough of coercion; and you may depend upon it when they petition in favour of Sunday closing, the very last thing they believe is that they are praying to be coerced by the Imperial Parliament. In this connection I must trouble the House with some other
  1996
  testimonies. The Bishop of Galway writes—
  "Anything I can do to assist you in your truly praiseworthy endeavours to have public-houses closed on Sunday I shall do most cheerfully. I hardly know of any measure that would prove a source of greater and more lasting blessing to religion and society. The present condition of things, the fearful evils resulting from Sunday drinking, are a disgrace to Christian civilization, and no exertion should be, omitted to remedy this state of things. Closing of public-houses on Sundays and holidays seems to be the most effectual available remedy."
  The Bishop of Ossory says—"I heartily wish every success to the Sunday Closing Bill." The Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin writes—
  "Drunkenness, the source of nearly all the crimes committed in this country, and the occasion of temporal and eternal perdition to thousands of our fellow-creatures, is admittedly on the increase here and elsewhere. Hence, I cannot but wish success to the efforts of those benevolent gentlemen who are endeavouring to stop the growth of so hideous and degrading a vice by inducing Parliament to pass a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays. A measure of this kind seems well calculated to prevent the desecration of a day which should be specially devoted to the worship of God and the sanctification of our souls."
  I do not think it necessary to enter into any defence of the proposal to surround Sunday with special legislative sanctions, for the principle which underlies that proposal is universally recognized in British legislation. In the laws of this country, the Lord's Day is not as other days, and if we, who advocate the measure now under consideration, are twitted with being Sabbatarians, it is sufficient for our present purpose, even without making an appeal to that law which is, and ought to be, paramount within these walls, to make an appeal to the genius and principle of British law, which places a restraint on the trading-occupations of the Day of Pest. But, descending from this high platform of principle, I have no reluctance to argue the question on the lower ground of popular convenience. It is urged that the people must have drink on Sunday as on other days, and beer will not keep. Well, I am very sorry that beer—which, in England, is considered a necessary of life—will not keep. Is there any other necessary part of the food of man which has within it such elements of mortality and decay? It is strange that this 19th century, so fruitful in discovery, has produced no chemist of sufficient genius

  1997
  and philanthropy to provide some means whereby a poor man's draught-beer can be kept alive from Saturday night till Sunday afternoon. Is that all that is needed to carry this Resolution? But the House will observe that, even if that achievement were added to the triumphs of the 19th century, it would only affect England and not Ireland, for, as I have said, the poor in Ireland do not drink draught-beer at all. They drink whisky. [Laughter and cheers.] Yes, but they drink it as a stimulant and not as food. And what will be more surprising still to English Members is this—that Irish labouring men do not drink, as a daily beverage, any intoxicating liquors at all. [Ironical cheers.] That statement is evidently received by a few hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House with incredulity; but I challenge any Irish Member of this House to stand up in his place and tell us that to his knowledge it is the custom of Irish labourers to have either beer or whisky on their daily dinner-table as a portion of their ordinary nourishment, as English labourers have their beer in England. They know that there is nothing of the kind. The Irish poor drink at fairs and markets, and for good companionship; but this theory of drink being a necessary of life has not yet found a footing in Irish civilization. Hence the whole Sunday beer argument is inapplicable to Ireland. As regards whisky, if it will not keep from Saturday night till Sunday afternoon, the fault is not in the whisky. Again, we shall be told that this is class legislation—the rich have their clubs on Sunday, and why should not the poor have their taverns? Well, in my humble judgment, the best club for both rich and poor on the Lord's Day is their own family circle. But that will by some be considered as a transcendental, and even antiquated view of life. Be that as it may, I see no analogy whatever between a club and a public-house. A club is a select society of gentlemen, associated because of some community of opinion or object. [Dissent.] Is not that so? I stand corrected; but that is what I understand by a club—that the members select the members; but in a public-house there is no balloting for admission, nor is there any blackballing of a village desperado of extreme practices or opinions. Further, a club is
  1998
  composed of persons of one sex; whereas public-houses are frequented by promiscuous assemblages of both sexes. I heard a clergyman from the East of London say, not long since, at a public meeting, that he set a trustworthy man to watch a tavern in that part of the City one Sunday evening, and he found that from half-past 6 until 9 o'clock, 770 persons entered the tavern, and of these, more than two-thirds were young persons of both sexes under the age of 20 years. And this, we are gravely told, is similar to the rich man's club. But the vital difference is—and it is here the analogy totally breaks down—a rich man can visit his club and drink none—a poor man must drink if he visits the public-house at all. He cannot have society without it, for if he will not drink he must make room for some-body who will. I now turn the other edge of the argument, and I affirm that, as the rules of society now stand, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and if it is desired to place the poor on the same footing as the rich—and I. for one, most heartily wish it, though I have serious misgivings about the real friendship of those who will give the poor drink, and withhold from them some other thing which would do them more good—if you aim at equality, then I submit that the first important step in that direction will be the closing of public-houses on Sunday. As the case now stands, there is no analogy between a club and a public-house. You might as well say that there is a similarity between a watch and a farmer's cart, because both of them have wheels. There is another reason why we expect legislation in this direction to take place with respect to Ireland. Parliament has already conceded the principle of separate legislation in this matter by enacting a law for Scotland the exact counterpart of that which Ireland now seeks. Scotland asked it, and got it. There is au impression prevailing in the outer world—perhaps it is only a superstition, but it prevails—that a majority of Scotchmen on a purely Scotch subject is infallible, and I am sure I should be sorry to see any reversal of that political dogma, for I believe nobody understands their affairs better than they do themselves. A majority of the Members and constituencies of that country came to Parliament in 1853 with a request that public-houses

  1999
  should be closed during the whole of Sunday, and the thing was done at once. Scotland, I would request the House to remember, was not unanimous; and, therefore, you cannot fairly demand unanimity in Ireland. That law was passed for Scotland 20 years ago, and the country in whose interest it was enacted has never come asking its repeal. So far from that being so, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the people are so well satisfied with the present state of things that it would raise a storm of resistance all over the country if Parliament were to make any attempt to throw open the public-houses on the Lord's Day. But no such attempt will be made. No theories of assimilation will ever prompt a prudent Legislature to thrust upon a nation that does not want it a measure to repeal the Forbes Mackenzie Act. There may be Members of this House who think that Scotland made a mistake in 1853, and again in 1862, and that drunkenness has rather grown than diminished in that country in later years. Now, that is au allegation which is not to be made good by vague assertions, and I most distinctly dispute it. Everyone who has thoughtfully considered this subject knows that the large cities is the difficulty Parliament has to contend with in any attempt to close public-houses on Sunday, and I have heard it asserted over and over again that in great cities like London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, the law could not be enforced. "Well, but what of Edinburgh? It has been enforced there, and with what result? In that city, the total number charged by the police for drunkenness in 1853 was 5,727: whereas in 1872 the number had fallen to 1,789. On Sundays in 1853 the number charged was 641; in 1872 it was only 150. From Sunday morning till Monday morning, in 1853, it was 333; in 1872 only 54. On Mondays in 1853 the number was 728; in 1872 it was 251. "Yes," some one will say, "but the people will lay in a supply on Saturday night, and get drunk in their own houses." If that were so, the country, at any rate, would be spared the rioting and public disgrace which ensues when Sunday evening assemblages become the worse for drink. I shall not attempt to appraise the moral distinction between a man getting drunk
  2000
  at home and going quietly to bed, and getting drunk in the public-house and breaking his neighbour's head. I am sure the publican would prefer the former method, because he gets the same drink consumed with equal profit and far less trouble to himself. So that if people will really supply themselves on Saturday night, then I claim the support of the publicans for this measure, for the increased trade of Saturday night will compensate for the abolished trade of Sunday. But we must have some proof of this home-drunkenness, and I do not know where it is to be found in Scotland, since the statistics are all against such a theory. The consumption of spirits in Scotland went down from 7,096,894 gallons in 1851, to 5,671,477 gallons in 1871, though the population had increased from 2,888,742 to 3,358,613. The diminution in the consumption of strong drink is most remarkable, and, in the face of these figures, I hope we shall be spared any attempt to throw discredit on the Acts of 1853 and 1862 in Scotland. Perhaps hon. Members will demur to this line of argument on the ground that Irish and Scottish ideas about the Sabbath differ very widely. But in what do they differ? Not certainly on any point which is raised, or ought to be raised, in this discussion, for we are not now concerned with questions of polemics, but with the one question of Sabbath sobriety. Happily, sobriety is not the appanage of any religions creed; and if, undercover of a free construction of Sunday law, you try to fasten upon the religious people of Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, a theory in favour of drinking in public houses on Sunday, I am persuaded you are crediting them with a social doctrine which they would be among the first in the United Kingdom to disavow. Who oppose us? I shall tell the House. It is the National Licensed Victuallers' Defence League of England. At a meeting of that body, held in Birmingham on the 14th of last month, the chairman is reported to have said that "the League was determined to oppose Mr. Smyth's Bill for the Sunday closing of licensed houses in Ireland, and to assist the Irish trade in rejecting it." We have reason to be very much obliged to these philanthropic gentlemen, who know as much about Ireland and its wants as a mole knows about the mountains of the moon, for taking our

  2001
  country under their protection. I am quite willing that Ireland should be ruled by the Queen, Lords, and Commons of this united nation, and may that union never be shaken; but I am not willing that the licensed victuallers of Birmingham should constitute themselves a Parliament for Ireland. All classes, occupations, creeds, political parties, have united in coming before Parliament to support this proposition. I offer no opinion on the question as it affects England; but I suspend my judgment until I hear the arguments. If it can be made out that necessity and mercy demand exceptional legislation as regards Sunday trading in liquor within the limits of England, then for my part I shall consider well these weighty pleadings in its favour; but with all that at present I have nothing to do. The majority of Irishmen—and, I am persuaded, the majority of their Representatives in this House—wish to have no Sunday trading in liquor in Ireland beyond the limits and ends for which inns were anciently instituted—the convenience of travellers and others who make them their temporary homes. Inns were originally intended to be places of rest and refreshment, and not places of carousal and revel, and I am far from saying that the traveller and the lodger should be debarred on Sunday from the rest and the refreshment which these establishments afford. But I beg the House to look at this question from an Irish point of view alone. Irish questions are at a heavy discount in the minds of many Englishmen just now, and I am not careful to inquire whether or not there are grounds for this fretful distrust; but when I call to mind the candid and generous assurances which came from the Treasury Bench early in the Session, in a speech by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland—a speech of which I never heard an Irish Member speak without satisfaction, or even admiration—["No, no!"]—I mean the speech delivered during the debate on the Address—assurances that Irish questions of a social and sanitary character would receive every consideration from the Government, I am encouraged to hope that on a question like this, which is social, local, and moral in its bearing, wholly divorced from party politics and from Imperial entanglements, this House of
  2002
  Commons, led by a powerful Government, will pay some kindly and even indulgent deference to Irish opinion. Scotland is with us. May I appeal to England? I am well aware that there are sometimes unreasoning forces lying behind us in our constituencies, impelling us onward to reluctant action. But reason and justice will triumph in the end, if we have only the courage to use the one and to do the other. I am among those who have thought that the interests of Ireland would be best maintained by an unimpaired union with the sister countries; but when we find the Members of Parliament, to whose counsels we cling, coming down to this House to overbear the Irish vote on a question which concerns only the social habits of the people, and has no political significance whatever, there will be secret reflections whether we are much wiser than many of our fellow-countrymen who have disavowed all confidence in the present Government of their country. Even to carry this Resolution I do not want an Irish Parliament; but I must add that if we had an Irish Parliament, it is among the first that would be carried. I have no more to say. I thank the House most heartily for its indulgence, and leave the issue in its hands.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in Order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the law which prohibits the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Scotland ought to be extended to Ireland,"—(Mr. Richard Smyth,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and I wish to state very distinctly that I am not acting as an advocate of the licensed victuallers, nor because I am in favour of the unrestricted, and much less the indiscriminate, sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland on Sundays. I oppose the Motion, because I dislike all Motions tending to such compulsory prohibitive legislation, and also because the Motion, if carried, will do more to promote illicit drinking in "shebeen houses"—an Irish name for whisky shops of the lowest order—than anything

  2003
  that could be proposed. I entertain rather a sanguine opinion that the Members representing English constituencies in this House will aid us, who are not the small minority of Irish Members that he described, in preventing such unfair legislation with regard to an important portion of Irish trade. I have been surprised by reading in an Irish newspaper a report of a deputation to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which I find it stated that the greatest and most complete unanimity exists in Ireland among all classes and trades as to the desirability of passing this Motion and the Bill to which it refers. I take it from my own personal knowledge that there is nothing like unanimity in favour of this Bill; on the contrary, as the division will show, there is no unanimity among the people of Ireland, and still less among the Irish Representatives in this House, on the subject. It is true that a very inconsiderable minority are in favour of the extension to Ireland of what, for want of a better name, I may call the Scotch Sabbatarian observance; but I submit that the hon. Gentleman has made out no case whatever for his Motion, and as this is the first occasion on which such a Motion has been brought before this Parliament, perhaps the House will allow me to refer briefly to the history of the Sunday Trading in Ireland Bill, which was brought before the late Parliament. In 1868, a Bill for regulating the sale of fermented and distilled liquors by retail on Sunday in Ireland was prepared and brought into this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly), and the then Members for Monaghan and the City of Dublin—Lord Cremorne and Mr. Pim. The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on February 28th, and its object was to extend the prohibition of the sale of liquors on the premises to the whole of Sunday; but it permitted the sale of liquors to be drunk off the premises from 2 to 4 and from 8 to 9, and their sale by eating-house keepers to their customers at meals. After discussion in this House the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of 15 Members. That Committee sat for 13 days, extending over two months, and they examined 22 witnesses, including pre sent and exstipendiary magistrates, Chief Commissioners of Police, and
  2004
  others of large experience relating to every kind of drinking in Ireland, and their unanimous Report came before the House in the form of a Bill as amended by the Select Committee, and introduced by the same hon. Gentlemen on the 26th May in the same year. That Bill merely restricted the hours for the sale of liquors, either in or off the premises, from 2 to 7 in rural districts, and from 2 to 9 in cities and towns, and it gave powers to magistrates to extend or restrict the hours within certain limits. The Bill, however, was not persevered in, and in 1869 it was understood that the subject would be dealt with by the Government. The Government did deal with ft in 1872, when they embodied in their Bill the recommendations of the Select Committee. They fixed the hours of sale as they now exist in Ireland on Sundays—in the rural districts from 2 to 7, and in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants from 2 until 9. I may ask, what case has been made out to justify any interference with the existing Act, almost before we have had time to realize its beneficial effects? What evidence has he brought forward to displace that given before the Select Committee? The hon. Gentleman has brought forward no evidence, but he has largely quoted the opinions of Prelates, and I must say that he has almost menaced a section of this House with the opinions of certain members of the hierarchy. As a strong and decided Ultramontane Roman Catholic, I give every obedience to my Bishops in their proper sphere, but I would not permit their interference with me here, any more than I would permit the interference of any other of my constituents here, where I am acting in my representative character. Has he produced any report in favour of this change from magistrates, from police, or from any of the authorities who are responsible for the good order and government of Ireland, and the accuracy of which could be tested? In the evidence given before the Committee which sat on this subject in 1868, one of the Chief Commissioners of Police in Dublin states that public-houses in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland were generally very well conducted, and if they were closed on Sundays they would be superseded by low unlicensed houses, where necessarily a great deal of drinking and disorder must occur. That was the evidence of a man who has had ample ex-

  2005
  perience of the present system, and he adds that it is not advisable at present to change it. The day may come, he says, when it can be done, and he hopes it will; but during the present generation it would not conduce to the public benefit to make any alteration. Then, again, there is the testimony of Mr. Richard Carr, the Chief Superintendent of the Dublin Police; and what does he state, after 30 years' experience? That drunkenness has greatly decreased, and that it is not at all necessary to close public-houses on Sundays. There is, he continues, less drunkenness in Dublin on a Sunday than any other day in the week, and he is quite certain that closing public-houses on Sundays would lead infallibly to illicit drinking. The Mayor of Cork stated before the same Committee that such a measure would create discontent, and a most eminent Catholic clergyman of Dublin, the very Rev. Canon Spaight, declared the total closing of public-houses on Sundays was a measure he could not recommend; that people came out on those evenings to walk and inhale the fresh air; and that it would be a very great hardship if they were not permitted to obtain some refreshment. The Mover of this Resolution referred to the unanimity of Irish Members as shown by their votes on the last division. I am not prepared to accept that unanimity as a guide to the present state of feeling, for I will not accept the unanimity of the last Parliament on a measure of social coercion, any more than I am or was prepared to accept it for the coercion of my country; and it is a singular fact that every Gentleman who voted in the last Parliament for Sunday closing in 1870 or 1872, voted for political coercion for Ireland, and the majority of them have boon relegated to private life. The hon. Gentleman compared the amount of drinking in Ireland and in Scotland, and he said that Scotland, in 1851, with a population of 2,888,742, drank 7,096,894 gallons of spirits—which is an extraordinary quantity—while, in 1871, a population of 3,358,613 in Scotland only drank 5,671,477 gallons. But he did not inform the House that that was caused by the equalization of the spirit duties. I will now give him a fact that he may get up some statistics upon. It is as to the improved drinking habits of the people of Scotland since the Sunday
  2006
  Closing Act has been in force. I may mention, as a statistical fact, that even though that country has been favoured by the operation of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, Scotland, with a population of 3,500,000, now consumes 500,000 gallons of whisky more than Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000—so that with that Act, a Scotchman drinks nearly twice as much spirits as an Irishman. I should like to quote a newspaper which is the organ of the body whose worthy representative we have in the hon. Member. It says that an excellent example has just been set in the Dominion of Canada, and that "many speeches have been made or spoiled, and many a vote given or lost, through the influence of what is called a heated imagination." It goes on to use that as an argument for this Bill, and declares that the destinies of our Empire may some day be affected very seriously by "the consumption of liquor on the premises." But I do not think there is any danger to be apprehended from allowing the Irish artizan to drink beer on Sundays, and as one who has devoted great attention to the subject, and who has mixed much with the Irish artizan class—not in the North and South only, but in the centre, in Leinster and Ulster—I can assure the House that there is no unanimity on the point in Ireland, and that, on the contrary, in the county from which I come, and the adjoining districts, there is a strong and most determined hostility to this Sabbatarian Bill.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he should oppose the Motion. He considered it a much worse evil that public-houses should be closed on Sunday than that they should be open; because people who were loud of drinking would lay in a stock of liquor on the Saturday night, and be certain to be more drunk than ever on Sunday. In the ordinary course of things, on the other hand, if people went into a public-house on a Sunday, and exhibited the least sign of inebriation, they would receive notice to quit. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was a serious thing for Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen who approved of it had good reasons to be satisfied with the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland; for there the people got so drunk of a Sunday as to occasion no trouble to their friends or to the police except to cart them home. If it should come to pass

  2007
  in Ireland, however, each individual member of a family would feel it his duty to lay in a stock for the Sunday, and were the wish to do so not granted, there would be family jars; and, he feared, sometimes of a very serious character. He thought it a most tyrannical wish on the part of anyone to endeavour to stop a poor man's boor on the Sunday. The rich had their cellars, and were indifferent—they could keep their beer for any length of time in prime condition. He had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) had an excellent cellar, but the poor man could not afford to keep one; and he should like to ask any bon. Gentleman, supposing he could only afford two glasses of beer a-day, how he would like to have to draw it in a jug on Saturday night, and put it in the cupboard until Sunday? It would be more like physic by that time than beer. There was an old ditty with which many hon. Members were no doubt familiar, which he thought peculiarly applicable to the proposition to stop a poor man's beer on a Sunday. It had a touch of sentiment about it, which he trusted would not appeal in vain to the better feelings of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and its closing lines were—
  "Confuse their eyes
  If ever they tries to rob a poor man of his beer!"
  THE O'CONOR DON: I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has just addressed the House in regarding this subject as one suitable only for laughter; because this is a question of far greater importance than to be laughed down by jokes. But before I go any further I would like to make one remark on the almost concluding observation of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), who stated, as a matter of fact, that when a Bill of this description was brought forward in the late Parliament, every Irishman who voted in its favour had also voted in favour of the Irish Coercion Bills, or Bills that ordinarily went by the name of Coercion Bills, and that nearly all of them had lost their seats at the late Election. I cannot answer for any other hon. Member but myself, because I do not remember the names of those who took part in that Division; but I can say for myself that since I have been in this House I never
  2008
  voted for a Coercion Bill, although I did vote for the Bill introduced by Sir Dominic Corrigan. Therefore that statement is without foundation.
  MR. CALLAN: It was wholly unintentional on my part to appear to include the name of the hon. Member for Eos-common. I have the greatest respect for that hon. Gentleman, and would not like to impute anything of the kind to him.
  THE O'CONOR DON: I accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman with regard to myself; but I dare say if he looked at the Division Lists he would find the names of others as well, about whom he has been mistaken. Further, I believe on that occasion there were only eight Members representing Irish constituencies who went into the lobby against the Bill brought in by Sir Dominic Corrigan; and out of these eight Members, as I am informed, at least a majority have not been returned. But, Sir, this is not the real question at issue: I would come to what is the proposal before the House. No man in this House has naturally a greater objection to restrictive measures upon the transactions of individuals, and upon the proceedings of trades than I have. No man in this House holds a stronger opinion that we should legislate as little as possible in interfering with social arrangements or with the business of the country; and I should be the last man in this House to support a Bill such as is embodied in the Resolution before the House if I believed it would come under that description. But when I hear that argument used against a Bill for restricting the sale of liquors on Sunday, I confess I feel quite amazed; because, what is all our legislation with respect to the sale of liquors? Is it not all restrictive? Is there any man who would propose in this House that there should be unrestricted sale of liquors at every hour on every day, by every man who chose to sell them? We know that such a proposal as that would not be listened to for a moment. Therefore, there is no question here of principle—it is simply a question of degree. At the present moment you do restrict the sale of liquors on every day of the week, but you do not restrict other trades, and the question with regard to a further restriction on Sundays is not a question of principle but singly a question of de-

  2009
  gree, and that degree is to be arrived at by ascertaining what, in the general opinion of the country, would be best for the public good. That is the point we have to regard. As to this proposal in reference to the sale of liquors on Sunday, instead of the Resolution being one embodying a restriction, it is to my mind one which simply does away with a favourable exemption which has hitherto been enjoyed by the publicans; instead of the proposal foreshadowed in the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. R. Smyth) being one for the imposition of restrictions, it is simply one for doing away with exemptions. You have, as has already been pointed out to the House, restricted the carrying on of every other trade on Sunday; but you have existing at the present moment exceptions in favour of the sale of liquors, and it is simply the doing away with these exceptions that the hon. Gentleman advocates, and not the origination of restrictions. So that upon both points I say that the Bill foreshadowed in this Resolution would in no way offend against our peculiar notions of legislation. But the real question after all is this—Would the passing of a Bill of this description tend to the general good of the country? Would it, in other words, put down excessive drinking on Sundays? Now, Sir, I think that that will in a great degree depend on what is the general feeling of the country. We know that in certain districts in Ireland the public-houses have been closed voluntarily through the instrumentality of certain Prelates of a certain Church, the population having voluntarily submitted themselves to ordinances promulgated by those Prelates. But we have heard it argued—and I entirely agree in the statement—that the results following from this voluntary closing of public-houses cannot be taken as a proof that similar results would arise if the public-houses were closed against the wish of the people. Therefore, I say that what we have to consider is this—Are the people of Ireland in that state of feeling in, respect to this subject that they will not feel the closing of these public-houses a grievance, and will not feel a want arising from the fact of their not being continued open? This is the really important question at issue on this point, and I for a very long time was unable to
  2010
  make up my mind upon it; but, on a full consideration of the subject, I have come to the conclusion that in the vast majority of instances public opinion is in favour of this proposal; and this being so, I believe that the same good results would arise that have already arisen in those districts where undoubtedly the people are in its favour, and where the public-houses have been voluntarily closed on the Sunday. The hon. Member for Dun-dalk (Mr. Callan) has spoken of something like an inconsiderable minority of the people of the country being in favour of the proposal; but I do not know in what way we in this House are to arrive at what is the majority or the minority in Ireland with regard to this question. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. R. Smyth) adduced certain proofs that the majority of the people in Ireland were in favour of the proposal. He alluded to the number of Petitions presented to this House in favour of the proposal by the corporations of many different towns and boroughs. A number of representative bodies—the Poor Paw Boards—in Ireland petitioned in its favour, and yet the hon. Member for Dundalk, without adducing one single argument or proof that there was any feeling in Ireland against it, asks the House to believe that those in favour of it are an inconsiderable minority. The hon. Member for Dundalk asks, where are the expressions of opinion on the part of the magistrates in its favour? I was of opinion that the Poor Law Boards of Ireland were mainly composed of the magistrates of the country. We have it on the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth)—which I assume to be correct—that Petitions hare been presented from 80 Boards of Guardians in Ireland in favour of this proposal; and that number I believe to be a majority of the Boards. Well, these Petitions are either accepted and approved of by the magistrates who are members of those Boards, or they represent, not the magistrates, but the elected guardians returned by the people of the country. Therefore, I put this alternative to the hon. Member for Dundalk—these Petitions either represent the opinions of the magistrates, or they express the opinions of the representatives of the people in whose interests it is argued these public-houses are to be kept open; because the, elected guardians

  2011
  are responsible to small farmers of the country—the small tenants—in whose behalf these public-houses would be kept open, and if the guardians were to sign Petitions to Parliament to have these houses closed, and that this was considered a grievance, they would very soon be sent about their business. They know this so well that they would not venture to send stick Petitions without being sure they were supported by the feeling of the electors. I think, then, that we must take these opinions of the Boards of Guardians as representing fairly the two classes—the magistrates on the one hand, and the elected guardians on the other—and I contend that, as representing both, they form a very important element in the consideration of what is the feeling of the Irish people on this subject. It is astonishing to find in the face of this an hon. Gentleman saying that there is only an inconsiderable minority in favour of the proposal, while he does not adduce one single argument in proof of any feeling against it. My opinion is that the feeling of the people of Ireland of all classes is in favour of it. I know that there might be great difficulties in carrying out the proposal in some of the large towns. This was one of the reasons why I hesitated for a long time about joining very heartily in the movement. It was not because I thought that in nine-tenths of Ireland it would not result in good; but I did think that in certain large towns it might be very hard to carry it out in practice, and that if this were not really done it might, I thought, be really worse than if the proposal were not passed into law. But I think, Sir, that the example of Scotland is a sufficient justification for at least trying the same thing in Ireland. Of course, we are told that there is a great deal of drinking on Sundays in Scotland, and so, I believe, there is; but I think it a remarkable fact with regard to the operation of the Act in Scotland that whether it be for good or bad the general feeling of the people of Scotland is in favour of continuing it, and that it would be impossible to repeal it without creating such excitement in Scotland as this House would never face. To my mind this fact does away with all the argument about the number of gallons of whisky consumed in Scotland as compared with the consumption in Ire-
  2012
  land. We have before us the fact that the Act has been in operation for such a length of time in Scotland, and that no one as yet has ever ventured to propose its repeal. Why, then, should we not try it in Ireland? If there are difficulties as regards the great towns in that country, I hope they may be got over as they have been in Scotland, and if there are none, then we shall not have them to encounter. For these reasons, then, it is my intention to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
  SIR. MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It was impossible to listen without respect and attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) in support of a Motion which has been backed by no small amount of popular opinion among those who, acting from motives of philanthropy, are endeavouring to promote the cause of temperance in Ireland. I fear, however, that in the Motion before the House we only have another example of how impracticable these ideas sometimes are, for if this proposal were to be put into practice in Ireland, I believe it would be found utterly inefficient to secure the objects in view—that it would create evils far worse than those which at present exist, and that it would be the cause of a very great amount of inconvenience and discomfort to a very large proportion of the population. I think it is to be regretted that we have the proposal of the hon. Member for Londonderry put before us in the inconvenient shape of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply rather than in that of a Bill. It is, as it now stands, an abstract Motion. The hon. Member has not been able to show the House in what way he would carry it out, and I should be out of order in referring to the provisions of a Bill upon the same subject which he has introduced, and has very lately withdrawn. I certainly wish that instead of proposing a mere Rosolution the hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to find a day, which surely might have been possible at this period of the Session, on which he might have brought his scheme before the House in a proper shape. I will now lay before the House, as shortly as possible, the arguments which appear to be conclusive against the acceptance of the Motion. As far as I could gather from

  2013
  the hon. Member for Londonderry's speech, he supported his Motion mainly on two grounds—first, that beer and whisky were two entirely different things, and secondly, that legislation with regard to Sunday closing in Scotland had been successful. I will take the second argument first. I must say that I do not think the hon. Member for London-deny gave sufficient weight to the difference between the circumstances and feelings of Scotland and Ireland. It has been urged that the Sunday Closing Act in Scotland has been a decided success. I do not wish to enter into that question to-night; but I believe there can be no doubt that there is on Sunday, in spite of that Act, no inconsiderable amount of drinking in Scotland. And when we are told that the consumption of spirits in Scotland has considerably decreased since 1852, I would mention to those who urge this as an argument in favour of a Sunday Closing Bill that the reason for the decrease in the consumption of spirits is to be found not so much in the increased sobriety of the people as in the fact that the duty on spirits has been quadrupled. But I think I can give the House one little fact that will prove the difference between Scotland and Ireland in this matter. I read the evidence which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) gave some years ago before a Select Committee on the Sunday closing question with regard to England; and the hon. Gentleman there stated that when the agitation for Sunday closing was first started in the city which he represents, there were out of 974 public-houses in Edinburgh, only 490 that were opened on Sundays. Well, but what is the case with regard to Ireland? The six-day licences have been fairly tried there, and I think that no one will assert that they have met with any amount of public support, or that any considerable number of these licences have been taken out. We have then these two facts, that without any law and purely on account of the Scotch feeling in favour of a rigid observance of the Sabbath, more than half the total number of public-houses in Edinburgh were closed on Sundays, while Sunday closing in Ireland, although supported by law, finds no favour with those who keep public-houses, and of course does not find favour with those who frequent them. The proposal before the House has also been supported
  2014
  by evidence adduced as to the popular feeling in Ireland in its favour. If the House will consider what has passed in this country within the last 10 or 20 years, I think it will be of opinion that a popular feeling is not always a safe guide in questions of this kind, and that, at any rate, of all the unsafe guides we can trust to, popular feeling—before it is thoroughly awakened—is about the most unsafe. Some years before I had the honour of occupying a seat in this House, a measure was passed—I think in the year 1854—which shortened the hours of the sale of liquors on Sunday in this country. Those who remember that time will also remember the agitation which ensued when the law came to be put in force. The Bill was carried almost unanimously through Parliament, and it was supposed to have been generally supported by the popular feeling of the country; but no sooner was it enforced than such an agitation was created against it that Parliament had to repeal it in the following Session. Let us take another example in the case of the Permissive Bill. It is not so many years ago that the Permissive Bill was in so promising a position in the then House of Commons, that, I believe, it even arrived at the barren honour of a second reading, while it certainly did seem to have a considerable amount of popular support in the country, and a fair chance of becoming law. But what, let me ask, is its position now? The real fact is that with regard to measures like the Permissive Bill, or the Sunday Closing Bill, there are a number of active philanthropists in the country who can always raise a considerable agitation in favour of their projects, but they in reality form what is, after all, an inconsiderable portion of the population; and the remaining part of the community, being as it were asleep at the time, and hardly aware that such measures are discussed, do not realize what is being done, and only arouse themselves when there is really a prospect of their being made law, or when they are actually enforced. I will venture to say that so far as any expression of popular feeling is concerned, we have nothing before us that will safely guide the House; and I may remind the House when Petitions in favour of the present proposal are spoken of, that during one Session of Parliament

  2015
  Petitions were presented with no fewer than 1,000,000 signatures, from persons in England, in favour of a Sunday Closing Bill for England and Wales. But I have another argument to urge. I would ask the House what is the history of past legislation, or attempted legislation, on this matter with regard to Ireland? I have taken some trouble to inquire into what was the state of the law before the time referred to by the hon. Member opposite—namely, the year 1832. I find that in an Act passed in 1807 no sale of spirituous liquors by retail was allowed between 12 o'clock on Saturday night and 12 o'clock on Sunday night, nor of wine, beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, on Sundays before 2 P.M., except to travellers. But in the following year came a Sunday Closing Act, or something like it, for in 1808 I find that those who entertained persons in public-houses at anytime whatever on Sundays were liable to a fine of 40 s., and of £5 on a second conviction. But this Sunday Closing Act was a dead letter, and in 1815 it was repealed, and the old Act of 1807 re-enacted, under which houses were opened in Ireland for drinking anything but spirituous liquors, except with regard to inmates or travellers, who were to drink anything they chose. This state of the law, as far as I can discover, remained until 1833, and I have no doubt, although I am not able to trace the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1833, that the manner in which public-houses were regulated at that time was so bad that the Act of 1833, by which the hours of opening on Sundays were fixed from 2 in the afternoon till 11 at night, was not passed as an Act which opened houses that had before been closed, but rather as an Act to regulate the hours of sale. Well, Sir, what has happened since? Why, in 1868 the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Longford (Major O'Reilly), than whom no one is more thoroughly acquainted with the details of the question—being himself in favour of Sunday closing, introduced a Bill for closing public-houses on Sunday, except for drinking off the premises. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, on which sat such ardent Friends of Sunday closing as Lord Claud Hamilton, and Mr. Pim, and a nobleman whose authority all will respect—the late Lord Mayo.
  2016
  The Bill which emerged from that Committee was not a Sunday Closing Bill, but proposed the hours of from 2 till 7 in the country, and from 2 till 9 in towns. These facts are strong as regards past legislation or proposed legislation, against the proposal of the hon. Member for Londonderry. But it has been said that because Sunday closing had been voluntarily adopted in certain dioceses in the South of Ireland—in the dioceses of Cashel, Ferns, and Kilmore—therefore a compulsory law ought to be extended to the whole of Ireland. I know of no more fallacious argument than that. The parish priests and the Bishops of those dioceses have the greatest spiritual influence over their flocks. They have exercised that influence in the cause of temperance, and all honour to them for so doing. They have persuaded the publicans throughout those diocese to adopt a voluntary closing Act; but it is precisely because this was adopted voluntarily that it succeeded. But why has not this movement been further extended? In one of those dioceses Sunday closing has prevailed for 15 years, and in another for 12, and yet the principle has not been extended to other dioceses that are equally Roman Catholic in population, and equally tinder the influence of the priests. I think the answer is this—that those dioceses mainly consist, if not entirely, of country districts, and that the great difficulty in this matter arises when you come to deal with the large town populations; and if you pass a compulsory law for the country and not for towns you will find another difficulty—namely, that of deciding on what is country and what is town. Probably there are no places to which it would be more hard or more unfair to apply such an Act than those to which people go from England, as well as from different parts of Ireland, for the sake of beautiful scenery or fresh air. Those are places where the application of a Sunday Closing Act would cause great and unnecessary inconvenience. And why should not people in Treland have the facility which the law now gives them of obtaining moderate refreshment in public-houses on the Sunday afternoons? Is it because they drink whisky and not beer that they are to be debarred from indulging in a glass on a Sunday? It

  2017
  appears to me that this measure must be looked upon as one which has reference not merely to Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry says that his proposal simply applies to Ireland, and that it has secured a very large amount of support from the most important public opinion of that country. I have endeavoured to show the House of how much value the support of public opinion has proved in the case of other measures of this nature; but this measure, although only intended to be applied to Ireland, contains principles which I hope will not be adopted by this House, either with reference to Ireland or England; because it embodies within itself an unnecessary amount of interference with the general public convenience, which will make the law to be regarded as so unfair and irksome as almost certainly to secure its evasion. The hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) has told us that restriction was already in force, and that, in fact, it was necessary for the liquor trade. I do not oppose restriction; but what I say is that restriction cannot go beyond certain bounds, and it is no more an argument in favour of total Sunday closing that you have already limited the hours of closing within the narrowest limits consistent with the public convenience, than it would be to say that because you regulate public-houses to a certain extent therefore you should close them altogether. Of course there will be in Ireland, as well as in Scotland, or anywhere else, a certain number of people who will get drink whatever the law may be, and those persons would, if this measure were passed, go to unlicensed houses, where they would be less under the supervision of the police or under no supervision at all, and therefore the results would probably be worse to the morals and sobriety of the people than at present. I hope that the House in considering this question will not look upon it merely as an Irish matter. I trust neither the hon. Member for Londonderry nor others who come from that country will wish to deny to English Members that right which we all possess, of considering to the best of our power any measure that is brought before the House. Any proposal on this subject must be dealt with by the votes of the whole of the British Par-
  2018
  liament, according to the arguments that may be laid before them. I have listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and to the debate that has taken place; but, so far, I do not sec that any reasons have been given why Sunday closing should be successful in Ireland because it may be popular in Scotland, or why we should impose upon Ireland a measure of restriction which we should necessarily oppose if it were proposed in this country.
  MR. DICKSON: I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). The unanimity which exists in Ireland on this question shows that there is no matter which is more important to the peace and welfare of the country. I have some experience as a magistrate of the degradation, and misery, and crime attendant upon Sunday drinking in Ireland, and I know how, in the great majority of cases amongst working men, they, instead of being at their work on Monday morning, stay away in consequence of having been drinking on the previous day. Were it not for the facilities for drinking which are supplied by the public-houses keeping open during the idle hours of Sunday, those men who stay away from their work on Monday would be ready and willing to go to it. The aim of the Motion is simply to aid in abating an evil which overshadows the land and has spread throughout every district in Ireland. The measure comes before the House with, I may say, almost the unanimous support of Irish Members and of the Irish people, backed by all the religious denominations throughout the country, which have long looked forward with great anxiety to its success and to the blow it will give to the vice of drunkenness that has existed, and still exists, over the country. In urging hon. Members to pass the Motion we say—"We only ask for Ireland what you have done for Scotland." I trust the House, considering the position Ireland occupies, will extend to her what it has already conferred upon Scotland. I am sure that the passing of this measure would cause a diminution in the number of habitual drunkards, by depriving them of the facilities they would have for obtaining drink on Sunday. Respectable working men would rejoice at the Legislature removing from their

  2019
  paths the temptation to drink on Sundays, because I believe that in Ireland drinking is circumstantial: that it takes place more for the love of company than the love of drink. Then there is another important aspect of this question, which should not be overlooked in these days of agitation for shortening the hours of labour. When we think of the 30,000 young men and women employed in public-houses occupied at work seven hours on Sunday, having been engaged already during the week 90 hours, we must come to the conclusion that they ought to have the opportunity of enjoying the Sunday. I will just read to the House what their opinions are. These persons have presented a Memorial to the House, in which they represent that the grievance they endured, and state that the time is now ripe for a change in the law, and hope that total Sunday closing-will be established. It has been urged as an argument against closing public-houses on Sundays, that it would increase the illicit sale of drink, and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) has taken that view; but against that we have the testimony of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ireland, who has very clearly shown that such would not be the case. I will only now say that I hope the House will extend to Ireland what it has already extended to Scotland.
  MR. CONOLLY: I regret very much, Sir, that the Government have chosen to oppose this most reasonable request: because it places me and other most faithful friends of the Government in a most difficult position, as we have to choose between being unfaithful to our Leaders or unfaithful to our constituents. Now, that is a very awkward position to be placed in. If I have not any choice—if I am driven into that position by the action of the Government, I have no hesitation in the line which I shall adopt; I shall be true to my constituents. But I am not satisfied with the line the Government have taken in this matter upon the argument which we have heard. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has addressed himself with great care to the question, but with all his care he has shown he was advocating a very bad ease. I will with great brevity, considering the late hour, point out where the right hon. Gentleman seems
  2020
  to me to have failed. First of all, he says that all classes in Ireland do not ask and are opposed to asking for what means, in principle, total closing on Sundays. Then we say that we give a man six days in the week during which he can have as much drink as he likes, and it is but a small sacrifice he would have to make, and but little to ask for—that with regard to which all classes are agreed—namely, that the Sunday should have an immunity from the liquor traffic. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has failed here. Then in the parallel which he has drawn between this popular request and the Permissive Bill, I say he has utterly failed. I, for one, always opposed the Permissive Bill; but I am strongly in favour of the modest request now before the House. If there ever was a measure which was suited to the genius of Ireland, that is the measure now before the House. It is asked for by all religious bodies in the country, much to their credit, following in that respect the sainted track of the Rev. Theobald Mathew. Father Mathew, by his unaided exertions, brought about the first step in the direction of putting an end to the vice of drunkenness in Ireland, and everybody who knew Ireland before the preaching of the Rev. Theobald Mathew will know that that man, and that man alone, put a complete stop at the time to the vice of drunkenness in Ireland. Well, Sir, if that can be done by the preaching of one humble priest in Ireland, I shall not be told, that which is agreed on on all sides in Ireland ought not to have a fair trial. I think the Government have come to a very precipitate determination on this subject, and I do not, think it is graceful in them to drive their best friends away from them. Whatever shall be the result, I shall be true to my constituency, though it makes me untrue to my Leaders, which I much regret.
  MR. O'GORMAN: After the admirable speech which has been pronounced by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I must say that the wind is completely taken out of my sails. I oppose this Resolution absolutely, in the most downright way, and for this reason, that it is nothing more nor less—if, for instance, a Bill to its effect were passed—than the perpetuating of that which has been for many centuries the bane of Ireland—namely,

  2021
  the making of one law for the rich and I another for the poor. It is contended by everyone who has spoken upon this subject that gentlemen who belong to clubs in Ireland or England have the most perfect privilege of frequenting those places on Sundays, and drinking whatever they think proper; while at the same moment, according to the provisions of this Act—[Laughter]—well, of this Motion if it were put into an Act—a poor man is entirely prevented from having one single drop of liquor on that day. If this Bill is passed, a poor man who walks out for a few miles with his family on Sunday—perhaps on a very hot Sunday, perhaps on a very wet day—after having done six hard days' work, is absolutely prevented by this law, or would be if it were a law, from having one single quart of beer or a drop of whisky. Sir, I shall oppose this to the last. And why do I do so? Because I shall always oppose everything unjust. I do not care for its expediency. I place that altogether out of my view when justice is to be done, and this is one of those cases in which I say, let the heavens fall, but let not an atom of injustice be done to Ireland. Those are the reasons which influence me, Sir, in voting as I shall do to-night. Now, Sir, it has been stated that one of the chief items in the strength, or that the great strength of this Resolution lies in the fact that the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Ferns have prevailed upon their people to abstain from liquor on Sundays. I consider, Sir, that that is the very weakest point in the whole of their argument, and I will prove it. These pastors of the people have, by their zeal, piety, and exemplary lives, prevailed upon their people without an Act of Parliament to cease from drinking intoxicating liquors on Sundays. That may be and is all very well: but if you pass an Act of Parliament in this House preventing people from having liquor on Sunday's—pari passu with these illustrious prelates—that Act will not only be without force in Ireland, but that which has already been done by the gentle counsel and example of these illustrious priests will cease to have effect; and not only the people in those portions of Ireland which have not yet been brought over by the pressure of the Bishops will rebel against the Act, but also those in that portion
  2022
  which observes the Sunday closing principle will rebel against the gentle pressure put upon them by the Bishops, simply because of the coercive character of the Act. Under these circumstances. I shall oppose this Bill to the last as a piece of injustice, and as tending to establish one law for the rich and another for the poor.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 110: Majority 91.
  Main Question proposed.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

CRYSTAL PALACE (SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS LICENCE).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON SIR WILFRID LAWSON moved for—
  "A Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors, contrary to the express provisions of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act."
  The hon. Baronet explained that the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company had applied for a spirit licence in addition to a wine and beer licence, but the magistrates declined to accede to their request, and only granted a certificate for wine and beer. Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue Department—contrary, he believed, to law—had granted a spirit licence in addition to one for wine and beer. The Motion which he now made was for the production of the certificate. He wanted to have the matter put right, and to ascertain whether the proceeding was without the authority of the Company's Act of Parliament. He had had to fight for the same sort of thing before in his own county. He told the Revenue officers at the time that they were, acting contrary to the law, and he had to contend against the magistrates, the magistrates' clerk, the police, and the excise, Ultimately he beat them all, and succeeded in getting the man fined because he had obtained a licence contrary to law. In this case he believed that the Crystal Palace Company had obtained a licence contrary to law, and he did not see why they should be allowed to retain it simply because they were a great company. He thought

  2023
  that no one should be allowed to break the law with impunity.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors, contrary to the ex-press provision of the 18th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid he was unable to comply with the Motion of the hon. Baronet in the precise terms in which it stood upon the Paper. Yet he did not rise altogether for the purpose of opposing the Motion of the hon. Baronet. His only reason for raising an objection was this—that as the Motion stood upon the Paper it assumed that of which the House knew nothing, and of which it could know nothing—namely, that the Justices had acted contrary to the express provisions of an Act of Parliament. That was an argumentative statement contained in the Motion which it was hardly right to call upon the House to adopt. It assumed that which he thought the House had no right to assume, that the Justices, acting in their official capacity, had acted in direct contravention of the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet said in his Motion, as it appeared on the Paper, that the Justices had granted a certificate contrary to the express provisions of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONapologized for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but thought it might perhaps facilitate matters if he were to say that the officers of Excise were the persons who had broken the law, and not the Justices.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that was not the effect of the Motion which the hon. Baronet had placed upon the Paper. As to the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act, he was instructed that it was simply this:—"The expenses of this Act incidental thereto shall be borne by the Company." He evidently could not see what that had to do with the question which the hon. Baronet had raised. Therefore, he did object to the last words of the Motion, "contrary to the express provision of the 13th section of the Crystal Palace Company's Act;" but he had not the
  2024
  slightest objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the Justices' certificate.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "liquors," to the end of the Question."—(Mr. Secretary Crom.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing him to have the Return he had moved for. He was quite willing to omit from the Motion the words to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected. His main object was simply to obtain a copy of the certificate. He did not blame the magistrates; but he certainly did object to the course which the officers of the Inland Revenue Department had taken. What the magistrates did was this: They gave the licence, and they said, "You can have your licence for beer and wine, but you are not to have it for spirits or anything contrary to the Act of Parliament." Yet, in spite of that, the officers of the Inland Revenue Department gave them a licence for spirits; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would see that he did not blame the magistrates in the slightest degree. He had no objection, however, to leave out of the Motion the words to which the right hon. Gentleman objected.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Justices' Certificate upon which the Inland Revenue Department has issued a Licence to the Directors of the Crystal Palace for the sale of spirituous liquors.

TICHBORNE PROSECUTION.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. WHALLEY MR. WHALLEY moved for a Return—
  "of the sum expended in relation to the Tichborne Prosecution and all proceedings arising out of and connected therewith or resulting therefrom, and in such Return to specify the amount paid to each witness examined, and also to such persons as were subpoenaed to attend as witnesses, but were not called upon to give evidence."
  The reason, he said, why he did so was that it came to his knowledge that a considerable number of witnesses were kept in London to whom large sums of money were paid, and were sent back

  2025
  without being examined. He could not properly call attention to the manner in which the prosecution was conducted unless he had the names of persons who came from a great distance, some from Ireland and elsewhere. He brought the subject under the notice of the Treasury, but it was of no use; and he might state that if any objection were made to the present Return he would take it in any form.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there he laid before this House, a Return of the sum expended in relation to the Tichborne Prosecution and all proceedings arising out of and connected therewith or resulting therefrom, and in such Return to specify the amount paid to each witness examined, and also to such persons as were subpoenaed to attend as witnesses, but were not called upon to give evidence."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHregretted that he was not able to comply with the terms of the Motion. It was contrary to all precedent and to public policy to give the names of the witnesses; but he was prepared to give him information with regard to the amounts paid for counsels' fees, to witnesses, to law
  2026
  stationers, and to shorthand writers. The total cost was £55,315 17 s. 1d, The amount of counsels' fees was £23,642, of which £1,146 was paid in 1872–3, and £22,495 in 1873–4; the witnesses were paid in 1872–3 £823, in 1873–4 £8,839—total, £9,662. The shorthand writers had received £3,493; the jury, £3,780; law stationers and printing, £9,237. Of the whole costs £49,815 had been paid; the estimated amount of expenditure unpaid was, for Australian and Chili witnesses £4,000; other witnesses, agents, printing, &c, £1,500—total yet to pay, £5,500; making the total costs what he had stated £55,315 17 s. 1d. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion he would lay the whole particulars on the Table of the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion and take any Return the hon. Gentleman would give him.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next