Commons Sitting of 18 March 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Police Superannuation Funds, appointed; Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Medical Act Amendment* [100].
Second Reading—Linen and Yarn Halls (Dublin) * [90]; Open Spaces (Metropolis) * [50], debate farther adjourned.
Committee—Artizans Dwellings [1]—R.P.; Mutiny—R.P.
Committee—Report—Glebe Lands (Ireland) * [23].
Third Reading—Regimental Exchanges [3], and passed; East India Home Government (Pensions) [74], debate further adjourned; Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [72]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation* [81], and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW—LAW OF EVIDENCE—THE SHORNCLIFFE MURDER.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a soldier whose throat was so severely cut as to prevent his utterance, and who therefore wrote "Morgan done this," at the same time indicating Morgan; and, if so, whether his attention has been further called to the withdrawal of such writing by the counsel for the prosecution in consequence of a doubt expressed by the presiding judge, and endorsed by the Lord Chief Justice, as to its admissibility in evidence; and, whether, with a view to prevent the possible failure of justice, he will make provision by legal enactment to remove any doubt which may exist as to the admissibility of such evidence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in answer to the first Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that my attention has been directed to the report in The Times of Friday last of the trial and conviction, on the previous day, at Maidstone, of John Morgan, for the murder of his comrade, a soldier named Joseph Foulkstone. It appears from that report, that, immediately after he had been wounded, Foulkstone rushed from the place where he had been attacked into an adjoining but, and there, being unable, by reason of the wound in his throat, to speak, wrote certain words upon a piece of paper. It does not appear, from the report to which I have referred, what were the words which were so written, though they were probably to the effect stated in the Question. I should add that Morgan was not present when they were written, and that the action of Foulkstone, which my hon. and gallant Friend refers to as "indicating Morgan," occurred, not at the same time, but at a somewhat later period. In answer to the second Question, I have to state that the counsel for the prosecution, having at one period of the trial
  16
  tendered the writing in evidence, appears to have subsequently abstained from putting it in, in consequence of an intimation by the presiding Judge, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that, in the event of his admitting it, he should consider it his duty to reserve the question of its admissibility for the Court for Crown Cases Reserved; and in my humble opinion the counsel for the prosecution exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the document, for, had the evidence been admitted and the admission been subsequently held erroneous, the conviction would have been set aside, however cogent the other evidence might have been. To the third Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, whether, with a view to prevent the possible failure of justice, I will make provision by legislative enactment to remove any doubt which may exist as to the admissibility of such evidence, I can only reply in the negative. As the House is aware, the law recognizes the admissibility in evidence, in certain cases, of the declarations, whether verbal or in writing, of a dying man; but it is essential that the person making the declaration should at the time of making it be under the firm conviction that he is dying; and any hope of recovery, however slight, would render the evidence inadmissible; the principle upon which evidence of this kind is admitted being that a person who believes himself to be at the point of death has imposed upon him an obligation to speak the truth equal to that which is created by an oath administered in Court. In Morgan's case, so far as I can judge, the doubt, such as it was, which existed as to the admissibility of the writing, arose from the absence of any direct evidence, though the surrounding circumstances pointed in that direction, that Foulkstone believed himself to be dying, it being clear, as well from experience as from the authority of decided cases, that such belief cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the dying man had received a wound of a nature to render death inevitable, or that his death occurred very shortly after the making of his declaration. I think, Sir, under the circumstances, that any alteration of the law in the direction suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would have the effect of causing, rather than preventing, a possible failure of justice.

MASTER AND SERVANT ACT—CASE OF JOHN CORRY.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will give the benefit of the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Master and Servant Act (to the effect that a simple breach of contract should not be criminally punished) to all persons now under punishment for that offence; and, in such case, whether he will order the immediate release of John Corry, a farm servant, lately sentenced to be imprisoned for two months in Carlisle Gaol for a broach of contract in 1873?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am always ready to inquire into any case that is brought before me where a prisoner has been convicted, and believes he has some reason why he should be pardoned. In every particular case a very careful examination is made; and I am perfectly willing to take the step of giving advice to Her Majesty, where I feel that I ought to do so; but I must entirely decline, with the permission of the House, to answer any such general inquiry as the hon. Gentleman has placed on the Paper to-night. With regard to the prisoner John Corry, all I have to say is, that no application whatever has been made to the Home Office in his favour.

CRIMINAL LAW—UNCONVICTED PRISONERS—PRISON REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the ease that persons remanded by a magistrate, unconvicted of any offence, can be compelled to scrub the floor of their cells, while there are many prisoners and other persons willing to do this work for a small remuneration
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I really think, Sir, I ought not to be called upon to answer Questions of this kind. But as to this Question, I must refer my hon. Friend to the Prison Rules, which are made by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and are approved by the Secretary of State. By those rules every prisoner is bound to keep his cell and the articles therein clean and in order, and beyond that I have nothing to say. ["Hear!"]

THE ORANGE FREE STATE REPUBLIC.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to print and lay before Parliament, Copy of the following Correspondence—namely, that which has taken place, 1st, between Her Majesty's High Commissioner in South Africa and the President of the Orange Free State Republic; 2nd, between the said President and Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies; and 3rd, between Her Majesty's said Secretary of State and the said High Commissioner, the whole of said Correspondence dating from and having reference to the occasion of Her Majesty's High Commissioner taking possession of certain territory which (including the diamond fields) was then and is still claimed to be the territory of the aforesaid Republic, and which is alleged to have been surrendered only under protest and to superior force
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, that those Papers relating to affairs in South Africa were in course of preparation. They contained Correspondence relative to the hon. Gentleman's Question, and he hoped they would be presented to Parliament shortly.

INDIA—CASE OF CAPTAIN J. B. CHATTERTON.—QUESTION.
SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Captain J. B. Chatterton, late of the Bengal Staff Corps; and, whether it is true that that officer, while a patient in the hospital at Calcutta in 1869, suffering from contraction of the left leg, certified by seven medical officers, was turned out of the hospital, and thus left without the means of defraying his passage to England or of obtaining further medical assistance; further, if it true that he was at the same time placed upon half-pay, which half-pay he was then informed was not payable to him in India, and that, in consequence of this treatment, this officer, as he alleges, was left without the means of defraying his passage to England (contrary to the covenant existing between the late East India Company and their

19
officers) or of obtaining medical assistance; and, further, is it true, as this officer alleges, that he has thus been made a cripple for life, that he has ever since been under medical treatment, and has undergone several surgical operations?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, my attention has been directed to the case of Captain Chatterton, though I have no information as to the circumstances under which he left the hospital at Calcutta in April, 1869. The Government of India, in 1869, reported that Captain Chatterton persisted in representing himself as unfit for duty from illness, although medical opinion was against him. They suggested that his representation should be adopted, and that, being unfit for effective service, he should be placed upou the retired list. The Secretary of State concurred in this recommendation, and Captain Chatterton was placed upon half-pay on the 13th of April, 1869, and he quitted India in July following. Captain Chatterton is mistaken in supposing that any covenant existed between him and the East India Company, by which the Indian Government were bound to pay his passage home. A passage was obtained for him by the Government of Madras, the cost of which has been deducted in small instalments from his half-pay. I can give no information in reply to the last Question, except that letters have been written by Captain Chatterton to the Secretary of State, stating that he is a cripple and has undergone surgical operations.

SCOTLAND—THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RAMSAYasked the First Commissioner of "Works, Whether the Ordnance Survey of the Mainland of Argyllshire and of the Islands which form part of that county (which was commenced upwards of forty years since) is ever to be completed; and, if so, when maps of the same may be expected to be published?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, the survey of the mainland of Argyllshire was commenced, not 20 years ago, but in 1859, and it is finished. The plans on 25-inch scale of the cultivated districts have been published, and also those on the 6-inch scale for the greater part of the county. "With regard to the Isles, the survey of them all has been
  20
  completed, except Islay and Jura, and these will be proceeded with early in the summer. I may mention that, in consequence of the deputation which waited on me last year, including the hon. Member, and my noble Friend the Member for Argyllshire (the Marquess of Lorne), the surveyors were at work through the winter, but, owing to the excessive rains, they have not made the progress I hoped for; but no pains will be spared to push on the survey as rapidly as possible.

NAVY—NAVIGATING OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state how many qualified Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants are now employed in navigating duties, and how many are now qualifying under Admiralty Circulars of 1873 and 1874; whether he proposes to take any further steps for enlarging the scope of those proposals; and, whether he has now arrived at any determination in reference to offering a scheme of retirement or amalgamation to the navigating Lieutenants and Staff Commanders, with the view of the gradual abolition of a separate grade of officers for navigating duties?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, two lieutenants and 13 sub-lieutenants have qualified for navigating and pilotage duties under the Circulars of 1873 and 1874; four lieutenants and 11 sub-lieutenants are qualifying. More volunteers have been called for to undertake those duties, and it is proposed to select 30 to qualify themselves during the year. With regard to the last Question, I am not prepared to announce any determination at present, as I consider this subject, and that of the executive officers of the Navy must be dealt with as a whole.

ARMY—KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Knightsbridge Barracks are about to undergo a process of reconstruction; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to keep up those barracks as a permanent building, or to remove them; and, if so, when?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he was not aware that any such project as the reconstruction of the Knightsbridge Barracks was contemplated.

THE JUDICATURE ACT.—QUESTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Judicature Act of 1873?
MR. DISRAELI: I might, Sir, take a Parliamentary objection, I think, to the Question of the hon. Baronet. It is not, generally speaking, conducive to the convenience of the House that the policy of the Government should be made known to the Houses of Parliament by means of a forced Answer to an abrupt loading Question put by a private Member. If the Question is treated with reserve, it leads naturally to misconception; and if, on the contrary, it is treated with that frankness, which I, for one, wish always to extend to the House, the Minister is placed in a false position by apparently according to an individual, of his own motion, that which he would prefer, as a matter of courtesy, to communicate to the House in a formal and more convenient manner. But after these remarks—which I think I am justified in making in the present instance—and looking to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I will inform the House that after the holidays the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, will state the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to take with regard to the Judicature Act of 1873.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT PRISON AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOWEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is now in the convict prisons of England room for the penal servitude convicts confined in the prison at Gibraltar; whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to abide by the decision arrived at by the late Government to abolish this prison as soon as sufficient accommodation could be provided in the English prisons; and, whether if this decision be set aside, the change is due to more favourable reports of the condition
  22
  and discipline of the prisons at Gibraltar?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, there was now room enough in the public prison to accommodate the convicts at Gibraltar. No convicts had been sent from England to Gibraltar since the winter of 1871; the prisoners at present confined there would as soon as convenient be brought home, and the prison at Gibraltar would be closed. Should it be found absolutely necessary to employ convict labour at Gibraltar, wholly new arrangements would have to be made; but no step would be taken in that direction until after full inquiry into the whole subject.

NAVY—IRONCLAD SHIPS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he proposes to remove the names of the ironclad ships which he has stated to be unfit for sea service and not worth repair from the list of the steamships and vessels of the Royal Navy in the Navy List, &c. to a list of vessels for Harbour Service; and, if he will state to the House the names of the ships in question?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that there would shortly be a new classification of the Navy List, and the iron-clad vessels which would be placed on the list for harbour service would be the Lord Clyde, the Royal Oak, the Prince Consort, the Caledonia, the Zealous, the Ocean, and the Enterprise.

ARMY—DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MAJORS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has been able to consider the claims advanced by the Distinguished Service Majors; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state how he proposes to deal with them?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that their case would be referred to the Promotion and Retirement Commission.

THE REVISED STATUTES.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there will be any objection to authorise the supply of copies of the Revised Statutes, published by the Statute Law

23
Committee, to Members who may apply for them, in the same manner as the Journals of the House are now supplied?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that, as the Revised Statutes were printed by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, at their own expense and risk, he was not prepared to authorize the supply of copies to Members who might apply for them.

THE INDIAN MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What steps have been taken to establish an Indian Museum in London; whether the arrangements which have been adopted, or are contemplated, will throw any charge on the revenues of India; and, whether, if there have been any Minutes on the subject by Members of the Council of the Secretary of State, he has any objection to lay these Minutes on the Table of the House?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, an Indian Museum has existed in London for 75 years, having been established by the East India Company in 1800. It has been enriched by the collections of many Orientalists, and was removed from the East India House to Fife House, and thence to an upper floor of the India Office. The space there allotted to it was, however, insufficient to display the articles, and, the room being urgently required for other purposes, it was in 1874 determined to remove the Museum for three years to South Kensington, rather than incur the expense of erecting a new building. The Department of the Reporter on Indian Products, who is also Director of the Museum, having also been found quite inadequate to meet the constant demands for information made by the Government of India, it was determined at the same time to increase the strength of the establishment under him. This, however, is only a temporary arrangement for three years. The expenditure thus incurred will throw an additional charge upon the revenues of India; but the cessation of annual exhibitions, in which India has borne a part, affords a saving more than equivalent. The present arrangement is temporary. As soon as any permanent decision is arrived
24
at, I shall be very glad to give my hon. Friend any Papers or Minutes written by Members of Council; but I do not think at present it would, be advisable, pending such decision, to lay Papers upon the Table of the House necessarily inadequate and incomplete.

NAVY—H.M.S. "DEVASTATION."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, "Whether there is any truth in a report that Her Majesty's ship "Devastation" is about to be sent to the Mediterranean?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, it was intended to send the Devastation to Malta next month attended by the Hercules.

ARMY—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether militia adjutants who signify their acceptance of the proposed retiring pension scheme before the 1st of July next, will be compulsorily retired on and from that date, or whether their services will be required for any further period; in the latter case, whether such service will count towards pension?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the proposal at present was that those Militia adjutants who agreed to accept the retiring pension scheme on the 1st of July next would not be compulsorily retired, but would be allowed to complete this year's training of the regiment, nor would they be compulsorily retired afterwards as long as their services were required. Such prolonged time would count towards their pensions. He thought, however, the best plan would be to extend the time from the 1st of July to the 1st of October, which would cover the time of training. Some Militia adjutants, he was informed, thought some slur was cast upon them by the proposal for their retirement; but this idea was quite a mistaken one.

ROUMANIA—THE OUTRAGE ON MR. AND MRS. DODSHAM.—QUESTION.
MR. PEASEasked the Under Secretary State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the case of Mr.

25
and Mrs. Dodsham, who were attacked by a gang of brigands near Galatz on Sunday the 7th February; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in reference to this outrage? He might say that he had lately obtained information which had satisfied him that the accounts in the newspapers were not exaggerated.
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that he was not surprised at the Question, for it was impossible to describe in too strong terms the barbarity and gross cruelty of the outrage. As soon as information respecting the outrage reached the Foreign Office instructions were sent to the British Consul in Roumania to urge the Government to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice as soon as possible.

CRIMINAL LAW—EXPENSES OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to obviate the inconveniences connected with the present system of disallowances of expenses of criminal prosecutions?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, this matter had been under the consideration of" the late and of the present Government for some time, and his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury would in the course of a few days lay upon the Table a Treasury Minute that would dispose of the subject in a manner satisfactory to the country. The evils now complained of were very serious. With regard to prosecutions at sessions, the expenses, after being taxed by the local officer, were taxed again in London, so that it was not in the power of the local authority to recoup itself for any money which might have been wrongly paid. To remedy this state of things it would be proposed that a sum should be paid on the average of sessional prosecutions. With regard to cases tried at the Assizes, the grievance was still greater, for there was no county officer to tax the costs which were retaxed afterwards in London. Thus though the county bad no control in the matter, it had to pay anything which might have been wrongly allowed. It was intended to
  26
  remove this injustice to local jurisdictions.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE FRESCOES.—QUESTION.
MR ERRINGTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering how successful the treatment of Mr. Richmond, E.A., has been in preserving the frescoes by Maclise in the Royal Gallery from the destruction which threatened them, he will avail himself of the advice and services of the same distinguished artist and of his colleagues on the late Committee of Inquiry, to arrest the decay of such of the other frescoes as are not already too far gone?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, the only frescoes that require examination or show decay are those in the upper waiting hall, and also the four that are in the House of Lords. Since last Session, and on the representation of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), I arranged that Mr. Cope should restore his frescoes in the Lords' Gallery, and they have since been glazed. It is my intention to consult with my noble Friend (Lord Hardinge) and the Members of that distinguished Assembly as to what steps should be taken next, and I hope to state the result after Easter, when the Estimates of my Department are before the House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—UNSEA-WORTHY SHIPS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the "Marquis of Lorne" sailed from Glasgow recently so loaded that she had only 2 feet 2½ inches of side her depth of hold being 17 feet 2-tenths, although she had the dangers of the Bay of Biscay to encounter; to the case of the "Arthur," also from Glasgow, having a depth of hold of 17 feet 3 inches with a freeboard of only 2 feet 6 inches on the port side, and 2 feet 1 inch on the starboard, she also having to cross the Bay of Biscay; and to the case of the "Dania," which sailed from Shields for Malta with a depth of hold of 16 feet 3 inches, and a clear side of 14 inches only on the port side, and of 3 feet 1 inch on the starboard; and, whether any steps were taken by the Board of Trade to

27
prevent the sailing of these ships in this condition?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the freeboard of the Marquis of Lorne was as stated in the Question; but the length of the poop and forecastle added so materially to the buoyancy of the ship that it was not considered right to stop her. The draught of water as shown by these Returns, which are communicated to the hon. Member, taken alone, is a very imperfect and misleading test of seaworthy loading. To stop a ship on that test alone would be unjust, mischievous, and leading to costly reversal. The principal surveyors of the Board of Trade are at this moment on a circuit with a view of establishing a practice on which the Board of Trade may satisfactorily act in this difficult question of overloading. In the case of the Arthur the ship was stopped by the Board of Trade and lightened of 130 tons of cargo. In the ease of the Dania the information arrived by telegram on a Saturday night, and was received too late to be acted upon, even if desirable. The question is one of list; the mean of the two freeboards would be sufficient, if after starting the ship was trimmed.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a case has recently come to his knowledge in which a shipowner discharged a captain of a ship for refusing to take her to sea without some means were adopted to prevent her cargo from shifting, on the ground that she would inevitably founder if he did, she being loaded in bulk with Indian corn; whether the owner did not thereupon engage another captain, and insist upon sending the ship to sea, which subsequently foundered with all hands; and, whether he will order a prosecution of the shipowner under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1873?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I gather from the Question that I know the case referred to, though it is not named; and, if I am right, the case has been under investigation at Greenwich, and the result is to disprove the rumour as stated in the Question. The ship capsized, as is known from the captain and other survivors, and the Report of the inquiry will be published shortly.

MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will take into his consideration the possibility of reducing the heavy fees now paid by the Military Knights of Windsor upon their appointment, and a similar fee upon their removal from the Lower Foundation to the Royal Foundation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is true, Sir, that the fees have hitherto been very excessive. A great number of forms and ceremonies have been gone through; and the fees payable by these poor persons have been £4 7s. 6d. on their original appointment, and £4 7s.6d. on their promotion to the Upper Foundation. This subject has been under the consideration of the Government for some time, and I am happy to state that an arrangement has now been come to by which the mode of appointment has been much simplified, and the fees will not amount to more than 30 s. on the original appointment, and 30 s. on promotion. Through the kindness of the present Chancellor of the Order and his Secretary they make no objection to this arrangement coming into force at once, during the lifetime of the persons entitled to those fees.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND)—THE REVISED CODE, 1875.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will reconsider the terms of Clause 115 in the New Code, so as to secure that scholars shall pass in the three subjects in the standard prescribed under the various Acts for regulating the education of children employed in labour; and, whether he will more clearly define the words "prescribed by the Act," so as to include all regulations, whether Parliamentary or Departmental, relating thereto?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the provision of the New Code, by which certificates under the various Acts for regulating the education of children employed in labour would be granted to children who passed in two out of the three subject, of the

  29
  standard prescribed by or under those Acts, was inserted solely for administrative reasons connected with the examination of these scholars. As the House is aware, if a child fails to pass in only one of the three subjects he will have to be presented next time in a higher standard, and hence considerable difficulty arose as to meeting the case of children who failed to pass in one of the subjects in the Standard, on the passing which they could no longer by law be kept in school, and who still, on being re-examined, would have to be presented under a higher Standard than the various Acts prescribed. I have never, however, been satisfied with our solution of the difficulty in this year's Code, as I think it was the intention of Parliament that when a child was compelled by law to pass a certain Standard he should have acquired that knowledge of all the three subjects—reading, writing, and arithmetic—which the standard prescribed, whether 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th, implies. We have again given the subject careful consideration, and I am happy to say that at we see our way to getting over the difficulty by means of the various arrangements for examination which we have made in the New Code to meet the requirements of the Labour Acts. We shall, therefore, alter the wording of Clause 115, so as to secure that children must pass in the three subjects of the prescribed Standards before receiving a certificate under these Acts. I may mention, however, that we had a precedent for our former arrangement in the provisions of the Scotch Education Act of 1872, passed by the late Government, and which I suppose would be considered by them as the crowning work of the most advanced educationists, whereby a child is only required to read and write to enable him to claim exemption from compulsory attendance at school upon going to work. As to my hon. Friend's second Question, I will take care that such verbal amendment is introduced as to make it quite clear that the Standards alluded to are all those in any way prescribed under the various Acts; and I hope shortly to lay upon the Table these alterations of the Code, together with a few others which will be chiefly based on the valuable suggestions thrown out in the debate upon the Code by Gentlemen of knowledge in these matters on both sides of the House, and which, I
  30
  have reason to believe, will be generally acceptable to the country.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERS: I wish, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether it is intended, under the Regimental Exchanges Bill, that a field officer permitted to exchange should serve for the remainder of his original term of five years, or for the remainder of the term of the officer with whom he exchanges?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, under the existing system of exchange precisely the same question would arise as under the Regimental Exchanges Bill, should it become law. No alteration whatever is made by the Bill in respect to it; and under the present Royal Warrant and Regulations there is no prohibition on the exchange of field officers. Exchanges in such cases, if sanctioned, would in no way interfere with the original position of either officer as regards the tenure of his appointment as field officer. Each would carry his own liabilities.

THE NEW FOREST SHAKERS—CASE OF MISS WOOD.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the re-arrest of Miss Wood, a member of the Shaker community, and whether they considered that the fact that she was arrested, set at liberty, and re-arrested within a few hours, was in accordance with the law?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am glad to have the opportunity of making some explanation as to the re-arrest of Miss Wood, because out-of-doors the case seems to have been misapprehended. There has been no interference on the part of any one in order to secure her release. Miss Wood was put into confinement on the report of certain medical persons. When the medical certificate was examined in the first instance it was found defective. It was therefore sent back with the request that it might be amended in accordance with the statute, and in the course of time an amended certificate came. That amended certificate was also found defective,

31
and thereupon Miss Wood was discharged. Afterwards certain other medical men examined Miss "Wood and signed a strong certificate as to her insanity, and under that certificate, as to the validity of which there is no dispute, she is still confined. But the attention of the Commissioners in Lunacy has been specially called to her case, and I am promised that a report respecting it will be made in a few days. As to the question whether I considered the law which authorized her re-arrest satisfactory, I should like to reserve my opinion.

ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 1.]
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbctson.)
ARTIZANS DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 1.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. MUNTZ, who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
  "That it is expedient to make such provisions in the Bill as would allow purchasers or lessees of areas referred to in Clauses 5 and 7 to provide accommodation for persons of the working classes to he displaced in such areas, in such places other than the areas as might after duo investigation he sanctioned by the local authorities, "
  said, that he would not proceed with the Resolution, as the subject might be better discussed in Committee.
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He said, when the Bill was read a second time, a very short time had elapsed since the Bill was introduced, and many Members had not had an opportunity of examining its provisions. It was a measure free from all Party considerations, but was one of great importance, inasmuch as it deeply affected not only those specially mentioned in it, but, he might say, all classes of the community. It involved the health of all large towns, and indirectly the moral condition of the lower portion of the population. He proposed the Amendment from a conviction that it would be impossible to bring the Bill into a workable shape, and make it harmonize with the existing law, unless it was submitted to a Select Committee. The Bill, according to the Preamble, sought to do two things—first, it provided for the removal
  32
  of dwellings which had been proved to be injurious to health; and, secondly, it declared it to be expedient that provision should be made for erecting suitable dwellings for the working classes thus displaced. Whether such a course as the latter was expedient could not be fully discussed in this House; and, in his opinion, the Bill, as it was drawn, failed to carry out what it recited in the Preamble to be expedient. Before passing on to what the Bill could accomplish, it was highly desirable to bear in mind what could be done under the existing law, for nothing could create greater confusion than the re-enacting of laws to do that which there was power to do already. As far as related to the removal of unhealthy dwellings and their improvement, ample powers were given by the Act of 1868—Torrens's Act—and he could not see the utility of ignoring that Act in the framing of this Bill. It was quite true the Act of 1868 contained no powers for the erection by the local authorities of dwellings in the room of those that were pulled down; but whether that should be done was a point which must be thoroughly discussed at some period or other. While the Preamble recited that it was expedient to erect dwellings for the artizan class in the place of those that might be removed, the only provision in the Bill on that subject was of a negative character—namely, that the local authorities should not themselves do so without the consent of the Local Government Board. But nothing could be more unfortunate and mischievous than to permit local authorities to become proprietors of dwellings for the working classes in competition with private owners. Either there would be just complaints from private owners that the local authorities were letting dwellings built out of the rates at rents unfairly low, or artizans would raise an outcry that the local authorities were not doing that which the Legislature intended they should do. Now, he held that Parliament should not assist the artizan class out of the rates unless it was dealing with them as paupers. He asked the House whether the provisions in this Bill as to these restrictions being simply subject to the approval of a Government Department would be efficient and satisfactory in their working. If such restrictions were to be adopted they

  33
  should be laid down by Parliament itself. That was one reason why he thought the Bill should go to a Select Committee. Besides this, the House was aware that in 1872 an Act was passed, called the Public Health Act, combining all the Acts applicable to sanitary purposes under one title. Although the Artizans Dwellings Act, 1868, was one of the Sanitary Acts, it was not one of those included in the Consolidation Bill which had been laid on the Table. It would, therefore, remain in force, along with that which they were now discussing, in all towns and boroughs with more than 25,000 inhabitants. He could not think that a good specimen of consolidation. With the single exception of the special power of expending public money in the erection of these dwellings, he did not see anything in this Bill which could not properly be incorporated by small amendments on the other Sanitary Acts, without encumbering the Statute Book. He could not enter into a discussion of the probable effects of the Bill without remembering one or two painful circumstances. Much had been said about the benefits accruing from the removal of blocks of wretched property in the metropolis and the substitution of those valuable institutions—dwellings for the working classes. He rejoiced that such buildings had been erected; but let them not delude themselves by supposing that these superior buildings were occupied by the same class as those who inhabited the destroyed property. The reports of those new dwellings, satisfactory as they were, showed that they were occupied by a more respectable, industrious working population. Therefore, as regarded the displaced class—the most wretched, degraded, and unfortunate part of the population—these buildings left the sanitary question untouched. He did not expect this Bill would deal with that class. Either from dissolute habits or otherwise, they were unable to pay the rents charged for the new dwellings, and they were obliged to seek their residence elsewhere, as best they could. Indeed, they were little more than half paupers, and would have to be dealt with as such. What such a measure as the present should do was to give the local authorities full power to lay down restrictions for securing open streets, properly constructed
  34
  houses, and sufficient ventilation; and also to remove structures which were injurious to health. The evils now existing might be traced in a large number of instances to a simple cause—to the individual owner of property dealing with it as he pleased, regardless of the consequences to his neighbours. The borough he had the honour to represent (Salford) had statutory powers with reference to the arrangement of dwellings and for securing free ventilation superior to almost any other in the Kingdom. If these powers were possessed and carried into effect in all towns, very beneficial results would arise in the future. He attached great importance to their having decisive evidence as to unhealthy districts, without being left to mere opinion on the report of a medical officer. This could be accomplished, as it had been in Salford, by ceasing to rely exclusively on the average death rates for a whole community furnished by the Registrar General and obtaining the death rates for small local areas. In this way it was shown in Salford that, while the average was 26 or 28 per 1,000, there were small areas in which it was 50, 60, or 70, while there were suburban areas in which it was 17 or 18. He was anxious to see some provision made whereby it should be compulsory on the local authorities to have the death rate in the different localities published regularly, believing, as he did, that if it were once made clear to the public that such deadly places existed at their doors, means would speedily be taken to cure the evil. In that way more good would be done probably than could be effected by the provisions of this Bill. With respect to the medical officers, he did not like the way in which the Bill was drawn, because it imposed on them certain duties which already obviously belonged to them, and in that respect would rather afford them an excuse for neglecting their duties in other cases to which their attention was not directed. As to how far this Bill was likely to have practical effect, it was, in the first place, dependent on the action of the local authorities who were so fenced around that they would be able readily to find abundant excuses for not incurring the necessary expenditure. There were under this Bill various conditions precedent, which, in the majority of cases, would furnish the local authorities with excuses for doing

  35
  nothing at all. Then, it was not a mere question of increased death rate that was to be the ground for action on the part of the medical officers, but the prevalence of certain diseases, indicating a low condition of public health; but at present we tolerated an extent of disease which would alarm us if it were epidemic instead of being constant. Further, after the medical officer had made his report, there were again certain conditions precedent to action on the part of the local authorities, who, among other things, must be satisfied of the advantage that would accrue to the district from the application of the remedy. With regard to the improvement scheme which the local authority was to provide, he was at a loss to know exactly what was included in that scheme. As it stood in the Bill, it would be almost if not quite impracticable in the great majority of cases. The question of providing for persons displaced by the pulling down of houses suitable dwellings within a given area or district involved serious difficulties, which were only partially met by the way in which it was proposed to amend that part of the Bill. The hon. Member was proceeding to comment minutely on the clauses of the Bill, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was going through the Bill clause by clause, as well as various Amendments to those clauses which were upon the Paper, and which would at the proper time come under consideration in Committee. The hon. Member was quite at liberty to discuss the main provisions of the Bill, but not to proceed in detail through the clauses.
  MR. CAWLEYbegged pardon for being out of Order. He was sorry to be guilty of transgressing the Rules of the House; his object was not to discuss the Bill clause by clause, but to show that, according to its general principles, it was impossible to carry out its main provisions, and should therefore be referred for consideration to a Select Committee. In discussing the principle of the measure he wished to refer only to clauses involving that principle. When the clauses were taken together, the effect of the Bill was to seek to stereotype for ever the class of buildings which were to be built upon the land acquired for the purposes of the Act.
  36
  When the clauses were read in connection with the Schedule the Bill went further, and not only sought to stereotype the use of the land for all time to come, but sought to do that in such a way as to deprive the owner of the property which existed now of the value that property might have, irrespective of the buildings that were upon them. Dealing with this as a general question, he ventured to suggest that nothing could be more unfortunate or mischievous than to attempt to stereotype a class of property in any particular part of our large towns. The owners, as the Bill now stood, were to be paid for the land according to the value of the property that was found upon it, regardless of the value of the ground as a site. If property of this kind was to be dealt with, it must be left subject to the operation of the laws of supply and demand hereafter. The Bill as it stood, and even as it was proposed to be amended, would prevent the owners of property in many cases from realizing the full value of their property, and prevent the development of commercial enterprize within important localities in the heart of our large towns. That part of the measure, therefore, ought not, he thought, to be allowed to pass. With reference to the Schedule, it was an amendment of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. It was, in fact, another Bill, containing as it did 33 clauses, while the Bill itself contained only 22. It was wrong in principle, in making that amendment applicable only to property taken from a particular class; and, apart from that, he maintained that whatever amendments might be required in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act ought to be made not in this way but in a separate amending Bill, applicable to all cases where land was taken compulsorily. The method adopted in this Bill would be mischievous and unsatisfactory, and make the cost of acquiring property more expensive than at present. For these reasons, he would move that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He believed the tendency of the Bill was to give greater compensation to the owners of household property than they now received, and to

  37
  raise the rents on the occupants of their houses. Some change, no doubt, was required to be made; but he submitted that it ought to be at the expense of the owners of property, and not on the local authorities of a neighbourhood where it came into operation. He also believed that provision ought to be made for the conveyance of land at a more reasonable cost to purchasers, and without those heavy bills of costs to which they were now subject. For these and other reasons he thought it was desirable that it should be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. For his own part he believed, however, that the working classes had among themselves better means and greater facilities for carrying out the system than the means proposed by this Bill. Some 10 years ago a building and investment club was formed in Manchester called "The Queen's Society," and as he became an honorary member, and subsequently President, he wrote to the secretary a few days since to give him some information of what had been done. Well, the answer he received was this. The deposits of the club in bank amounted, in round numbers, to £4,000,000 sterling, and 5,000 dwelling-houses were erected capable of accommodating 30,000 people. If such valuable results could be obtained by workmen themselves, what, he asked, was the use of such a Bill as the present? He could only say to the working classes of other parts of the country, "Go thou and do likewise." As the present Bill stood, he submitted that it ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Cawley,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that with reference to the last observation of the hon. Member for Manchester, the object of this Bill was to enable him to say to parties who were desirous of building houses, "Go and do likewise." The difficulty was that courts and streets prejudicial to health belonged to owners who would not allow them to be removed; and the present Bill was introduced with the
  38
  object of overcoming that difficulty. He hoped the House would not approve the Motion, for if ever he had read a Bill simple in its character and well drawn, and proper for the House to deal with in Committee of the Whole House, it was the Bill now under consideration. Its principles and objects were contained in eight short clauses, three of which were explanatory; while the larger portion of the Bill dealt only with the machinery of arbitration. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) objected as to the ground on which public bodies should act, and did not seem to think that sickness and disease were the necessary ingredients to set a public body in motion. The object was to meet a general complaint which existed throughout the whole country, that unless some further provision was given to the local authorities for the purpose of removing buildings unfit for human habitation we should never get rid of the existing evil. Everything was provided for securing to the owners of property the fair marketable value of the land; and whether they were to build the cottages on precisely the same areas or not was a matter of simple detail. What the Bill provided was that where there were several owners, such as a freeholder, a lessee, and a sub-lessee, the local authorities should have the power of putting their finger upon a fever spot when it had been found so by the medical officer, with the object of getting rid of it. He trusted the House would see the necessity of dealing with a measure of this sort in the ordinary course.
  MR. FAWCETT, in venturing to point out some of the shortcomings of this Bill, trusted the House would do him the justice to suppose that he was no less anxious than any one else that all should be done which could be done to improve the dwellings of the people of this country. What he particularly alleged against this Bill was that its operation would be so cumbrous, costly, and complicated that it would prove inoperative. It might be said that if the Bill should prove inoperative no harm would be done; but he entered an emphatic protest against the policy of passing inoperative Acts of Parliament. If a strong Government, supported by a large majority, should pass a law which did nothing towards improving the dwellings of the people, the inevitable

  39
  effect would be to cause heavy discouragement to all future efforts and to give an impression that the question was beyond Parliamentary control. But he took a strong preliminary objection to the scope of the Bill. It was entitled the Artizans Dwellings Bill, and he called that class legislation. Why should the artizans of this country, more than any other section of the community, require Parliamentary protection? Artizans were independent, and could take care of themselves just as well as any other class. But the fact was that the title was vicious and misleading, because the artizans with whom it was proposed to deal were not those who dwelt in the metropolis or in any of our large towns; and it was to be regretted that throughout the Bill the words "working classes" were forever cropping up. They occurred even in the Preamble, and, in his opinion, most wrongly; for, was it not just as much a duty to provide a dwelling for a poor clerk or for the widow of a small tradesman as for a member of the working class? Why should that special favour be shown to the working class? Me thought that differentiating of a class and singling it out for special favour was a course that was fraught with the utmost peril, as it would encourage among persons of that class the idea that their interests were more worthy of the attention of Parliament than were the concerns and welfare of any other section of the community. Two exceptions contained in the Bill, he might add, appeared to him to be absolutely indefensible. How was the City of London excluded? It was very ingeniously brought into the first clause, but farther on it was provided that the expense of carrying out the Bill should be borne by the Metropolitan Board of Works, which should levy a general rate for the purpose, but that to that rate the City of London should not contribute. They knew, therefore, that the scheme would not be carried out in the City, and therefore the City would not contribute towards the expenses; but could it be said that the persons who lived by the thousand industries carried on in the City, and who were displaced by occasional clearances and improvements, were not just as well entitled to consideration as others who lived in different parts of the metropolis? And again, he was at a loss to know why the Bill
  40
  stopped short at a population of 25,000. An Act of a similar kind was passed in 1868, which went as low as a population of 10,000. Let them see what would happen under the Bill as it stood. Suppose a town with a population of 30,000, so as to come under the Bill, and contiguous to it another town with a population of 10,000, or village, as it would be termed in the north. Portions of the larger town being pulled down, the persons dislodged would be driven into the small contiguous town or village, and however unsatisfactory its condition might be, it would then be made ten times worse, and there was no legislation under the Bill to get over the difficulty. Besides, there would be the extraordinary anomaly that if the provisions of the Bill were carried out in the case of a town of 80,000 inhabitants, and if the Artizans Act of 1868 were put into operation in a neighbouring town with 15,000 inhabitants, the property dealt with in the two places would be removed under two entirely different principles of compensation, thus giving rise to all kinds of confusion, jealousies, and disputes. Now, there was, he contended, no justification for such exclusion as that to which he was referring. The heart-rending descriptions which had been given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the state of some of the courts and alleys in our large towns could be paralleled by those in the case of small towns and villages, especially under the operation of the Bill. Did not the right hon. Gentleman recollect how the public had been startled by the accounts which appeared in The Times last autumn as to the dreadful condition of Wiveliscombe? It was curious how anxious Gentlemen opposite seemed to be to remedy the evils in large towns, and how disinclined to do anything for those country districts which one would suppose were their special favourites. The sanitary state of many villages had been described by competent authority as "discreditable, disgraceful, horrible, and unworthy of a civilized and Christian country," while the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), now a trusted Member of the Conservative Party, had spoken of the sanitary condition of the villages in Shropshire as simply "infamous." The Bill, he would further observe, might be divided into two portions,

  41
  to be carried out on two principles which were confused, costly, and complicated. The first portion referred to the clearing of unhealthy areas; the second to the appropriation of those areas when cleared. The former would, in his opinion, lead to such enormous expense that it would prevent the Bill from being carried into effect. When an area was condemned, and the houses were to be cleared, the owners of the property would have to be compensated, and what was the principle of compensation adopted? Under the Act of 1868, which was now in force, if a house was condemned as being unfit for human habitation, the owner was punished by receiving for it the minimum rate of compensation; but under this Bill, when a house was condemned, the owner was to be compensated on a principle which would give him the very amount that he could realize. The Bill said that the owner of a house must be compensated at the market price of his property, and he was informed by competent authorities that in calculating the market price, an element which they would have to take into consideration would be the income which the house was yielding at the present time. Now, it was perfectly notorious that the more disgraceful, the more overcrowded, and the more deficient was the state of many of these houses, the larger was the income they yielded; and the ratepayers would therefore see their money lavishly paid to owners who had allowed their property to fall into such a condition that it had to be condemned as unfit for human habitation. He was told that ominous rumours were spreading of the purchase of this class of property by house speculators in the expectation of getting large compensation under this Bill. Fifteen ratepayers, and therefore 15 owners of these tumble-down habitations could set in operation this Act, under which their property would be bought at the full market price by the local authorities. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the local authorities, he would receive from them but one opinion—that the principle of compensation adopted in the Bill involved so much cost as to make it highly probable that it would produce but little beneficial effect. When hon. Gentlemen opposite sat on his side of the House, they said again and again that they
  42
  stood firm to the principle that no new charge whatever should be thrown on the rates until the incidence of local taxation was revised, and the system of local government was improved. He was afraid it would be found that strong declarations of the Party opposite, now that they were in power, would become as evanescent as the snow flakes that fell in a river. He wished the House to consider what would be the nature of the charge made on the ratepayers. The ground-rents of the new buildings would be equal to those of the old buildings, plus their annual value, plus the charge of bringing them into use, and plus the cost of arbitration, if the prices offered should be unsatisfactory. But, after all, the new buildings or the new sites might not be taken, and then the whole scheme would be inoperative. The money required was to be raised by loans, repayable, both principal and interest, in a fixed period of years. Supposing, therefore, the period was 21 years, the entire charge would fall on the leaseholder, while the owner, who had not contributed a penny, would reap the benefit by the improvement of the locality. Surely that would be a great injustice? All experience showed that if they cleared, for example, the courts and alleys of Drury Lane, and erected workmen's houses there, the now buildings would be tenanted by altogether a different class from those who had been displaced. He wished, further, to notice an extraordinary hiatus in the Bill, Clause 7 said the local authorities might sell or lease the land when cleared for the carrying out of the scheme of private individuals, or they might sell or lease it for the same purpose to a body of trustees; or, thirdly, they might, with the consent of the Government, carry out the scheme themselves. But supposing it cost £100,000 an acre to obtain and clear the land, and nobody was prepared to offer more than £10,000 an acre for if shackled by the proposed conditions as to rebuilding, and supposing the local authorities did not feel justified in accepting the £10,000, what then became of the scheme, and who was to carry it out? As the Bill stood, there was no security that the land; when cleared, would not he perfectly idle, and nothing more be done. The Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) confirmed

  43
  that view; because its effect was, that if at the end of three years the scheme had not been carried out, then the land should be sold in the open market, without any condition at all as to the scheme. There were three courses, any one of which might be adopted by the Home Secretary. If the local authority was not prepared to carry out a scheme of improvement, the land might be sold to a private individual on the condition that the scheme should be carried out; secondly, that when the ground was cleared, they should sell it for any purpose which would procure the highest price, so long as that purpose was not opposed to the health of the community, and provide in some other locality residences equal to the number of those who had been displaced; and, thirdly, the land which was cleared, might be sold for whatever purpose the circumstances of the neighbourhood rendered it most suitable, and the erection of new houses might be left to be decided by the ordinary considerations of supply and demand. He hoped that before going into Committee the Home Secretary would state distinctly which of these courses he proposed to adopt. If the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) pressed his Motion to a division, he (Mr. Fawcett) would vote with him, although he did not know where they would find five Members to sit upon it, the House having apparently gone "Select Committee mad," and every Member seeming to be engaged on one or more Select Committees. It was obvious that very little progress would be made with this Bill before Easter. The Notice Paper was crowded with Amendments, some of them to be proposed by the Home Secretary himself, and he (Mr. Fawcett) believed that it would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman committed it to-night pro formâ, and reprinted it with the Amendments which he proposed to make.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWobserved, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Fawcett's) objection to the Bill, on the ground of the enormous expense to the ratepayers which it would entail, that the Company with which he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was connected had carried out six or seven schemes which would prove that what at first appeared
  44
  to be a great loss to the ratepayers would by the time the Bill came into operation become a large gain to them. The first scheme to which he would refer was one of two in the large parish of St. Pancras. It provided 104 new dwellings. The old assessment was £125; the assessment on the new buildings was £950, and the net annual increase to the rates, and therefore to the pockets of the ratepayers, was £205, whilst the ground rent of the property was only £60. Again, 140 new tenements had been erected close to King's Cross (Metropolitan) Station. The assessment of the old dwellings was £340, producing a rate of £85 per year; the new assessment was £1,141, producing a rate of £360 a-year, being an annual increase of £275. The ground rent was £135 a-year. In Westminster 135 dwellings had been erected, and the annual increase to the rates was £226, the ground rent being only £120. In the parish of St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green, 112 tenements were erected, and the annual increase of the rates was £182, the ground rent being only £50. It thus appeared that the local authorities would get, in the shape of new rates, a sum which would more than cover the interest which they would have to pay on the money they borrowed. The hon. Member for Brighton complained that the Bill did not apply to villages and small towns. He agreed with all that the hon. Member had said as to the state of cottages in villages and small towns, and he hoped that, if this Bill were passed, the Government would bring in a Bill next year dealing with the evil of overcrowding in small towns and agricultural districts. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would feel that they ought to go into Committee on this Bill. The evils which called for remedy were disgraceful to the nation and to Parliament, who had a general charge of the nation's affairs.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that the main object of the Bill was the abatement of the fever-haunted dwellings which were unfit for human habitation in the metropolis and in other large towns, and to provide for the erection of other more suitable houses in their stead. Considering the encumbered position in which property of this miserable description usually was, it would be impossible to carry out the objects he had indicated I without some such measure as this, which

  45
  he believed would be effectual for the purpose in view. The Artizans Dwellings Act of 1868, although good as far as it went, was too limited in its operation to be effective, and did not afford the facilities which were required for dealing with the interests outstanding between the reversioner and the original lesser of properties, which were to be taken for the purposes contemplated. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), in calculating the market value of the property to be taken, had assumed that that value would be based on the amount of the annual income of the property; but there was a fallacy in that assumption, inasmuch as the market value of property of this description depended rather upon the security of the income and upon the trouble, risk, and expense of collecting it than upon the mere gross produce of the House. A good, well-established property in the City of London might be worth 25 to 30 years' purchase; but property of the wretched description that would be taken under this Bill might not be worth more than five or six years' purchase. In his opinion, the Bill afforded ample security for the impovement scheme being carried out, in the case of any property being acquired under its provision s. He trusted that it would not be referred to a Select Committee, but that the House would at once proceed to consider it in Committee.
  MR. GIBSONlooked upon the measure as most admirable, and as being calculated to deal in a practical manner with a very extensive evil. He had submitted the Bill to the Dublin Sanitary Association, and to the King and Queen's Society of Physicians in Dublin, with the result that both those bodies had sent to him for presentation to that House Petitions in favour of the provisions of the measure being extended to Ireland. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had committed an extraordinary mistake in saying that the City of London was excluded from the operation of the Bill. The fact was that in the City the jurisdiction under the measure would be given to the Commissioners of Sewers, while in the rest of the metropolis, exclusive of the City, it would be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The argument of the hon. Member for Hackney, as to the
  46
  result of the limit of population, would apply equally to towns of 5,000 as to towns of 25,000 inhabitants, for if people left the latter and went to smaller towns, because of the application of the Act, surely they might be expected to leave the former and proceed to country villages? For his part, he regarded the scope of the Bill as being more wide and beneficent than that of the Act of 1868. He was glad that the Government had a code furnished by the Irish Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, of the operation of which he had had much experience, and he did not doubt that the Bill would work well and give general satisfaction. He hoped the House would at once go into Committee on it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved, that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) were acquainted with metropolitan government, he would agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that the City was virtually excluded from the Bill. If the Bill passed it would not, in his opinion, be put into operation in the City, although it was urgently needed there. His own constitutents would be called upon to contribute large sums under the measure for the improvement of Drury Lane, for instance, and would have cause to protest strongly against the City being exempted from bearing its share of the expenditure.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that the Bill would now be allowed to go into Committee. He would not adopt the course so generously suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), because he was determined, so far as he was concerned, that the rookeries referred to should be abolished. If they were to send the Bill to a Select Committee in order that the Amendments of his hon. and learned Friend might be considered, it would be better for them at once to proceed to some practical piece of legislation. With respect to the Schedule, it was nothing more nor less than an incorporation with the Bill of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act had been in operation in Ireland for a very long time, and, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said, worked very effectually. It was also the fact that it worked cheaply and

  47
  conveniently. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) desired, with all due professions of favour, to strangle the Bill in another way. He suggested that the Amendments should be inserted in Committee pro formâ and the Bill withdrawn till after Easter. He must respectfully decline to adopt that course also, as they were determined that the rookeries should no longer be allowed to exist, that the health of the people should be cared for, and that what they considered the most inexpensive and effectual means of securing those objects should be provided. The hon. Member for Hackney was of opinion that the City of London would be excluded from the operation of the Bill; but he could assure the hon. Member that, as there were places in the City that must be dealt with, so the City would have to spend the funds necessary to deal with them. Then, again, the hon. Member asked why, if the government extended the Act to places of 25,000 inhabitants, they did not make it applicable to country districts in many of which evils existed as great as in the towns. The reason was that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that a different remedy would be required in those cases, and they were prepared in due time to apply the remedy which was in their minds. On the part of the Government he declined to apply this remedy, which he believed would work great good in large towns, to small villages, to which it would not be applicable. He believed that if they went into Committee they would be able to make the Bill a really workable measure which would do a great deal of good not only in the metropolis but in the country generally.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. FAWCETTasked whether the hon. Member for Maidstone's Amendments had been placed on the Paper with the consent of the Home Secretary?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would discuss the question when they came to it. He had merely suggested
  48
  to the hon. Member for Maidstone the form in which his Amendments would be fit for discussion.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that calling the Bill "The Artizans Dwellings Bill, 1875," would give rise to some misconception. Artizans were a superior class of working people, earning from 30 s. to 50 s. a week, who were not likely to want these dwellings. The Home Secretary said that the primary object of the Bill was the extirpation of rookeries; and, if so. "The Towns Improvement Bill, 1875," would be a better title. He moved an Amendment, given Notice of by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth), in page 1, line 28, to leave out "artizans',"and insert" workpeople's."
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHconsidered the title of the Bill rather misleading, and that it ought to be altered. Artizans were, generally, pretty well able to take care of themselves.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdeclined to accept the Amendment or the subsequent proposition of the hon. Baronet, on the ground that the Bill was never intended to be a Towns Improvement Bill. Its sole object was to provide better dwellings for a larger class of persons who were now compelled to crowd together in the wretched tenements too commonly found in large towns. He contended that he, as the author of the Bill, had a right to choose what title he pleased for it. He believed that he had selected the proper one.
  MR. STANSFELDsuggested that the Amendment would make the Bill more consistent.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved, that it was entitled a Bill for "facilitating the Improvement of the Dwellings of the Working Classes in Large Towns." If it was intended to build dwellings for the working classes, the name of the Bill ought to be changed, and the words "working classes "ought to be substituted for the word" artizans."
  MR. MUNDELLAcontended that the artizans, skilled labourers, receiving good wages, were, as a rule, able to take care of themselves. The Bill applied to a poorer and more helpless class, and a more general title would better describe its nature and scope. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as the author of the Bill, he had a right to

  49
  choose his own title. That might be—although he had always considered that the credit of this measure was due to his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth)—but he had no right, in his opinion, to choose a misleading one.
  MR. GOURLEYsupported the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the word "labourers" was used in conjunction with the word "artizans" in an Act passed a few years ago, and he had no objection to amend the clause by inserting the words "and labourers" after "artizans."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

  PART I.

    UNHEALTHY AREAS.
    1. Scheme by Local Authority.
    Clause 2 (Application of Act to certain districts and description of local authority).
    MR. J. COWENobjected that the clause omitted from the operation of the Bill towns which contained less than 25,000 inhabitants, and he moved an Amendment for the purpose of extending the operation of the clause to all urban sanitary districts as defined in the Sanitary Act of 1872.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from the word "England," to the words "and the local authority shall be as follows."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSadmitted that there were houses in towns with a population of 10,000 in quite as bad a condition as those in larger towns; but to such places the same remedies as those proposed in the Bill for large towns were not applicable. For instance, in small towns the land outside was easier to get than in large towns, and if any place wanted to improve, the best plan was to buy the ground and build the houses; but in this Bill they were taking very strong powers—calling on the ratepayers to pull down houses and see that proper dwellings were provided. That was a very costly process at the outset, though it would pay in the long run; but in small towns he thought that by a little extension of the
    50
    Act of 1868 the same results might be effected.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, who had an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member (Mr. Cowen), said, it was not always easy to get land outside a small town for building. For instance, in the case of Folkestone, where he lived, and which might be matched with any town in England for abominable and pestilential holes from which scarlatina and fever were never absent, no land could be obtained. The whole land outside the town belonged to Lord Radnor, and he either could not or would not sell an inch of ground, and would only grant leases for a very short period. Only noble mansions, which were almost palaces, were allowed to be built, and for these a high ground-rent was charged. It was not likely he would give his consent to the building on that land of cottages for the humble working classes. He wished to follow the lines of the Public Health Act of 1872, and give the proposed powers to the authorities in the urban sanitary districts.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he thought the Home Secretary meant to meet the case of rural districts to which Torrens's Act did not apply, and this being so, he was inclined to support his proposal to confine the operation of this clause to large towns.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should Le glad if the Home Secretary would extend the operation of the Bill to towns of 10,000 inhabitants. There was something like public spirit in the large towns, and a sense of decency and self-respect which made them take action in the matter; but in the small towns the conditions were altogether different. There was a want of public spirit in them, and the ratepayers were opposed to everything like expenditure. He knew small towns in the Midland Counties, and in Lancashire, which were in a most disgraceful state, and in towns like Over Darwen, the people were dying almost like rotten sheep from the condition in which they lived. He should feel grateful if the Home Secretary could see his way to extending the provisions of the Bill, so as to embrace those smaller towns, and at the same time find some means of making the adoption of the measure compulsory in those districts.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not think that the present Bill was applicable to the smaller towns; but he was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that he intended to deal separately with small towns according to their respective merits. With power to take land by compulsion, the case of these smaller towns would be better met in a separate Bill.
    COLONEL BERESFORDreferred to the unsanitary condition of some portions of Southwark, and thought, from the way in which he had spoken, that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) must be profoundly ignorant of London.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he thought the people in small towns were not so badly off for air and comfort as the inhabitants of large towns. We ought to begin with the latter, and not put too much pressure at the first upon the public.
    MR. GOURLEYexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) would take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment. There was quite as much necessity for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes in the rural districts as in our large towns.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved, with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), that the question was not whether worse dens of filth were to be found in London or in other large towns than existed in the smaller towns; all that the supporters of the Amendment asserted was that in those smaller towns unhealthy rookeries did exist, and that they ought to be removed.
    MR. STANSFELDpointed out that urban sanitary districts in this country often contained a very limited population—as low sometimes as 300 or 400 persons. He was not in favour of granting exceptional powers to such very small constituencies, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought an urban district under the Act of 1872 must be "a populous place," but even if his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) were right, that was no reason why this provision should not be extended. The Committee had teen told not to be too hard upon the
    52
    ratepayers in small towns—as though it was proposed to bring them under some penal statutes; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest the local authorities in small towns might fall into the temptation of putting the Act in force. Suppose they did, and pulled down a house which was reported by medical authority as a cause of disease—such a proceeding would be a public benefit, not a public injury. The Home Secretary rested his opposition to the extension of the Bill on the assertion that in towns of 10,000 inhabitants and under, one could always in the immediate neighbourhood get land for the building of houses for the working classes; but the fact was exactly the contrary. In many small towns one could not get land for love or money, because it was possessed by one, two, or three great proprietors, and the most stringent regulations were made in the leases that only houses of a particular character could be built—houses of a character which it was impossible for working men to live in. It was not consistent with the dignity of the House to legislate in this piecemeal fashion, having a small Bill now, an amending Bill next year, and so on. If the Home Secretary was determined to get rid of these unhealthy-places in towns of 25,000 inhabitants, one was at a loss to see why, in the name of common sense, he should not deal in the same way with towns of 15,000 inhabitants.
    MR. JAMESsaid, he thought that if any legislation was attempted it should be as complete as possible, and was inclined to think the Bill should apply not only to urban, but to rural sanitary districts. Knowing well the neighbourhood of Folkestone, he could say that the condition of the rural poor between that town and Dover was infamous and disgraceful.
    MR. EARPurged the hon. Member to press his proposal to a division, for there could be no doubt that many small towns were in a fearful plight. The town he represented (Newark) would be glad to possess the powers which this Bill might give them. With a population of 14,000, it was expanding on every side, yet there was only one owner in the neighbourhood who was willing to lot his land on building leases. Fever of a virulent kind had lately broken out there, He would give

    53
    other towns than those of 25,000 inhabitants, where a suitable authority existed, the power to apply the provisions of this Bill if they thought fit to do so.
    MR. STANSFELDentirely admitted that there were reasons for extending this Bill to towns below the proposed limit; but, on the other hand, he saw serious objections to giving such powers, though only permissive, to the smallest urban sanitary authorities.
    Question put, "That the word 'containing' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 36: Majority 63.
    MR. MUNTZmoved an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "25,000," and insert "10,000," as he wished to apply the provisions of the Bill to a larger number of towns. It was invidious to mention the names of places; but he believed it would be found that towns with a population of 10,000 had houses as remarkable for dirt and infamy as those with a population of 25,000.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "25,000," and insert" 10,000."—(Mr. Munts.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid that he could not adopt this Amendment. His original intention bad been to confine the operation of the Bill to towns of 50,000, but he was induced to extend it to populations of 25,000, which would really let in a considerable number of large towns. He wanted to give the Bill a fair start as far as the large towns were concerned, and there would in that case be less difficulty in extending its operations. Were they to make it at the outset applicable to towns of 10,000, the local authorities would not work it as it ought to be worked, the opposition of the ratepayers would be aroused, and the measure might become unpopular. At the same time, it was the intention of the Government to apply a different remedy to towns with a population of 10,000, which he hoped would have considerable effect in reducing the evils which he quite admitted existed in such places. There was the less necessity for doing what was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, as he would, when the convenient opportunity arrived, bring in a separate and a more suitable Bill to deal with the small towns.
    MR. WHITWELL, admitting the difference between large towns and small ones, advised the acceptance of the Home Secretary's assurance and the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    MR. STANSFELDpointed out that this was a permissive Bill, and therefore he did not understand the reasoning of the Home Secretary when he said he was afraid that the Bill would become unpopular if it were applied to towns of less than 25,000 population, because of the pressure on the rates. It was impossible to rely, where the population was small, upon the sanitary authority as a fairly representative body likely to act in the public interest. He had a shrewd suspicion that in such districts the boards consisted of surveyors, builders, and local solicitors, who attended more to their own than the public interest. As the Home Secretary had foreshadowed another Bill for small populations, of which the Committee knew nothing, and as no definite reason had been given for stopping at 25,000, he should support the Amendment.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid, he had not heard a reason for stopping at 25,000, except the insufficient one that they might frighten the ratepayers, and he preferred to adopt 10,000, both because they had already done so in Torrens' Act, and because there were towns of 10,000 which greatly needed some such Bill.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would remind the Committee that under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1834, towns of less population than 10,000 were entrusted with quite as great powers as were to be vested in towns of 25,000. The Home Secretary said he feared that to adopt the Amendment would be to make the Act costly and frighten the ratepayers. Now, as the Bill was permissive, his own fear, on the contrary, was that the Act would not be put into operation. The people who were frightened were not the ratepayers, but the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who had evaded their promises last Session by alleging that they had not had time to settle the question of Local Taxation, and who in the present Session had forgotten all about it.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the noble Lord that the Question before the Committee was whether the numbers should be "25,000"or "10,000."
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would submit himself to the Chair; but he thought that the Home Secretary had treated the House rather unfairly when he said that he had got a plan in petto for dealing with the smaller towns. It was not fair, however, to ask the Committee to legislate in the dark, and they ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do.
    MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that there already existed an Act, passed in 1868, which authorized the local authorities of towns of 5,000 inhabitants to remove and order to be pulled down houses that were unfit for human habitations, although it did not give them the power of building them up again. The present scheme was not only for pulling down, but for re-building.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz)—namely, that the Bill, in its operation, should not be confined to towns having a population of 25,000, but that it should apply to towns with populations of 10,000 and upwards. The assumption of the duty by the local authorities was entirely optional. They were told that the Bill was a permissive and simple Bill; but it was a Bill containing 22 clauses, and comprising 22 pages, and he would say that there never was a measure introduced with so much pretension which reduced itself to so small a point. The only difference was that towns might obtain a Provisional Order under this Bill, instead of applying for a Private Bill.
    MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that under the Bill, when the urban sanitary authorities had passed a scheme, it would be the duty of the local authorities to purchase land and carry out the scheme. That was not to be called a Permissive Bill.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, his constituents did not consider the Bill as merely permissive; on the contrary, they thought it a most compulsory measure. For instance, the confirming authority could come and say—"Those houses must come down." Now, that was a great power. If 20 persons were to get up a requisition to the authorities in matters comprised in the measure, the local authorities must act. He did not think they should press the Bill too strongly. As far as his own constituency
    56
    (Finsbury) was concerned, he felt that it would be very hard to work it.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, they now had only got through about half of Clause 2, and that being so, what could they know about Clause 7, which was said to be permissive? With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), proposing that the Bill be made to apply to small places containing populations of 10,000 and upwards, as well as to large towns with populations of 25,000 and upwards, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admitted that there were places in small towns requiring similar legislation; but in small towns the Bill was not obligatory in reference to building. The right hon. Gentleman said it would become the duty of the local authorities to carry out the scheme. Now, the clause did not say that the local authorities "shall" carry out the scheme, but that they "may" carry it out. It was contended that the Bill was purely permissive; but if the clause was correct, he contended that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was correct—there was no obligatory power to compel the local authorities to carry out the scheme.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid, hon. Members seemed to be confounding the terms "permissive" and "obligatory."
    MR. MUNTZsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) need not be uneasy on the question of his Amendment, for it referred to populations under 25,000, and the population of Finsbury was above that. The difficulty in the case of large towns was, that in them land was sold at enormous prices.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he would bring in a Bill to deal with the small towns, and, in his opinion, it would be wise not to postpone the present measure, on the principle that" a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush," and that there was a great difference between a population of 2,000 or 3,000, and one of 10,000 to 25,000—a population of 25,000 occupying a very large area; while the minimum of 25,000 would shut out some very important towns, even one of 24,999.
    MR. RITCHIEapproved of the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member

    57
    for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), and thought that if the taxpayers were to be relieved in some places, it would be well if they were also considered in small places.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the main reason for not applying these regulations to the smaller towns was that the small sanitary authorities would not, from well-known causes, carry them out. He agreed in the opinion that the same rule should be applied alike to small towns and country districts; but held that they required a totally different machinery from that to be applied to large towns.
    MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was to extend the Bill to places with a population of between 10,000 and 25,000. The Home Secretary said he had another Bill which he meant to introduce to deal with the country and the small towns; but he (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) submitted that the food which was good for populations of 25,000 would be more suitable for small towns having populations of 10,000 and upwards than that which would be applicable to agricultural districts. He quite agreed in the remark of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) that it was better to have "one bird in hand than two in the bush." With regard to the Act of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), it gave much more stringent powers to local authorities than those of the present Bill; and that Act applied to all towns of not less than 10,000 inhabitants.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. He thought the Bill should be so framed as to range with the Act of 1868, for nothing could be more inconvenient than to have one mode of assessment for populations of 25,000, and another for populations of 10,000. He thought, therefore, that the Committee could not do better than to let the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham take effect.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was an inconvenience which could not perhaps be helped, that hon. Members who had come in after the earlier discussion on the clause should speak, although the result was that they urged arguments
    58
    which had been answered over and over again. The right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) was an instance. He could never have done what the House had done, read the Bill a second time; and he must be utterly ignorant of the real character of the Bill and the clauses it contained, or he would never have made the statement he did, that after great professions it turned out to be nothing at all. Having said that, too, he was yet most anxious that the Bill should be extended to towns of 10,000 inhabitants. He hoped before the House again got into Committee his right hon. Friend would read the Bill a second time, and then he would be better able to explain its provisions. He (Mr. Cross) admitted that, as a rule, towns with 10,000 inhabitants would be just as well able to administer the Bill as towns with 25,000 inhabitants. His anxiety, however, was that the Bill should work. It would be applied tentatively to large towns. As regarded smaller places, there would be a great outcry among country ratepayers, who did not see the prospective good of the Bill if it were applied to them. Not one instance had been cited to show that local authorities in the small towns had availed themselves of the provisions of Torrens' Act. When they came to the Government and said they had exhausted all the powers they already possessed, the Government would be quite willing to increase their powers.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTregretted that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had not acceded to the earnest request made on both sides of the House to apply the Act to smaller towns. In the case of a town like Leamington, with 22,000 inhabitants, heartily approving the Bill, it was a pity that the local authorities would be unable to put it into force.
    MR. DODSONrepeated that this Bill was a permissive one, because the local authorities were only to apply for a Provisional Order upon their being satisfied with the representations made to them. It would be, therefore, optional on their part to apply the Bill.
    Question put, "That '25,000' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 102: Majority 22.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after the word "upwards" in Clause 2, page 2, line 9, the words "(4.) Urban sanitary districts in Ireland, containing, according to the last published Census, a population of 10,000 and upwards." In the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would move now his Amendment, substituting, however, the limit of 25,000 for 10,000.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 9, after the word "upwards," to insert the words "Urban sanitary districts in Ireland containing, according' to the last published census, a population of 25,000 and upwards."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that as there was scarcely any town in Ireland with a population of 25,000, the Bill if extended to that country, with that limit, would practically be inoperative.
    MR. RONAYNEsaid, to raise the number to 25,000 was perfectly absurd. It would only, in that case, apply to five towns in Ireland, while the rest of the country would be entirely neglected. Even, at present, they had great difficulty in raising money for sanitary purposes. In the City of Cork the authorities applied to the Board of Works for a loan; but were told they could only advance half of what was asked, and they were prevented by law from raising the remainder. It was absurd to make the number 25,000, and he should move, therefore, that the number be 10,000.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out" 25,000," and insert" 10,000."—(Mr. Ronayne.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was proposed originally that if a Bill of that kind was wanted for Ireland, the case of that country should be dealt with in a separate measure, because the circumstances of the two countries might, perhaps, be different. But he thought the Irish Members wished England and Ireland to be treated alike, and it was only on the understanding that the provision should be the same for both countries that he had consented to move the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin.
    60
    If, however, it was likely they were to have a lengthened discussion on the Irish question, he would rather withdraw the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that that Amendment could not be withdrawn, unless the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork were withdrawn first.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought, if there was reason for extending the operation of the Bill to town populations of 10,000, there was much more reason for that course with regard to Ireland. If the figure was to be kept at 25,000, there were only five towns in Ireland to which the Bill would apply; and was the Government going to talk about improving the dwellings of the working classes, and apply the Bill as regarded Ireland to those five towns only? He trusted that the hon. Member for Cork would press his Amendment to a division.
    MR. HEYGATEsaid, he thought it would be better that the original Amendment should be withdrawn, than that a different number should be fixed for Ireland from that which had been fixed for England.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, and suggested with reference to the remarks of the Home Secretary, whether Ireland would be likely to occupy the time of the House less if they were to have a separate Bill.
    MR. EARPremarked that the Home Secretary spoke on this subject now rather as if it were a matter of population than a matter of fever. The spirit in which Members were now met by the Home Secretary was not in accordance with that in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, when he described the existing fever haunts and spoke of dwellings where the very walls and floors were saturated with fever. It was not consistent with the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made those remarks when introducing the Bill, that he should now say that the Bill was not to be applied to towns of small population. He trusted that the hon. Member for Cork would divide the Committee, and that if justice was not to be done to England in this matter we, should at all events have justice done to Ireland.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved, that if the question was complicated by its application to Ireland, it was the

    61
    Home Secretary himself who introduced that complication. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the opinion of Irish Members upon it. He had been told that if the line were drawn at 25,000 there were only five towns in Ireland to which the Bill would apply; and was it worthy of a great Government to propose a measure for Ireland which would apply only to five towns? He would recommend the Home Secretary to agree to the number being fixed at 10,000.
    MR. MACGRGORsaid, that last Session during the discussion on the Licensing Bill, it was decided that the power of saying what was a populous place should rest with the magistrates. Now, he thought what they did then might furnish them with a means of settling the present difficulty. The local magistrates would know whether their own towns were in such a state as to require the application of the provisions of the Bill, and it might therefore be left to them to declare whether the town was such a populous place that the Bill ought to be applied to it or not.
    MR. J. S. HARDYwas surprised to hear the Irish Members who were advocates of economy make such a proposition as that, as it would lead to the demolition of all the existing residences of the working classes and the erection of new ones at the cost of the ratepayers.
    MR. RONAYNEreminded the hon. Gentleman that the suggestion in question had come from a Scotch and not from an Irish Member. He himself should certainly be unwilling that the magistrates, who were the representatives of the landed proprietors, should have anything to do with it.
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he was at a loss to know why the Home Secretary, when so charitable to 25,000 persons, should not be equally charitable to 10,000. There were only four towns in Ireland with populations above 25,000 each; but while Ireland could parade only these four towns with populations of that extent, she could parade others with populations of as much as 10,000, and by adding these together it would be easy to multiply the populations of 25,000.
    Question put, "That '25,000' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 117: Majority 21,
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that, after the decision that had been come to, it was perfectly useless to extend the operation of the Bill to Ireland, and they had better at once accept the proposal of the Home Secretary to exclude that country from its operation.
    MR. P. J. SMYTHbegged to move that the number be 12,000.
    THE CHAIRMANdecided that the Motion was informal, as the Committee had already decided that the words "25,000" should stand part of the proposed Amendment.
    Original Amendment agreed to.
    MR. FAWCETTproposed an Amendment, to the effect that the City of London should not be considered a district in itself, but should, for the purposes of this measure, merge into the metropolis at large. The City was represented at the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would, were the City to be constituted a distinct district, be voting away the money of the ratepayers of the other parts of the metropolis. There was no reason why the City should not contribute its fair quota, to the cost of clearing out the rookeries which it had itself created by the Holborn and other improvements, in carrying out which they had destroyed a large number of dwellings.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words "as respects the City of London, the Commissioners of Sewers, and."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONreminded the Committee that the City of London had expended large sums on their bridges, which were open to the entire metropolitan population, and they had spent £2,500,000 on the Holborn Viaduct, which was an advantage to the entire of London. They had many "rookeries" in the City which they would remove, if the Bill passed—in Houndsditch, Whitecross Street, Crip-plegate, and the neighbourhood of Fetter Lane, and many other districts, and that work they would willingly undertake and carry out. They were desirous of providing suitable dwellings for their own poor, and of keeping them in the neighbourhoods in which they were employed. The total amount paid to them by the Metropolitan Board of Works

    63
    between 1858 and 1875 was £197,127, whilst the City had contributed to the Metropolitan Board no less a sum than £580,584. He thought the Metropolitan Board and the City authorities ought each to be left to the management of their respective districts.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and he was of opinion that the City authorities ought not to have the control of matters in their own district taken out of their hands. A large number of "rookeries "within the City of London required to be removed and replaced, and that duty ought to be left in the hands of the City authorities. It was quite another matter when the time came to consider how to replace these rookeries with buildings such as the Bill contemplated; and it appeared to him that there was some force in the proposal of his hon. Colleague's (Mr. Ritchie's) Amendment to the 15th clause, which he should support when it was reached.
    SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, that the Amendment had taken him by surprise, for he had not heard of it till he came to the House that evening. He could only say that the Metropolitan Board were content to carry out their portion of the work, and to leave to the City the work which they would find to do under the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEregarded the proposal to divide the metropolis into two parts as a step in the wrong direction. The tendency of late years had been to equalize rates, and in all matters connected with sanitary improvement London should be treated as a whole. Considering that the City would benefit by the general improvement of the metropolis, he argued that it would be unfair to exempt it from contributing anything to the cost of carrying out the Act. If the hon. Member for Hackney pressed his Amendment to a division he should go into the Lobby with him.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he hoped the Committee would not go to a division. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that, the Bill being a permissive one, the City would not put it in operation, and he said, by way of evidence, that the corporation in making the Holborn Viaduct swept away great numbers of workmen's dwellings, and did not replace them. The fact was that
    64
    within two minutes' walk of the Holborn Viaduct they had erected 168 dwellings, occupied by 800 persons, and within a stone's throw they were erecting another similar block, at a cost of £24,000 or £25,000, which would be completed in the approaching summer. The Corporation had set an example worthy to be followed by all other corporations in this respect. He trusted that the 00 Bill would remain as it had been introduced by the Government, and that they might be left to do their own work with their own money, and that the Board of Works might also do its work with its money.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and stated that the Bill would not apply to any portion of the borough which he represented (Chelsea); but the inhabitants would have to contribute equally with the other districts of the metropolis. It was important that there should not be any pretext for supposing that an injustice was done to any district; and therefore the City ought not to be exempted from contributing in like manner to the other metropolitan districts for the benefit of the whole metropolis.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He believed there were a great number of places in the City which must come under the operation of the Bill, and he also believed that the City would set an example to other towns and cities in England, and show how the Bill could be worked. It would be rather a strong thing for the House to say the ancient and powerful Corporation of London should not be entrusted with the reform of their own courts and alleys. That would be an insult to the City of London, which he did not think the House would offer. If the City Corporation could not be trusted, what other corporate body could they trust?
    MR. LOCKEconfessed to having no great love for the City of London, which had always taken very great care of itself. No one could get an entrance into the dwellings referred to by the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) without paying a rent of 5s. 6d. a-week, and that was too expensive for a working man. It would not be right that the richest section of the metropolis should stand aloof from the poorer sections, in a reform by which all would be equally

    65
    benefited. The City of London had swept away an immense number of houses of the worst description, and were they to boast of their liberality in spending £24,000—an enormous sum to come out of the pockets of the City of London—in replacing those dwellings?
    SIR FREDERICK PERKINS, as an advocate for equalization of rates, thought that the City of London ought not to be exempted in the present instance from contributing its fair quota of taxation for carrying out the provisions of this useful measure.
    MR. W. GORDONcontended that there was no necessity for including the City in this clause, because the Corporation had always been anxious to promote the well-being of the poor. With regard to Chelsea, as a Representative of that borough, he approved of the Bill, because it would sweep away those rookeries, especially in the northern part of the borough, which were a scandal to a civilized community, and in their place give comfortable dwellings for those who needed them most.
    MR. MUNDELLAadmitted that the City deserved great credit for the vast improvements they had made; but, at the same time, no one could shut his eyes to the fact that the persons employed in the great factories and warehouses lived outside the City, and that by this Bill they were, in fact, exempting the wealthiest portion of the metropolis from its fair share of the expense of properly housing the working classes.
    MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the Amendment would deprive the Corporation of the power of effecting improvements within its district. He was not inclined to go so far as that. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie), which would raise this question properly under the 15th clause; because, considering the rateable value of the City of London, its share of the cost of the improvements contemplated by the Bill would be comparatively small.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 84: Majority 138.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Hard, Mr. Stanley.)
REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.

  [BILL 3.] THIRD RADING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, thanked hon. Members opposite for their courtesy in allowing it to pass this stage without placing Amendments on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR DILLWYNsaid, he had given Notice of no Amendment, not from any liking for the Bill, but because he believed there was no use in doing so. He had seen throughout the debates that arguments were of no avail whatever. Every argument in Committee, he thought, had been made in favour of the opponents of the Bill; but still they were determined to pass it. He regretted that it should pass, because he believed it would re-establish a system of purchase of which they had got rid at such an enormous expense to the country. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: No! no!] The right hon. Gentleman says "No"; but he (Mr. Dillwyn), while he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for believing the measure would not lead to a return to the system of Purchase, could not but express his apprehension that it was the thin end of the wedge, and that it would result in a return to that system. During the many years he had been in the House he had never seen, as regarded an important public measure, such an evident determination not to assent to any Amendment as had been shown by the promoters of this measure.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to say a few words as to the effect which he believed this Bill would have when passed. He considered it inconsistent with all recent legislation, mischievous as a precedent, and most inopportune. It was inconsistent with all our former legislation, because the position would be this, that while we should have two Acts—one passed in the reign of Edward VI. and the other in the reign of George III.—under which trafficking in offices had been declared disgraceful, and those taking any part in such transactions were held guilty of a misdeameanour and liable

  67
  to lose those offices; for all that, the present Bill proposed that one particular transaction—a payment for Army exchange—should escape the penalties of the Act, provided it were concealed from the military authorities. There was no instance of any such statute with regard to any other branch of the public service. Then the Bill was mischievous as a precedent, for if it passed, although the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not the least intention of re-introducing the system of Purchase, the re-introduction of that system was almost inevitable. Out of the five branches of which purchase consisted, three, at least, would be restored—exchange under this Bill, exchange to and from half-pay, and payment to induce an officer to retire. The passing of such a Bill was inopportune, because we should be asked next year to improve the pay and retirement of officers; and what would be the answer? The answer would at once be—"In 1875 you passed a measure the avowed object of which was to make up for the inadequate pay of the officer indirectly, and how can you now come and ask us to pass a law to add to his pay in a direct shape? "He would not offer any further opposition to the Bill; but for these three reasons he regretted that such a measure should be passed, and he believed that two or three years hence no one would regret its passing more than those for whose benefit it was said to have been brought forward.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had heard no arguments during the debates which had altered his opinion that a more injudicious policy than the abolition of purchase was never adopted. The purchase system, in so far as it introduced the volunteer element into our standing Army, prevented it from becoming a mercenary Army, and kept it a constitutional force. He would therefore readily forget the sacrifice of the £7,000,000. which it cost to abolish Purchase if by any effort the system could be restored. When he, sat on the other side of the House he voted for the retention of the system of Purchase, and protested against the unconstitutional and violent means by which it was abolished. He thanked the Secretary of State for War for the manner in which he had introduced and defended his measure, which he accepted
  68
  as a judicious step towards the restoration of the system of Purchase.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
MR. P. A. TAYLORmoved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Bill that day month. He appealed to the Government not to go on with the Bill at that late hour, as there was a strong feeling in the House and the country unfavourable to the mode in which the Mutiny Bill was generally shuffled through the House, and especially because he had been promised more time for the consideration of its provisions.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. P. A. Taylor,)—instead thereof.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, there was no reason for asking for the postponement of the Committee. He would not think of stealing a march upon the House in regard to the Bill, and in this instance he had followed the usual course. So far as he could ascertain it had never been the custom to print this Bill before the second reading. This year it was read a second time on the 10th of March and was in the Bill Office on, the 15th. On the 16th the Government Amendments were placed on the Paper, so that hon. Gentleman had the last two days to propose any Amendment they thought desirable. The Government Amendments this year were purely of a formal character, and the old Act which had been an entire year in their hands, was the matter which they really intended to discuss. The usual time between the second reading and the Committee had not for years with one exception exceeded two days, and had often been much less, whereas he had given eight. It was his duty to take every opportunity of making progress with the Bill.
CAPTAIN NOLANobjected to their discussing at that late hour the details of a measure which affected the non-commissioned officers and privates as much as the Bill they had just passed affected the commissioned officers.
MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood the Judge Advocate had promised the hon. Member for Leicester a fair time for the discussion of his objections, which could not take place at that late hour.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that with the exception of one clause this Bill usually passed without comment; but if any point was raised in Committee it would not be carried further at present.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was a growing disposition to scrutinize the clauses of this Bill, and although there might be little change in it, it was usual for Members to wait until a Bill was printed before examining it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, they could go into Committee, and when they arrived at any point that provoked serious discussion they could report Progress. The Mutiny Act was never changed; everybody was familiar with it; and the objections of the hon. Member for Leicester and of all other Members would be fully met by proceeding until they arrived at a debatable point, and then reporting Progress.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. MONKmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsupported the Motion, on the ground that Amendments and alterations had been made in the Bill, which could not be distinguished in the text.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the alterations touched no question of principle. They were merely matters of convenience, and most of them were merely formal. He had followed in every respect the precedent of the previous Government.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT PENSIONS BILL.— [BILL 74.]
(Lord George Hamilton, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th March], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Main Question, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONmoved that the Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of reconsidering the first Clause, with a view to inserting an Amendment to the effect that no Member of the Indian Council could receive a pension under the Bill, if he were in receipt of or otherwise entitled to a pension or superannuation allowance.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed, in respect of Clause 1."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE and MR. CHILDERSrecommended that the Bill should be withdrawn and reconstructed, as they considered that, in its present form, it left matters in an uncertain state.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

EAST INDIA HOME GOVERNMENT PENSIONS BILL.— [BILL 74.]

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Medical Act, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK and Dr. Lush.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 100.]

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Police Superannuation Funds in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales and the Acts creating and regulating the same, and to report to the House whether any, and, if any, what alterations or amendments in the Law are required."—(Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson.)
  And, on March 23, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. BIDDULPH, Mr. COTES, Mr. COWPER, Mr. GOUKLEY, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. GRANTHAM, Mr. TORR, Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. FAIRFAX CARTWRIGHT, Colonel DYOTT, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock,