Commons Sitting of 13 May 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 209].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Seats (Peers of Ireland) * [170]; Metropolitan Police (Surgeon, Clerk, &c. Superannuation) * [172]; County Coroners (England) * [174]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) * [173]; Pharmacy* [175]; Glebe Loan (Ireland) * [176]; Justices (Dublin)* [171].
First Reading—Agricultural Holdings (England) * [177]; Public Entertainments* [178]; Saint Paul's Cathedral (Minor Canonries) * [179].
Second Reading—National Debt (Sinking Fund) * [142]; Customs and Inland Revenue* [158]; Local Authorities Loans [123]; Endowed Schools Act (1868) Continuance * [161]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) * [167]; Towns Rating (Ireland) [139], debate adjourned.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Metropolis Gas Companies * [82].
Committee—Report—Sale of Food and Drugs (re-comm.) [168]; Bishopric of Saint Albans [95]; Friendly Societies* [2–169].
Considered as amended—Metalliferous Mines* [120]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [143]; Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) * [79].
Withdrawn—Municipality of London* [61].

ARMY—MILITIA ARMS STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for War, If Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make any allowance, in the nature of rent, for buildings originally provided and still maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, so long as they continue to be used for the purpose of storing the arms of Militia regiments?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, it is under consideration to make allowance in the nature of repairs or a moderate rent, or both, for the buildings referred to, so long as they continue to be used for the same purpose. No provision was made for such an allowance under the Military Forces Localization Loan, and I am advised that the counties have no legal claim until a reasonable time has elapsed for supplying other storehouses.

NAVY—WIDOWS AND CHILDREN OF SAILORS AND MARINES.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a scheme put forward in the "Army and Navy Gazette" of the 3rd of April last, for the organization and maintenance of a Fund for making provision for the widows and children of Sailors and Marines; and, whether he has considered how far the advantages named in such scheme could be reasonably expected to be realized on the basis proposed?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the scheme referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has
580
been examined by the Accountant General, and his Report shows that no such provision as that proposed could possibly be made for widows and children in return for the contributions proposed to be levied, even if the whole of the continuous service men and a large number of boys, besides all the Marines and Coast Guard, were to subscribe, which would be very unlikely.

CRIMINAL LAW—COSTS OF PROSECUTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will avail himself of the power of the Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 55, and sanction the payment to prosecutors and witnesses detained for a night at the Somerset Quarter Sessions, of allowances similar to those paid in adjoining Counties?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, the existing rate of allowance to prosecutors and witnesses detained for a night at Quarter Sessions in certain counties was fixed by Sir George Grey, when he was Home Secretary. The Secretary of State had power to revoke the regulations issued under the present law with regard to this subject, and if the justices of Somerset had applied to the Home Secretary to alter the scale, no doubt it would have been conceded. The justices could make the application whenever they thought proper; but up to that time he was not aware that any formal application for the purpose had been made to the office.

REGISTRAR OF MARRIED WOMEN'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to abolish the office of Registrar of Married Women's Acknowledgments; and, if so, whether, as that office is now vacant through the death of the registrar, the appointment of a successor will not be carried out in order to avoid a claim for compensation?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the idea of abolishing the office alluded to. A vacancy occurred some time ago, and he was informed that an

581
appointment was made by the Lord Chief Justice, which was notified to the Treasury on the 7th of May.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that as far as he was aware no condition had been made by the Treasury when the present holder of the office was appointed that, in the event of the office of Registrar being abolished, no compensation should be given.
In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Treasury had no power to compel the person appointed to enter into the condition referred to.

POST OFFICE CLERKS—INCREMENT OF SALARIES.—QUESTION.
MR. R. SMYTHasked the Post-master General, Whether the Clerks in the Post Office have a vested interest in the annual increments to their salaries, or whether these increments can be withheld from them for other reasons than personal misconduct?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the clerks in the Post Office have no vested interest in the annual increments to their salaries, which are granted for good conduct, and no increment is allowed to a clerk without a certificate that his conduct during the year has been in all respects satisfactory.

HIGHWAY EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAGETasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the annual Return (Letter D) of the Local Government Board, presented in January last, gives the total expenditure by overseers on account of Highways up to Lady Day 1874, it would not be possible to expedite the publication of the annual Abstracts of Highway Expenditure under the Act 12 and 13 Vic. c. 35. the last Return of which only brings the accounts up to Lady Day 1872?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to expedite the publication of the abstracts referred to, and that he had given directions having that object in view.

METROPOLITAN BRIDGES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES HOGGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the fact that Committees of this House have reported that tolls on Metropolitan Bridges seriously impede traffic, and weigh with excessive severity on the poorest classes, and also in view of the fact that the present and late Governments have refused to sanction the plans of the Metropolitan Board of Works (brought forward in the Sessions of 1873 and 1875) for raising the necessary funds by means of the coal tax, which was the plan adopted by Parliament in the case of the Kew and other Thames bridges, the Government is prepared to give their approval to the enfranchisement of the bridges by borrowing on security of a county rate on the counties of Surrey and Middlesex, or to suggest any other course for attaining the object in view?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had fully considered the matter to which the Question of the hon. Member referred, and to the proposal that was made for raising a sum of money on the security of the coal and wine dues; and they had seen several deputations on the subject, all entertaining very different views respecting it. He had brought the matter before his Colleagues, and they felt that it was a course which they could not sanction. He was now asked whether he could say, on the part of the Government, that they would be prepared to give their approval to another course, or whether they could not themselves suggest some other. He did not see, however, that the difficulties they might meet with in considering another plan might be as great, and he therefore could not commit himself or the Government to any plan whatever; but any proposal brought before them should receive careful consideration.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1871—PICKETING.—QUESTION.
MR. PENNINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of The Queen v. Hibbert and others, tried before Baron Cleasby at the Old Bailey on May 5th and 6th instant for conspiracy against the provisions of

583
"The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871," to molest by watching and besetting with intent to coerce, and to the contention by the counsel for the defendants that "to coerce" was not intended to apply to peaceable and orderly watching and persuasion, but was enacted against disorderly conduct calculated to produce fear or intimidation; if he is in a position to give any information to the House whether the sense contended for was in accordance with the intention of Parliament as expressed by the framers of the Act; whether his attention has been called to the charge of the Recorder of London to the Grand Jury, who laid down the Law accordingly, and also to the remarks of the learned Judge, who, in passing sentence, expressed his
"Feeling that the defendants did what they did, believing that under the Law as it existed they were only doing that which they had a right to do. There were difficulties in regard to the Law on the matter, and they might have acted under such a supposition as he had indicated;
whether under all the circumstances, as there is no appeal, the learned judge declining to reserve the case, he will advise the extension of the prerogative of pardon to the defendants; and, whether the Government will in the promised Bill to amend the Law, seek to make clearer the meaning of the Legislature?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)said, his right hon. Friend's attention had been called to the case in question, and to the arguments used by counsel. With regard to the intention of Parliament it did not appear, from the usual records of the debates in the House of Commons, that the framers of the Act intended that peaceable persuasion should be made punishable; but an explanation of the Act was made by the Recorder in charging the Grand Jury. The same explanation was given by Baron Cleasby, in his charge to the jury on the trial of the defendants. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury found a true bill against the prisoners, and the other jury returned a verdict of guilty against them, and in the latter verdict Baron Cleasby expressly concurred. Under these circumstances it would appear that the acts of the prisoners amounted to something more than peaceable persuasion. The Secretary of State saw no reason for dif-
584
fering with the opinions expressed by the Recorder and by the learned Judge, and therefore he did not intend to interfere in the case. His right hon. Friend thought he was not called upon to state the intentions of the Government as to the amendment of the Act until he introduced the Bill, which he proposed to do after Whitsuntide.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Budget will be brought forward this Session at an earlier period than usual?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, Sir, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring on the Indian Budget at an earlier period than has been the custom in late years. I must add that previous Governments have shared this intention, and therefore I sincerely hope that circumstances will this year enable us to realize our intentions.

ARMY—SUBALTERN SUBSTITUTES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK (for Major BEAUMONT)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, when Captains hold appointments in the Topographical or Adjutant General's Department for five years without being seconded, he will consider the case of Subalterns who may, in consequence, be called upon to do the duty of their senior Officers?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that in the absence of their commanding officers, the command of their companies naturally devolved upon the subalterns in accordance with the custom of the Service, and was not held to be one of those duties for which extra pay should be given.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can name the day after Whitsuntide on which the Public Works Loan Acts Amendment Bill will be brought forward; and, whether it will be taken as the first Order of the Day?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that from the importance of the measure, and the fact that the hon. Member intended to challenge the whole policy of the Government with reference to it, the Government would take care that a fair opportunity was given of discussing the question. He thought Monday, the 24th, would be a convenient day for bringing it on.

THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—CONTEMPT OF COURT.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the absence of the Home Secretary, of which he had given verbal Notice, but which had not appeared upon the Notice Paper in consequence of some irregularity in its form, in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no action would be taken upon the Petitions which had been presented to the House relating to the proceedings taken for contempt of Court and other incidents of the Tichborne Trial. According to the last reports those Petitions had been signed by upwards of 250,000 persons, and he had reason for believing that they now amounted to upwards of 300,000. He wished to know, Whether the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in the matter had received the approval of the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges whose conduct had been impugned in those Petitions?
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of Order.
MR. WHALLEYventured to ask the permission of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to state what he believed were the irregularities which had occurred in the course of the trial.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that was precisely the irregularity which, as he had pointed out to the hon. Member, could not be permitted.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished further to ask, with reference to speeches reported in the public journals as having been made by the Lord Chief Justice at public banquets and elsewhere, calling for public indignation against those who had, by Petitions to Parliament or otherwise, expressed dissatisfaction with the proceedings in the Tichborne Trial, and stating that such
586
persons or some of them were seeking for their own purposes to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take notice of that language as being inconsistent with the dignity and authority of the Lord Chief Justice, and whether, in the absence of the inquiry demanded by the numerous Petitions which had been addressed to that House, it was calculated to maintain or restore public confidence in the administration of justice—
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was now asking for an opinion as to the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice, which was irregular.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Peterborough could hardly expect him to answer a Question of that kind which had not been put on the Paper. If it was placed on the Paper, it would no doubt receive the attention of the Home Secretary.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTIONS.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course would be taken with regard to the Friendly Societies Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked what was the latest hour at which the second Order of the Day—the second reading of the National Debt (Sinking Fund) Bill—would be proceeded with, and whether under any circumstances the next two Orders—namely, the Committee on the Savings Banks Bill and the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill—would be taken that evening? On Monday last the Secretary of State for War held out some hope that the Government would be able to state on what day the adjourned debate upon the Publication of Debates and the Exclusion of Strangers might be taken. Perhaps some information on the point could now be given, and perhaps also it could be stated whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, with regard to the adjourned debate on the question of Privilege, that it must of course come on after the Whitsuntide holidays, and that

587
he would communicate with the noble Lord with the object of fixing a day which would be convenient to the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERintimated, with regard to the National Debt Bill, that he would not propose to take the second reading after half-past 10 o'clock, but that he hoped it would be reached at an earlier hour. As to the Savings Banks Bill, he thought it would be more convenient to have the Committee after the holidays. As regarded the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, he was not aware that there was any opposition to it. A good many Amendments on the Friendly Societies Bill had been notified by himself and by other Members, and he thought it would be convenient to go into Committee pro formâ on that measure with a view to having it reprinted. If that was done, he would propose that the discussion should be taken on Monday, the 31st instant.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—COUNTS OUT.
MR. DISRAELImoved "That the House, on its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next."
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid: I rise with reluctance to call the attention of the House to the restrictions which have taken place on the opportunities which private Members have to bring before the House questions which they consider of importance to their constituents, and more particularly to the action of the Government with regard to the Sitting on Tuesday last. Four weeks ago I balloted for an opportunity of making a Motion. I was fortunate enough to have the first place for Tuesday afternoon. This Motion was of considerable interest to my constituents, and not only to them, but to the farmers of England and Scotland. I did not intend to anticipate the discussion which will, no doubt, take place on the measure now before the other House of Parliament; but I wished to make a statement with regard to some collateral matters which, I think, would have been of considerable importance to Members in coming to a conclusion with regard to that measure, and without which I do not think it can be fairly or properly discussed. On Monday afternoon the Prime Minister
588
suddenly informed the House that there was to be a Morning Sitting next day for the discharge of Government Business. In this way the most important part of the day—from 2 to 7 o'clock—was taken up by the Government, leaving for private Members only after 9 o'clock. I did not offer any opposition to the Government proposition, because I was unwilling to offer any obstacle to the conduct of Public Business, and because I believed there was an honourable understanding on the part of the Government that when they took an afternoon Sitting on a day devoted by the usage of the House to Private Business they would make some reasonable effort to make a House. Now, what I have to complain of is, that instead of making any effort to make a House, I have reasonable grounds for believing—and, indeed, the facts were such as to make me believe—that they had the power to make a House at 9 o'clock, and did not do so. I came down at 9 o'clock, and as soon as I rose to address the House, a few minutes after 9 o'clock, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) rose from the bench immediately behind the Treasury Bench to call attention to the number of Members present. I do not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of having any special interest to prevent the discussion of the Motion I was about to bring forward—indeed, he seemed to think, from the manner in which he discharged the duty, that he was vindicating some great constitutional principle, that there should always be 40 Members in the House; but I think, considering the tenacity with which he clings to the Treasury Bench, the intervention of the occupant of that bench would have been sufficient to induce the hon. and learned Member to restrain his impatience for five minutes, when a sufficient number of Members would have been present. What was the state of things when the House was counted out? On the Treasury Bench there had been previously two Members of the Government. One of these Members retired behind the Chair; there were also, I have reason to believe, in the Lobby of the House, three or four Members who usually sit on that side of the House, and are understood to be very amenable to the influence of the Member of the Government who is charged with the duty of making a House. Altogether,

589
on the opposite side of the House there were not more than five members out of the 36 who were present. Under the circumstances, if the Government had wished to make a House, they had the power to do so. I must also, in fairness, state that on the front Opposition Bench there was not a single Member, and if it had not been for the Members from Ireland, who were good enough to come down to make a House, the number of Members present would have been very restricted indeed. I have felt it my duty to state publicly these facts, that agricultural constituencies may judge of the amount of attention which questions affecting their interest command from the two leading Parties in this House; and I think it right also to state thus publicly the difficulties and obstructions placed in the way of independent Members when they desire to bring forward for the consideration of the House, Motions which may be considered inconvenient by the Leaders of the House.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Forfarshire had brought forward a grievance, perhaps the House would permit him also to state his complaint. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman appointed as the First Order of the Day a question in precedence to the usual Motion of Supply, and he did that by obtaining the consent of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) alone, without consulting any of the other hon. Members who intended to avail themselves of the opportunity of bringing forward Motions upon going into Committee of Supply. That appeared to him to have been a most unusual and a somewhat unfair course of proceedings He should be glad to have some assurance that the Government would in future, if Supply was left upon the Paper on a Friday night, not deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of speaking upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the difficulty in which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has found himself, affords but one illustration out of many of the hopeless position in which the unofficial Members of this House find themselves with respect to the Business they introduce. This difficulty has arisen with respect to Notices of Motion; but the confusion which the Order Book exhibits, among the Bills
590
introduced by the unofficial Members of this House, appears simply inextricable; unless now, or after Whitsuntide, some system of reviewing the contents of the Order Book be adopted, and the House should decide which of the Bills introduced by unofficial Members of the House are worth retaining, as likely to become law. I desire, especially, to refer to the position of the Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill. [Ironical cheer.] Hon. Members must not, for one moment, suppose that I misunderstand the meaning of that cheer. It proceeds from those who desire to perpetuate that which I consider the undue multiplication and extension of these establishments, and to shield them from all inquiry. With this object, they have adopted that which I may describe as the policy of confusion, with respect to the Business of the House; their purpose being to prevent any matters connected with these establishments from being considered by the House. For this purpose, they have loaded the Order Book with Bills they never expect to pass, have written it full of Notices of Motion, entered for the mere purpose of obstruction, and have resorted to every stratagem and means of delay. This policy of confusion has been pursued with marvellous success during the last four or five Sessions; with such success that, although the Bill has been introduced in each of the past five Sessions, including the present, it has only once been possible to bring the Bill on for second reading. The question touched by this Bill is no small question, no in-significant matter; it involves a subject which has forced itself of late years on State after State, and Country after Country, in Europe, and has been dealt with successively by the Legislatures and Governments of those countries. The object of those who have adopted the policy of confusion is to prevent, to debar this House from considering anything connected with these Monastic and Conventual Institutions, and, as I have said, they have been marvellously successful in this process of incapacitating this House. Early this Session, I warned the House that for lack of due regulation in their Business, the unofficial Members—the great body of the Members of this House—were being incapacitated from the due performance

591
of their duties. I would beg the House to consider what is its principal function? It is that of being the tribunal before which whatever grievances may be felt by any section of the community may be brought, and in which remedies may be suggested and considered. Now, the multiplication of these Monastic and Conventual Institutions, the circumstances under which they exist, and their effects on society, is considered a grievance by hundreds of thousands of persons in this country, as their Petitions testify; and their Representatives are debarred from duly submitting their grievance for the consideration of the House by this policy of confusion. The House would never hear me remonstrate and complain, as I now do, of any decision on this subject at which the House might fairly arrive, however adverse that decision might be to my views. But I do warn this House against permitting a perpetuation of this policy of confusion, which precludes us from the performance of the duties we have been sent into this House to execute. When I brought this subject—the probable state of its Business towards the close of the Session—before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury replied, in substance, that the confusion prevalent in the Order Book in the Business introduced by the unofficial Members was, in his opinion, perfectly natural and legitimate; that the Bills they introduced could only be considered tentative; that, in short, so far as he was concerned, the unofficial Members might struggle with, and strangle each other as much as they chose; and that, if they got tired of that occupation, the Government would be very happy to accept any additional portion of the time allotted to them—in short, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government derived a legitimate advantage from the confusion which prevails in the Business of the unofficial Members. The Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill now stands for Friday, the 21st; the Government have on that night the right to give precedence to their own measures. I conclude that they will avail themselves of that right, and I give the right hon. Gentleman Notice, that I will on this day week ask him, Whether he will consent, after Whitsuntide, to appoint a Morning Sitting for the consideration
592
of the second reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill?
MR. LOCKEdeeply regretted the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) should have counted out the House on Tuesday night, inasmuch as he (Mr. Locke) had the Jersey Courts Bill on the Paper for that evening, and he believed his hon. and learned Friend was opposed to that Bill. He hoped, however, that it was not on that account that the House was counted.
MR. HART DYKE: Sir, I had hoped that this Session might have passed away without my occupying the attention of the House even for one moment; but as the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has rather pointedly alluded to me, I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Forfarshire seemed to lead the House to infer that it was possible for me to have asked the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) to have delayed the proceeding which he adopted. Now, the facts are these. I am sorry to say that I was too late in entering the House to delay these proceedings, and was just coming in when I heard the bell ringing. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. Member, I will be perfectly frank with him and the House. I did not use any strenuous efforts on Tuesday night. I believe that it has not been considered the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to keep a House on those nights which are devoted exclusively to the business of private Members. In the position which I occupy there is nothing more important than that I should consider the feelings and instincts of Members on both sides of the House with regard to these matters; and I am bound to say that on Tuesday a vast number of Members did express to me the most fervent hope that there would not be a House, and that a great proportion of these Members, curiously enough, represented constituencies exclusively North of the Tweed. Further than that, I have only one remark to make. I noticed that when the House was counted more than three-fourths of those present represented Irish constituencies. That struck me as a peculiar feature when the Motion was one affecting the conditions of tenancy and land laws of Scotland. I can only add that if I had the least idea that hon. Members from Ireland were so intensely

593
anxious to keep a House on a question peculiarly affecting Scotland, and if they had expressed a wish to that effect to me, it would have been to me not only a pleasure, but a luxury to have met them.
COLONEL MUREsaid, after all the question before the House was a Scotch question, because the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay), who considered himself the spokesman of the farmers of Scotland, had given Notice that he would call attention to the melancholy relations at present existing between farmers and their landlords in Scotland. [Mr. BARCLAY: No.] Now, the real reason why the Scotch Members and other hon. Members did not come down to the House on that evening was because the Scotch Members especially were aware that there was nothing whatever in the relations between landlords and tenants of Scotland that called for the intervention of the hon. Member. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be out of Order for the hon. and gallant Member to discuss the merits of the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay).
COLONEL MUREsaid, he was simply about to remark in regard to the presence of 30 Irish Members to support the hon. Gentleman, that the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland were very different from those existing in Ireland. He believed he should be supported in what he said by the majority of the Scotch Members, when he stated that the relations between landlord and tenant in Scotland at present were excellent.
MR. FORSYTHbegged to express to the hon. Member for Forfarshire his regret if he had put him to inconvenience, and to assure him that he had received no hint from the Government to take the course which he adopted on Tuesday evening. His action was entirely spontaneous and unpremeditated. When he came down to the House there were only 12 Members present, and as there was a prospect of a dull and tedious Scotch debate, and as only four or five Scotch Members were present, he called attention to the fact that not more than 40 Members were in the House. The number was at once raised to 36 by an influx of Irish Members. He had been in the House for five hours in the earlier part of the day; and as to what the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had
594
said, he assured him that he was not afraid to meet him on the Jersey Courts Bill, but he did not wish to be kept waiting until half-past 12, up to which hour the Bill might possibly have come on. He also thought the Speaker was entitled to some relaxation.
CAPTAIN NOLANvindicated the Irish Members for coming down on Tuesday night, because they thought an hon. Member who was supposed to represent the Scotch farmers ought to have an opportunity of stating the alleged grievances of that class. In his opinion, Morning Sittings were very disagreeable, and they did not at all advance Public Business.
MR. DISRAELI: I hope, Sir, there will be no further opposition to the Motion, which I feel sure will be pleasing to both sides of the House. I never favoured a "count-out," and I am quite sure that I have never contributed to one; but, at the same time, as a general observation, I must say that a "count-out" never takes place when the subject is one of general interest. I do not think the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has anything to complain of. He may have been unfortunate; but I do not think any combination of circumstances could bring about the result he deprecates, and which has given occasion to a very generous admission on the part of the Irish Members which ought to console him. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), however, made a distinct charge against the Government—that by putting Ways and Means instead of Supply upon the Paper as the First Order, they prevented him and other Members from exercising a Privilege to which they were entitled. I can assure the hon. Member that he is quite under a mistake; for by the Orders of the House, it is open to the Government to place either Supply or Ways and Means upon the Paper. We placed Ways and Means in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) should bring forward the subject of the financial propositions of the Government, and I believe we made that arrangement with the entire concurrence of the whole House.
MR. DILLWYNmaintained, that when the Government invaded those days set apart for private Members, they were bound to do their utmost to keep a House for them at the Evening Sittings.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEpointed out that there had been a great deal of time spent over questions of Privilege. Any hon. Member had only to say he had a question of Privilege to bring forward, and he immediately took precedence of all the private Members who had obtained by ballot a day for their Motions. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had an everlasting Motion to bring forward.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Reed.)
[Progress, 11 th May.]

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 83.] COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Proceedings against Offenders.
  Clause 21 (Power to justices to have articles of food and drugs analyzed).
  Page 7.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 5, after the word "by," to insert the words, "the chemical officers in the employment of the Inland Revenue Department, who shall thereupon make the analysis, and give a certificate to such justices of the result of the analysis; and the expense of such analysis shall be paid by the complainant or the defendant as the justices may by order direct."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  To leave out from the words "and the expense," to the end thereof, in order to add the words, "and the expenses of such examination, analysis, and attendance, shall be deemed part of the expense of the executing this Act, unless the justices order the same to be paid by the complainant or the defendant."—(Mr. Grantham."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. RODWELLopposed the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey. He thought the Amendment, if adopted, would place the justices in a very invidious position. He much preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell).
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.
  DR. C. CAMERONsaid, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey, he felt it his duty to push his Amendment to a division. If the Inspectors were to be punished they would not work out the measure.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire. If the costs were put on the person who had committed the error, the provision would be a much more equitable one.
  Amendment (Mr. Pell) agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 22 (Appeal to quarter sessions) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (In any prosecution, defendant to prove that he is protected by exception or provision) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Defendant to be discharged if he prove that he bought the article in the same state as sold, and with a warranty. No costs except on issues proved against him).
  MR. RODWELLmoved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out "and with a warranty in writing to that effect;" his object being to relieve the retail trader of the necessity of producing a "warranty "from the wholesale dealer if he could prove in any other way that he sold the goods in the state in which he received them. He thought the production of the invoice would be quite sufficient.
  MR. MUNDELLAsuggested the substitution of the word "or "for the word "and." The dealer would then only have to prove that the article was in the state in which he purchased it, or have to produce a warranty to that effect.
  MR. RODWELLintimated his readiness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the assumption had been throughout that the retailer was to be responsible for the purity of the article which he sold, and it was quite evident that the Committee adhered to the principle that the seller should be held responsible, unless he could satisfy the Court that he was not guilty, and that somebody else was guilty. If the words referring to the warranty were left out, the retailer would

  597
  escape, and what remedy would the purchaser have? He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, even with the alteration suggested.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the hardship entailed upon the retailer by retaining the clause as it stood would be obviated if he were enabled to obtain a written warranty as to the quality of the goods he purchased from the wholesale dealer, such warranty to be a sufficient answer to any charge that might be brought, except as far as the person giving the false warranty was concerned.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, he thought it would be unfair to impose upon the retail dealer a penalty for selling a thing which he had purchased in good faith from the wholesale dealer.
  MR. VILLIERSsaid, the whole measure was a wholesale dealers' Bill, with the exception of the proposal that retail dealers should be entitled to obtain written warranties as to the quality of the goods which they purchased from the wholesale dealers. He hoped this security would be retained in justice to the retail dealing class. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) ought not to have proposed the Amendment unless he had authority to speak in the name of the retail dealers.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALheld that the general scope and object of the Bill was to protect the public, and to throw upon the retail dealer the onus of proving that he did not sell adulterated articles. If the words proposed were struck out, the justices who had to try cases would be at the mercy of the retail dealers. He thought that nothing could be easier than for the wholesale dealers to give the written warranties required by the retail dealers.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought it only just that the retail dealers should have something to fall back upon in the way of warranties from the wholesale dealers in reference to the goods they sold. The certification could easily be written on the invoice and that ought to be sufficient.
  MR. HENLEYwas of opinion that the written warranty of the wholesale dealer should be a sufficient answer to any charge of dealing in adulterated articles brought against a retail trader.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBEESsaid, he could not see how a warranty would be
  598
  the slightest protection to the retail dealer. If be obtained a warranty, and it was afterwards proved that the article he sold was adulterated, it would simply prove that he had adulterated it. These words could not, therefore, be left in at all, either with the words "and" or "or."
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYwas anxious that these words should remain in the clause.
  MR. MUNDELLAcontended that it was impossible for every person who sold a gallon of milk or a firkin of butter to give a warranty for it, as one was supposed to give in the case of a horse.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that the retention of the words of the clause as they stood was absolutely necessary. They would protect the retail dealer. He would simply have to prove that he sold the article in the same state in which he purchased it from the wholesale dealer.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought that if ignorance were to be pleaded by the retail dealer he ought to have a warranty from the wholesale dealer. It would be almost impossible to obtain a conviction under this clause, and he suggested the omission of the words "to that effect," which should be read in conjunction with a warranty in writing.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONrecommended the Committee to adopt the word "or," and give the retail dealer a fair chance of escaping.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, there was very great difficulty in defining the meaning of the word "adulteration," and this had been felt by the Committee. The wholesale dealer was as much at the mercy of those from whom he obtained the article as the retail dealer was at the mercy of the wholesale dealer. How could he tell whether the article sold to him was or was not adulterated? He (Sir Henry Peek) sometimes made contracts in the West Indies for certain marks of arrowroot; but if, when it arrived in the docks, a purchaser came to him and said—"Give me a warranty that it is genuine," he should instantly reply—" Not if I know it." He should tell anyone who wanted to buy to go and look at it in the docks, adding—" If you don't like it, don't buy it."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Committee would perceive

  599
  that, unless they retained these words, the principle of this Bill and the previous Acts must fall to the ground. He admitted that the clause might be rather hard on the retailer; but, on the other hand, all reasonable concessions had been made to him. To adopt this Amendment would be to depart from the pledge which the Government had given to retain the principle of the Bill unimpaired.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RODWELLmoved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "Upon such proof the justices or court shall dismiss the case and may order the prosecutor to pay such amount of costs to the defendant as they may think fit."
  The object of this Amendment was to protect the retail dealer from any act of oppression under this Bill.
  MR SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to make the language of the latter part of the clause more clear; but the real effect of the Amendment would be to make the purchaser of adulterated goods, who had succeeded in proving the adulteration, pay the cost of the prosecution. This would be a monstrous proposal.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in line 22, to leave out from "prosecution" to the end, and insert—
  "But shall he liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecution unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will admit at the hearing the matters charged against him in the information."
  SIR HENRY JAMESconsidered that the Amendment was too vague in its terms.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpromised to further consider the subject before the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, there were three parties whose interest were to be considered in the Bill—first, the consuming public; secondly, the retailing traders; and, lastly, the wholesale dealers. The latter were the chief sinners in matters of adulteration, any adulteration committed by retail dealers being usually on a small and insignificant scale. Under the clause as it stood the interests of the consuming public
  600
  were not consulted at all; the retail dealer was protected, while the wholesale dealer escaped altogether. If the clause passed a regular traffic might be carried on in adulterated goods, and at the same time under a written warranty. He moved, in page 8, at end, to add—
  "When a defendant is discharged under the provisions of this section, the justices or court in their discretion may summon before them any person by whom, or by whose agent or servant, the warranty was given, and the like proceedings may be had against such person as if proceedings had been taken against him under the other provisions of this Act, and the same justices or court shall have jurisdiction for all the purposes of the new proceedings, notwithstanding that such person does not reside and is not found, and the article was not sold, nor the warranty given, within their jurisdiction: Provided, That no person so summoned shall be convicted unless he appear, or the justices or court are satisfied that the summons was served upon him personally or came to his knowledge."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that if the Amendment were passed, it would be impossible to know upon whom the function of prosecutor was to be devolved. He could only assent to the clause proposed on that question being placed beyond doubt.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, there were many legal difficulties against carrying out the Amendment. If adopted, alterations must be made in it to enable it to be put into operation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, said, that would be so. The Bill would be better without the Amendment. The retailer when he found he had an adulterated article sent to him by the wholesale dealer should be left himself to proceed against the wholesale man.
  MR. DODSONsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should prefer having further time to consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved the omission of the clause, which, though it had given rise to much discussion, was clearly satisfactory to nobody, and, as it stood, extremely complicated.
  Motion negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Application of penalties).
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH the following Amendments were agreed, to:—Page 8, line 28, after "constable," insert "of the authority who shall have appointed an analyst, or agreed to the acting of an analyst within their district; "page 8, line 28, after "to" leave out "the prosecutor," and insert "such officer, inspector, or constable."
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought that the period within which a person charged with having committed an offence under the clause might be prosecuted should be extended from six months to 12 months after the warranty.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would consider the point.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he thought that the penalties fixed by the clause were too severe, and would prevent magistrates from convicting under the Act.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHintended to propose on the Report that the words "not exceeding," which would give the magistrates the power of mitigating the penalties, should be inserted in the clause.
  Clause, with Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Punishment for forging certificate or warranty; for wilful misapplication of warranty; for false warranty; for false label), agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Proceedings by indictments and contracts not to be affected), agreed to.
  Expenses of executing the Act.
  Clause 28 (Expenses of executing Act).
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to throw the expenses of carrying the Bill into operation upon the poor rate in Ireland, which was paid by the owners and occupiers, in place of upon the grand jury cess, which was paid by the occupiers alone. Should the Government not assent to the Amendment he should feel bound to divide the Committee upon the point.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from the words "by the grand jury cess," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "from the poor rates."—(Captain Nolan.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Motion, on the ground that it would introduce the anomaly of having the appointments and the payments confided to different authorities.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsupported the Amendment, and said that the policy adopted in the clause represented a retrograde principle, from which the Government were obliged to depart the other evening in the case of the Explosive Substances Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHobserved, that in the Explosive Substances Bill a new charge was imposed for a new purpose, but that was not the case in the present Bill. If the charge in the present case was to be paid out of the poor rate there would be a great anomaly, as the guardians had no control over the appointment of the analysts.
  Question put, "That the words 'by the grand jury cess' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 38: Majority 67.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Special Provision as to Tea.
  Clause 29 (Tea to be examined by the customs on importation).
  MR. YEAMANmoved in page 10, line 10, after "stores," to insert—
  "But may be delivered for exportation with the sanction of the said Commissioners, and on such terms and conditions as they shall see fit to direct."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas unable to assent to the Amendment, which, if adopted, would prohibit the use of teas in this country, although the adulteration might be of a trifling character. He thought the Commissioners of Customs should have a discretion in this matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved in page 10, line 11, to leave out "unfit for human food," and insert "of a nature injurious to health."
  MR. MUNTZpointed out that "dried tea," although not "of a nature injurious to health," might be "unfit for human food."
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR HENRY PEEKmoved, in page 10, at end, to add—

  603
  "Tea afterwards proved to be in the same condition in which it has passed the Customs shall not render the vendor liable to penalties under this Act."
  Tea was commonly imported in large parcels technically called chops—the chests being all filled from the same heap—and it would consequently be easy to test samples which might be doubted by comparison with what might be left of the same chop remaining in bond.
  DR. C. CAMERONopposed the Amendment, which he believed was contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to the provision. It was not, he said, the practice of Customs to have anything to do with details after goods had passed out of bond.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONmoved, at end, to add the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, however, That before such tea be so finally forfeited and destroyed or otherwise disposed of, it shall be competent for the owner or owners, if he or they shall think fit, to call in and demand the opinion of three experienced sworn tea-brokers, and, in the event of the majority of the three persons so called in agreeing in opinion with the said analyst, then the said tea shall be absolutely so forfeited, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of; but in the event of the said tea being held and pronounced, by certificate in writing under the hands of the majority of such three sworn tea-brokers, to be of merchantable quality, it shall forthwith be delivered to the said owner or owners; and in any case the costs shall not be less than three guineas, and shall not exceed fifteen guineas in the whole, and shall be paid by the owner or owners making such appeal."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved that the best security against injudicious conduct on the part of the Customs was an appeal to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. If experience showed that such an appeal as that proposed was required, it could readily be provided for.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, that the power of destroying tea was one which ought to be very carefully used, more especially as a great deal of tea which came to this country was on foreign, and not on British account, and a different international question might easily be raised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Interpretation of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Provision for the liberty of a cinque port) agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Commencement of the Act) agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Title of the Act) agreed to.
  On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, a new clause (Application of the Act to Scotland) was added to the Bill.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, a new clause (Interpretation of terms in application of Act to Ireland) was added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 21st May, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.

  [BILL 95.] COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (The number of bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased.)
  MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. ERNEST NOEL)moved, in line 21, to leave out from "and whenever," to the end of the clause, and insert "and the Bishop of the said See shall at no time have the right to sit or vote as a Lord of Parliament." At the same time, he acknowledged that he was not certain whether any Amendment was necessary in order to secure the object he indicated.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that as in the case of the Act creating the Bishopric of Manchester it was intended that the new Bishop should in the ordinary way have a seat in the House of Lords in rotation, and that the effect would be not to increase the number of Bishops in the House of Lords but to increase the number out of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Courts, officers, archdeaconries, and other incidental arrangements constituting the bishopric of Saint Albans to be provided by a scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, approved by Order in Council.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 4, line 28, after "Saint Albans," to insert—

  605
  "Provided, That from and after such division the canonry in the cathedral church of Rochester now annexed to the archdeaconry of Rochester and Saint Albans shall be permanently annexed to the archdeaconry of Rochester."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Trusts of Bishopric Endowment Fund.)
  MR. SALTmade the suggestion that it would be far more economical for the Commissioners under the Bill to invest their funds in Consols and similar securities than in landed estates the management of which was very costly.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought there was great force in the suggestion, but deemed it necessary to give the Commissioners power to invest in lands, inasmuch as they might have occasion to buy a house and some ground.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEwas of opinion that it would be easy to manage landed estates much more cheaply than it was done by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL.

  [BILL 123.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it consisted of a good many clauses, but was yet a simple measure, the main object of which was to alter the mode in which local authorities were now empowered to contract loans. Those authorities had powers given them by Acts of Parliament to contract loans for certain purposes. Some of those Acts were local Acts authorizing a particular borough or body to borrow money for specific purposes; others gave powers generally to all bodies under Bills like the Public Health Bill or the Artizans Dwellings Bill. The powers so given were subject to certain provisions. For example, the bodies thus borrowing were bound to go
  606
  to the Treasury or the Local Government Board, or in certain cases to the Home Office, and show that they had authority to borrow; that they had not exhausted that authority; and that they had complied with all the statutory provisions in regard to the new loan they were proposing to contract. Then they were authorized by the proper Department to go into the market and contract the loan. Sometimes they obtained the money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; but in the great majority of cases they obtained it in the open market. But they were obliged to borrow by rather a cumbrous process. There must be mortgage deeds, and considerable legal expenses had to be incurred; while the lenders of the money were, to a certain extent, bound to see not only to its application, but he believed also to the observance by the authorities of the provisions of the law as to the keeping up of a sinking fund, and other matters of that sort. Again, if any person who had lent money to those bodies wished to realize a part or the whole of his advance he could only do it by a transfer of the mortgage—an expensive and troublesome business. On the other hand, the authority that wished to contract additional loans must do so by the issue of new securities and by means of a new mortgage; and after all those new arrangements were not as public as it was desirable they should be. Complaint was justly made of the cumbrousness of their present system of Local Government. They found themselves embarrassed by the action of so many different Boards, each possessing powers which it exercised without reference to the others. Unnecessary delay and confusion arose, the various bodies were hampered, and the natural effect of all that was to raise the rate of interest against them. The provisions of the present Bill were simply these:—That for the future local authorities proposing to borrow should borrow by a system of debentures, to be issued for not less than £10 or more than £1,000 each; and that those debentures should be presented to the Local Government Board to be stamped. Before stamping them the Local Government Board would ascertain whether the local body had authority to raise the money and had complied with all the statutory provisions, and on finding that it was entitled to

  607
  borrow a certain sum, say £1,000, a debenture to that amount would be stamped. It was hoped that those debentures would pass easily from hand to hand, and be a very marketable security. The local body would at the same time register the debentures, and the effect of that would be that after a time there would exist at the central office a complete registry of their liability. That would enable persons who wished to lend to ascertain the exact amount of the indebtedness of the borrowing body. The 13th clause of the Bill also provided that the accounts should be sent to the Government, and that there should likewise be an audit of the accounts of the local authority once a year in such manner as the Local Government Board might from time to time direct. The object of that was to secure the proper and due appropriation of the monies raised by loan to the purposes for which the parties were authorized to borrow it. He did not propose to go so far as to introduce a Government audit of the general accounts of local authorities. That was a step which he thought would be rather too strong for the House to take. A Committee which sat last year, under the presidency of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), inquired into that subject, and came to the conclusion that it would not be possible for the Government to attempt to institute an audit in the case of local expenditure generally. But with regard to that class of expenditure which would be provided for out of loans, which was specially authorized by Act of Parliament, and which would be more or less supervised by the Government, as, for instance, in the matter of stamping those debentures, it appeared to him to be both just and right that there should be a proper audit of the application of that money, and also of other money applied to the same works. For example, in the case of the construction of a sewer, the audit ought not only to extend to the money which might be borrowed for the making of the sewer, but also to any money raised from the rates for the same purpose.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. HUBBARDremarked that "power to borrow" was the text of this Bill, and of a great many other Bills which came before them; but he thought that before the power to borrow was encouraged and facilitated, some provision should be made to secure the means of repayment. He regretted that ever this Bill came before them to facilitate the powers of borrowing, while the one Bill—the Valuation Bill—which ought to be brought forward, was never introduced. Until that Bill became law, none of the local authorities were certain as to where they were to find the means of repaying the loans which they made. He urged upon the Government to be less eager in putting forward these borrowing Bills, and to bring in without delay the Bill which must, sooner or later, come before them; and, in the absence of which, introducing such a Bill as the one under consideration, was like putting the cart before the horse. He confessed that he disliked the proposition that local authorities should establish a sinking fund. What guarantee was there that these local authority sinking funds, all over the country, would be treated with more respect than the great national sinking funds which had existed in former years, and which had been exploded one after another? He saw in the introduction of this system very great danger; and he thought it worthy of consideration, whether the example of foreign Powers, which extinguish their obligations by making them redeemable by drawing, should not be followed. He objected to the continuance of this process of loans, until the basis of valuation was settled, and the conditions fixed, on which the rates were to be levied, by which these loans were to be ultimately repaid.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the principles contained in the Bill must commend themselves to the consideration of the House. The fact of the exercise of borrowing powers being sanctioned by the authority of the Government, and the Government audit of the accounts would be productive of great good. It was proposed that debentures to be issued under this Act should be stamped by the Local Government Board. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the introduction of this practical measure to give increased confidence to investors in those local se-

  609
  curities without entailing any charge or liability on the State beyond the supervision of the accounts of local bodies affected by the provisions of this Bill. He dissented from the views of the preceding speaker respecting encouragement of the application of sinking funds by local authorities. It was very desirable to fix a period for repayment or amortization of all such loans; and as the Bill provided for the employment of several modes of effecting this object, he hoped it would meet with support from both sides of the House. There was one point of importance to be considered, and that was, whether there should be any maximum rate of interest prescribed beyond which the sanction of the Government should not be given. That, however, was a point to be considered in Committee; and, meantime, he cordially supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be no limitation of interest.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the sanction of the Government could not alter the nature of any legal contract into which local authorities might enter for advances on the security of rates. There was no doubt that it would enable them to obtain these advances on more reasonable terms. The question of audit, and its limitation, ought to receive careful consideration.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the Bill, so far as its general tenour went, was one which might be adopted by Parliament. He questioned, however, the advisability of extending these facilities for issuing bonds transferable by delivery down to local bodies of the standing of Poor Law Guardians. Again, he could not conceive anything more dangerous than that trustees under wills and settlements—considering the amount of property in their hands, and the extent of modern trusts, should be enabled, where not expressly forbidden, to invest in the debentures of any local Governing Body. He almost doubted the wisdom of some of the past relaxations of this character, but he thought the Court of Chancery would be horrified if they found that, under the plea of facilitating the issue of local loans, any trustees who might invest in the debentures of a particular Body, were to be at liberty to take the debentures of any local Govern-
  610
  ing Body. He trusted the Government would, before going into Committee, consider how that clause could be altered. Then, he understood his right hon. Friend to say that the Government would be empowered to appoint auditors for examining the accounts of local authorities, in so far as those accounts related to moneys borrowed under their special Acts and the present Act, but not in respect of their general financial powers. Now, the distinction here proposed to be made would, he believed, be found very inconvenient, if not altogether unworkable, in practice, and he hoped the Bill would be amended in that respect. In addition to that, he strongly urged that the auditing of those accounts should not be handed over to casual officials, but should be conducted under the authority and responsibility of the Audit Department, established under the Act of 1866. With the exception of the points he had referred to, he supported the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hubbard) seemed to think that this Bill was premature, because no Valuation Bill had been introduced by the present Government; but, if there was any ground for complaint, it was that such a measure had not been submitted to Parliament many years ago, because very serious burdens for executing public works had been imposed upon local bodies, whilst assistance in obtaining money had not in all cases been afforded to them, such as had been given in the case of the Sanitary Act and the Education Act. As to the indebtedness of the local authorities, no doubt it was large—amounting to about £84,000,000—but large as that sum was, it was not excessive, in view of the rateable value of property that had to be set against it. Great advantage had been obtained by the metropolis, from the cheaper means which had been afforded for borrowing money by the Metropolitan Board, and by the smaller bodies through them, and it was but fair that other parts of England should have a similar advantage. With regard to a Valuation Bill, that could be nothing more than a reforming and re-easting of the present system, under which the present assessment committees did the work. He did not think, therefore, that his right hon. Friend was open to the charge of putting the cart before the

  611
  horse, while he thought that the local authorities had reason to complain that such a Bill as that now before the House had not been brought in years ago.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 27th May.

METROPOLIS GAS COMPANIES BILL.

  [BILL 82.] SECOND READING.
  (Sir James Hogg, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Goldney, Mr. John Holms).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in moving, that the Bill be now read a second time, said, Sir, the question which I am about to deal with is a very serious one, and if the Bill should be read a second time I shall not object to the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. The wide spreading feeling in the metropolis with regard to gas has reference mainly to purity, illuminating power, and price, and on these points great dissatisfaction is expressed throughout the metropolis. The Corporation of the City of London and Metropolitan Board appointed committees to consider what was best to be done; and in doing this they naturally had recourse to the Committees of the House of Commons, to see what had been recommended on previous occasions, and they came to the conclusion that it would be best to deal with the question in a wide and comprehensive spirit. They decided to present to Parliament three Bills, one Bill for the independent supply, another for the purchase of the rights of the Companies, and a third, the one which I now ask the House to read for a second time. As to an independent supply, it was stated in the Report of the Committee of 1867 that the absence of such a measure prevented a settlement of the question. I think if I read two or three extracts, I shall show that the Metropolitan Board only acted in a proper manner in bringing forward that Bill. I am now quoting from a Report of Lord Cardwell's Committee, page 15—
  "In conclusion, therefore, your Committee have now to repeat the expression of our decided opinion, that either by the way of regulation or by the way of an independent supply, the consumer is entitled to a far more distinct control than he at present enjoys with respect to the supply of the metropolis, and if the Company decline to submit to arrangements, mea-
  612
  sures should be taken for a new supply in independent hands."
  Further on, they say, in the last clause but three—
  "The proper remedy would be for Parliament to concede to the City of London or the Metropolitan Board of Works or other local authority the power of supplying those districts in the manner in which the Corporation of Manchester supplies that city and its surrounding neighbourhood, and your Committee consider that the main cause of the want of legislation has been the absence of any Bill authorizing the establishment of an independent supply of gas in the hands of a local authority."
  I think that in the face of a Report of such a strong character as that, the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board were bound to bring in a Bill such as I have named. With regard to the Purchase Bill, I do not think I need take up the time of the House in discussing the policy of the purchase of Gas Companies when I find that the municipal authorities in Scotland, at Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and those in England, at Manchester, Leeds, Oldham, Nottingham, and Birmingham, have adopted it. I think, therefore, I may say that the principle of municipal authorities having the control of the gas has been entirely conceded by Parliament. Furthermore, the Chartered Gas Company brought in a Bill in the present Session for the express purpose of enabling their undertakings to be purchased by the Metropolitan Board, and therefore I think I may say that they have also conceded that principle; and, furthermore, we have recently had brought before us a proposal from the Imperial Gas Company to ask upon what terms the Metropolitan Board would purchase their undertaking. With regard to the Chartered Gas Company, I am bound to say that the propositions contained in their Bill were such as no municipal authority would have thought of entertaining for one moment, because they were of an extravagant nature; but, still, that was a matter of detail which a Committee would go into. I may be asked, and I have been asked, why I thought it necessary to bring in three Bills, and that these three Bills should all go before a Select Committee of the House of Commons? I may be asked why were two of these Bills withdrawn before they came to the second reading? The answer is clear and simple—because I am not in the habit of keeping up fruit-

  613
  less discussions; and it having been intimated to me that any discussion would have a fruitless character, and that I would have opposition which would have ensured the success of that opposition, I thought that the proper course would be to rely upon the Metropolis Gas Companies Bill, which is merely a regulation Bill, and which now I ask to read a second time. Before going into the details of the Bill, I may mention that prior to 1868, nine of the large Companies were regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1860; and excepting three of them—the Chartered, the Imperial, and the South Metropolitan, the legislation of 1860 now regulates their management. That Act of 1860 incorporated the Gas Works Act of 1847; and it is necessary for me to refer to that Act, because it distinctly recognized the interest of the consumer, for it expressly states that the surplus profits shall be applied to the reduction in the price of gas. As far back as 1847, the principle was announced that the consumer was interested in the reduction of the price of gas; and it was also recognized that consumers were interested as regards the profits of the undertaking. And this was also carried out by the City of London Gas Act of 1868 and other Acts which, in a distinct manner, show that this principle ought to be insisted upon. A clause in the Act of 1868 states this principle most distinctly—
  "They shall fix such illuminating power and such price as shall be calculated—the Company to use due care in the management of its business to earn the full dividend."
  [Read on!] Do you wish me to go on? I only wish you to see that I can quote authority for what I say, and I will not take up one moment too much of the time of the House. Well, the Acts of 1847 and 1868 having shown that due care ought to be insisted upon, I do not think that the consumers, through the municipal authorities of the City, the Corporation of the City of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works, are doing anything at all wrong in asking the House of Commons to reconsider this question. It is no novel principle at all, and all that we want to do is to make effectual enactments, the principles of which have already been recognized. Another point is with regard to the rate of dividend. The maximum is
  614
  fixed as 10 per cent; and that is in the Act of 1847, Clause 30. The Act of 1868 also recognizes that, and says that it shall be only "after due care and management." Having explained the principles, and what the Metropolitan Board and the City wish, I may mention that both these Bodies were impressed with the earnest belief that Parliament not only desired due care and proper ma nagement on the part of the Companies, but also to secure that object by giving the shareholders an interest in economical management; and looking at the various proceedings lately taken by the Board of Trade, they thought that the Companies had entirely failed, and al though the City had advanced arguments on behalf of the public, it could obtain no redress. In the case of the Imperial Gas Company the Board of Trade Commissioners got the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which was as follows:—
  "We think under the Imperial Gas Act of 1869 the Commissioners are precluded from inquiring into the question as to the mode in which that Company have raised or expended their capital, and the capital for the purposes of this inquiry must be assumed to be duly raised.
  (Signed)
  "JOHN KARSLAKE,
  "RICHARD BAGGALLAY,
  "E. WILLS."
  In the face of that opinion it was quite impossible for the Board of Works to go further before the Commissioners. Though Parliament has prescribed the amount of dividend, and laid down that due care should be used, we were precluded from going into questions whether due care had been exercised or not, especially with regard to the raising of the capital. There was another point with regard to the powers of the Companies of raising fresh capital and also the price that capital brought. Under existing circumstances, there seems to us—the Metropolitan Board—a very great inducement to raise capital in an undue way. For instance, £100 shares can be sold very shortly after being issued for £160 or £170; and I need not say that this is a great inducement to raise money for the undertaking. Having alluded to this, I will touch upon one or two other points of the Bill. I have been asked several questions as to the repealing of the clauses in the Act of 1860. The reason for the repeal is that it is desired to secure a uniformity

  615
  of legislation, and to adopt in the present Bill provisions which may not only apply to the Companies under the Act of 1860, but to those which have been dealt with by Parliament since that date. Now, as to Clause 6 of the Bill, which is most objected to by the Gas Companies, I must say that it seems to me as well as to my Colleagues that this clause, in fact, imports a very valuable provision, for it makes the whole of the shareholders, individually and collectively, deeply interested in the way in which the respective concerns are carried on; and it is done in this way. If a higher price should be charged than 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet within the metropolitan area the dividend is to be decreased. This will give all the shareholders an interest, and make them most anxious that their various directors should carry out this efficient and economical measure. Some say that this is a one-sided arrangement. Possibly it is. But when this goes to a Committee, I am sure that the Metropolitan Board who have charge of this Bill will be most anxious in every way to meet the views of those who thought that the sliding scale ought to go in an opposite direction; and if the Gas Companies, by good regulations and by great economy, find they are able to reduce the price of the gas, then the shareholders will benefit. Another point is the illuminating power. I want to make it clear, with regard to the illuminating power and the price of gas, that throughout the metropolis the consumers of gas have got some slight cause of complaint. I will take 1874. I find that the Gas Light and Coke Company charged 5s. per 1,000 cubic feet, giving 16 candles; the Imperial 4s. 8d., giving 14, while the South Metropolitan only charge 3s. also of 14 candles; the Commercial charge 4s. giving 12 candle gas. So that the price of gas varies from 3s. up 6s., and that was during the time when coal commanded rather an exceptional price. Coming to 1875; I will just give the same Companies. Gas Light and Coke Company 3s. 9d., giving 16 candles; the Imperial 3s. 9d., 14 candles; the South Metropolitan 3s. for 14 candles. I may say that it is the desire of those who promote this Bill—the City and the Metropolitan Board—that throughout the whole of the Metropolis we should get a good and pure gas of 16 candles at the rate of 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet.
  616
  That is the principle of the Bill. Another point is the question of referees, who will prescribe and certify the mode to be adopted for testing and recording the illuminating power and pressure of gas, and who will do a variety of other things. The proposition of the Bill is that one should be appointed by the Gas Companies; another should be appointed conjointly by the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board, and the third will be appointed by the Board of Trade. We think that the establishing of these three referees will be the forming of a very excellent and very efficient body. There are other provisions in the Bill of a secondary character, but they are simply for enabling the Act to be worked out and do not touch any vital principle. I only hope that the House will agree that the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board have endeavoured to approach this somewhat difficult task in an impartial spirit; and although they may touch somewhat the rights of the Gas Companies, it does seem to us that Parliament who has regulated them on many previous occasions may be very well called upon to regulate them again in an equitable manner. In conclusion, all that I can say is this—that I put it to the House, and ask them whether they consider that unity of management, that unity of price, and the same illuminating power for gas is or is not desirable in this metropolis? If the House thinks it is desirable to have this unity of management, and illuminating power, and also price, they will read this Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee, where any details can be gone into and thoroughly thrashed out; and if they should unfortunately reject this Bill then the municipal bodies, whom I am glad to say upon this and other questions have been entirely in accord, will feel that they have done their duty to the consumers of gas in submitting a fair and comprehensive scheme for the judgment of Parliament to Act upon.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James Hogg.)
  MR. WHITWELLregretted that the second reading of this important measure should be taken in the absence of the hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Young), who took a deep interest in the subject, He knew of no instance in

  617
  which a bolder attempt was made to acquire the entire control of independent companies than was made in that Bill. He did not mean to say that it was not a right thing to do, or that it might not be for the benefit of the public; but he thought the House should be made fully aware that what was proposed was to give up the competitive interests of these companies, and place them under the entire control of three individuals. The Bill would be sure to meet with great opposition from the gas companies. As regarded keeping down the dividends to 10 per cent, it was quite evident that could be done without the public obtaining any advantage from it whatever.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Helston would not be the only one who would feel surprised at finding that measures which they thought would have been postponed were nevertheless proceeded with. Certainly, they had not had adequate time to discuss a measure of this importance; but as the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, that was an inconvenience which might be there remedied.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was sorry the hon. Member for Helston was not in his place on that occasion, but it was the hon. Member's own fault. This measure was certainly an important one, affecting as it did the Gas Companies; but it was also important as affecting the interests of the public. He allowed that, as now drawn, it might seriously affect the interests of the Gas Companies; and if the Bill passed in its present shape it might be said that Parliament had not kept faith with them. But he believed it to be possible that the Bill might be so amended in Committee as to keep faith with the companies, and to materially benefit the consumers. This being a matter which might be dealt with in Committee, all he had to do was to see that the Bill was referred to a strong Committee with the other two Gas Bills now before Parliament. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had consented to take charge of the Committee. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then he would move that the three Bills should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONwould impress upon the House that this Bill proposed to deal with property amounting
  618
  in value to something like £36,000,000. He did not think that the profits of the Gas Companies should be unfairly interfered with, and thought that, so far as the municipal bodies were interested in the matter, they would rather regard the illuminating power than the price.
  MR. YEAMANobserved, that the Bill would not only affect the Gas Companies, but the public to a very considerable extent. He thought it would have been much better if the Government themselves had introduced a Bill dealing with the Gas Companies. He could not help thinking the metropolis was far behind the great provincial towns, both in respect to the supply of gas and water. Edinburgh and Glasgow and other large towns had the water and gas supply entirely in their own hands, and the consequence was that those communities were not only well supplied, but supplied at the cost price. He hoped that the Government would support a proposal for transferring the works and business of the Gas Companies to the Metropolitan Board, so that there might be the best gas supplied at the cheapest possible rate. He should certainly support the measure before the House.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was rather surprised to hear the admission of the President of the Board of Trade, that if this Bill were passed in its present shape it would be a direct breach of faith with the Gas Companies. He did not think it would be his duty, after such a statement, to allow the Bill to be read a second time without a division.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would not divide the House upon that occasion; but that, if he designed to offer determined opposition to a particular clause, he would postpone it till the stage of Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) fully shared the doubt expressed by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to some of the provisions of the Bill. Parliament could not be expected to sanction the 6th clause without considerable modification. At the same time, he thought the ground taken by the opponents of the Bill was scarcely tenable. He could not admit that the Gas Companies had a right to come to Parliament and say the Legislature could not interfere with their property so long as they did not pay more

  619
  than 10 per cent to their shareholders. He thought such a position would be a much more serious contravention of public policy than anything urged by those who were in favour of this Bill. The position of the Gas Companies was two-fold, some being under the Act of 1860 and some under that of 1869. The companies that were under the Act of 1860 had a more elastic range, while as regarded the companies under the Act of 1869 the range was more limited as to the prices to be charged. It was desirable that, as far as possible, all the Gas Companies of the metropolis should be placed on the same footing. The subject would undergo a searching investigation in the Select Committee, and on that ground he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, that this was the third of the measures introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works during the present Session, and the two former had completely failed—a fact which sufficiently proved the utterly untrustworthy character of that body. In regard to the present Bill—on the 9th of April last all the Gas Companies on the south side of the Thames were before the President of the Board of Trade as a deputation, and assured him that they were quite prepared and quite willing to amalgamate if the President so desired, and with a view to economy, on the terms of his letter of November last, and to insert clauses in the Bill to give the Metropolitan Board of Works powers of purchase at a fair price, to be ascertained by arbitration in the usual way, in the event of any difference. Indeed, the Phoenix Company, by arrangement, brought in a Bill this Session seeking power to amalgamate with all the Companies on the south side of the Thames, and to carry out the views of the President as expressed in his letter to which he had referred. With the leave of the House he would read one passage from the letter of the President of the Board on the 11th of November last; and he must say, in passing, that though he had somewhat against the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion, it was a real pleasure to go to the Board of Trade on any business, for a more courteous and painstaking Minister did not sit on the Treasury Bench. The passage he selected was as follows:—
  "It is said that two Companies, through whose
  620
  districts the very large main of another Company passes, are about to apply for increased capital to create a new source of supply immediately above this very main. The needless expenditure of material and labour, and, above all, the waste of gas arising from these causes must be very large, and if, by amalgamation and harmonious arrangements this waste could be prevented, there is every reason to believe that the annual expenditure of the Companies might be much less, and their incomes much larger than they now are. Under present circumstances it rests with the Companies them-solves to propose such arrangement, and if they fail to make the attempt, they lay themselves open to the observation that, being secure of their 10 per cent, they have no interest in promoting economy."
  Now, what happened? Why the Metropolitan Board of Works opposed the Bill, and threw it out on Standing Orders He asked the House to receive that Bill and to let it proceed and go to Committee, for the Phoenix Company were quite ready to carry out the views of the Board of Trade as expressed in the letter from which he had just quoted. The Imperial Company had a Bill for a similar object—namely, to amalgamate with the Companies on the north side of the Thames. The Chartered Company had already amalgamated with five Companies; so that if the House had allowed the Phoenix and the Imperial Bill for amalgamation to proceed, there would have been three Companies in the metropolis instead of 12. The Chartered and Imperial Companies on the north, with their new and gigantic works well away from the habitations of man, down in the marshes of Bow and Woolwich; and one on the south also away from dwellings on the Surrey Canal, where the South Metropolitan Gas Company had 30 acres of ground to cover. This would be fair and reasonable. It would not be abrogating the Parliamentary contract by the Act of 1860, or the subsequent legislation of 1868–9 1869. It would secure the public audit of all the Companies, and it would promote economy, while maintaining the illuminating power and purity of the gas. To show the unfortunate effect of this repeated harassing of the Companies, and of the attempted wild legislation by the Metropolitan Board of Works upon this subject, it was only necessary to mention that the Imperial and Chartered Companies, who, by the legislation of 1868 and 1869, had the price of gas reduced to 3s. 9d., with the illuminating power raised to 16 candles with the revision

  621
  clause, were in 1874 charging 4s. 8d. and 5s. for their gas, spending £10,000 in the process; whilst the other Companies not interfered with were charging generally 4s. The Bill now before the House laid down a hard-and-fast line as to price, purity, and illuminating power; but it was impossible for Gas Companies supplying a sparse district to furnish gas upon the principles there enunciated. The Complaints, to which reference had been made, as to the price of gas arose entirely out of the circumstance that in 1873 the price of coal advanced from 14 s. to 32 s.—more than 100 per cent. It was impossible, in that case, for the Companies to pay a 10 per cent dividend, without increasing the price of gas; but the price had since been diminished as the price of coal had been reduced. He trusted the House would reject the Bill now before it, or that, if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the President of the Board of Trade would take care that the existing Acts were not overridden, and that the rights of gas shareholders were not injuriously affected, as they would be if the Bill now under consideration was passed in its present form.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, which was in violation of a Parliamentary bargain made some years ago. After briefly sketching the history of gas legislation during the last 60 years, and dwelling particularly on what occurred in 1860, the hon. Member proceeded to remark that whereas the Phoenix Gas Company were only bound to supply 12-candle gas at 4s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, they would under this Bill have to supply 16-candle gas at 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. Could any one maintain, therefore, that the present Bill did not interfere unfairly with that company? If this principle were sanctioned, good-bye to any reliance on a bargain with Parliament for the future. Let hon. Members ask themselves upon what the title to their own property rested. Was there any that had a better foundation than Parliamentary sanction? Within the last few years we heard of the death of two men who never did a stroke of work for the pensions they received out of the taxes of this country, Lord Ellenborough and a descendant of Lord Thurlow, one of whom had £7,000 and the other £9,000 a-year. But nobody thought
  622
  of interfering with their rights. And why? Because they were secured by an Act of Parliament. This was not the first Bill brought in this Session on the subject of gas. Three had been brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The first was a Bill to purchase the Gas Companies at a price to be fixed by the Metropolitan Board. The companies would not submit, and the Bill was withdrawn. The second was a Bill to enable the Metropolitan Board to compete with the companies; another £13,000,000 was to be raised to do what was well done by the companies. That Bill was withdrawn for reasons best known to its promoters, and now came a third Bill in which the Metropolitan Board said—"If you won't sell, and if you won't allow us to compete, we will ruin you first and purchase you afterwards." He denied that there was any proof that the Metropolitan Board would supply gas to this great metropolis on better terms or more efficiently than the companies now did. He hoped the House would not admit the principle that where a Parliamentary bargain had been made and millions of money subscribed on the faith of it, it was possible that it could be revoked. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. DODDSseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Young.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that this was a very important question, as nearly 4,000,000 of people, the inhabitants of this metropolis, would be affected by the decision arrived at to-night. The principle of the Bill was sound—namely, that unity of management necessarily carried with it economy and efficiency. There was ample evidence to establish the fact that the local governing bodies of many large cities and towns in this country succeeded in supplying gas on moderate and satisfactory terms. No one could underrate the value to this great metropolitan community of the proper regulation and control of the supply of gas. Gaslight in London was of nearly the same importance to many as the light of day—the avocations of

  623
  the working classes and of the poor, as well as the comforts of the rich, were affected by it. Anyone who had had so long an experience of London as he had must be aware that much dissatisfaction was constantly expressed by all classes of persons respecting the purity and the price of gas. The whole subject demanded inquiry. As it was proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he hoped the House would agree to read it a second time without a division. He would be about the last man in that House to interfere with private enter-prize or vested rights; but he took it that the recommendation of a Select Committee would be that the vested rights of the various companies should be dealt with not only equitably, but liberally.
  MR. SAMUDAcomplained of the short notice hon. Members interested in this question had received that the second reading would be taken that night. With the principle of the Bill generally he was in accord and had no objection to it, as well as the two other Gas Bills, being referred to a Select Committee. It was right that the public should be protected by a Regulation Bill, and the general conditions of the Metropolitan Bill—with some few exceptions—he did not complain of. But he did complain of the interference of the Government with the proposals of the private companies. The Government, in fact, wished to impose terms on the companies as to the mode in which they should raise their new capital, and thus took on themselves to dictate both to the companies and the Committee of this House, to whose judgment the matter ought properly to be referred; and, acting under the influence of the Metropolitan Board, he supposed, thought it justifiable to insist on terms which it would be impossible to obtain. They said—" either you shall raise all your new capital on loan at 5 per cent, or you shall have an opposition to your project being passed." The Commercial Gas Company felt bound to reject these terms. He also thought the Government were acting on a mistaken notion in supposing that the interests of the public demanded that they should interfere in this way with private enterprize. If they thought that through the Metropolitan Board of Works or by any process of their own, they were in a position to purchase the
  624
  Gas Companies, he could not conceive that the companies would have any objection to sell their undertakings, and in such case it could make no difference in the amount to be paid for each undertaking how the capital had been raised, for the amount of purchase would be arrived at by fixing the number of years' purchase that should be given on the annual earnings of the company—as in the case of the Telegraphs—and the annuity of the company would form the only basis of purchase.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had reference not so much to the Bill before the House as to two private Bills enabling Gas Companies to raise additional capital. No doubt they might be coupled together. The question, however, was whether the present Bill should be read a second time with a view of referring it to a Select Committtee in company with the two Bills of the private companies. The remarks which had been made seemed to imply that the present system was by no means entirely satisfactory. There were irregularities which it was desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to get rid of, and it would be necessary to establish a uniform system which might be applied to the whole of the Gas Companies of the metropolis. That necessity was so obvious that it was unnecessary for him to dilate upon it. The Metropolitan Board of Works had originally proposed to take power to purchase all the Gas Companies of the metropolis. He confessed that his feelings was against such a proposal, and the influence of the Government was employed to induce them to withdraw the Bills brought in with that object. Those two Bills being dropped the question with the Metropolitan Board of Works was, whether, if they were shut out from a measure for supplying gas to the metropolis, they should introduce a Bill by which they might satisfactorily regulate the action of the private gas companies. With this view a Bill had been drawn up, the great body of the provisions of which were either satisfactory, or might be made so. The House would do well, therefore, to give a second reading to the present measure, so that it might be considered by a Select Committee, which he hoped might be a

  625
  strong one, and put into a proper shape. Special reference had been made to the 6th clause, limiting the price to be charged for gas to a certain standard. This clause stipulated that gas of 10-candle power should be charged 3s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet; and it was provided that if the price were increased, the dividend was to be reduced. That clause would, in his opinion, amount to a breach of faith, and was an unfair clause to be adopted. If that clause were to be considered an essential principle of the Bill, the House would, he thought, pause before it gave its assent. It would be, however, a pity to lose a Bill that seemed to be a good one in many respects, if the House saw its way to some omissions in, or modifications of, that Bill. If the Bill were now read a second time, and went to a Committee, it would be the duty of the Government to watch it carefully when it came back; and if that clause came back in its present shape, it would be impossible to allow the Bill to proceed any further. He believed, however, it would be possible for the Committee to consider and amend the clause, and to send down the Bill in such a shape that it might pass during the present Session.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he thought they were discussing the Bill under very exceptional circumstances. A great many hon. Members took a lively interest in this question, and some of them had gone away under the impression that the Bill could not be reached that night; and as any discussion which the House might arrive at in their absence would not be satisfactory, he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that, having seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, it was not competent for him to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. R. SMYTHmoved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
  MR. RITCHIE, in opposing the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, said, it was of the utmost importance that the Bill should be read a second time that night. If the debate were adjourned it was impossible to say when it would be resumed. With respect to the
  626
  Gentlemen who had left the House, that was a matter which concerned them only. He hoped the House would not give its consent to the Motion to adjourn the debate.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he certainly understood that the second reading was fixed for that day week, and under that impression he had advised several weary Members who were interested in the subject to go home to bed.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he could not make out why an inquiry was resisted. It was admitted that the gas supplied by the companies was infamous, and, further, that something must be done to remedy the existing state of things. The Gas Companies received more than they were entitled to, and they had evaded every provision in every Act of Parliament which was intended to limit their charges. Under these circumstances, he should support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  SIR JAMES HOGG, in reply, said: I do not think it is usual to move the adjournment of a debate when the matter has been so fully discussed as on the present occasion. This Bill came on for discussion soon after 9 o'clock, and it has now been on for more than two hours, and if it goes on for two hours longer I shall be happy to listen to all that may be said. As regards the hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Young), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) I regret extremely that they did not hear me introduce the Bill, because, if they had heard my remarks, they would not have spoken in the manner they did. Whenever I have been asked as to the time when I should bring in this Bill I have always said that I should do so even if it were 15 or 20 minutes past 12 o'clock. As regards the remarks on the postponement, I never gave, directly or indirectly, any intimation to any human being that I would not bring it on to-night. On the contrary, the only thing that was said was, that if certain provisions were not accepted by certain Companies Her Majesty's Government would try to afford me a day if I could not get on tonight. I must say that I did not expect it to come on so early, and to me it was a matter of extreme inconvenience. But I need not dilate upon this subject. I need not trouble you with any further observations; but I say that the state of

  627
  affairs in regard to gas is not satisfactory. This Bill is trying to put them in a more satisfactory position than they occupy at present. During the whole of the discussion the only serious objection taken is with regard to that 6th clause. All that I can say is, that the promoters will, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion and let the Bill go to a second reading, let that clause go to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and will let the Committee say whether it is suitable or not. I am quite prepared to say let that be done; and if the Committee of the House of Commons consider that we place too low a price, we are prepared to give the greatest consideration to the Committee selected by the House of Commons. I do not think I could say more; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the principle of the Bill was contained in the 6th clause, and he must vote against the Bill, so long as that clause remained in it. If it were omitted, then the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 147: Majority 110.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 67: Majority 75.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

TOWNS RATING (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]
(Mr. Butt, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Ronayne.)
TOWNS RATING (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 139.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Vance.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that as many of the Irish Members had left the House, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Captain Nolan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not see why the debate should be again adjourned. The Bill was brought forward for the first time yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) in a short and moderate speech, and to all appearance there was a great desire, on the part of hon. Members from Ireland who sat opposite, for a division on the Main Question. He had himself risen at 25 minutes to 6 o'clock, and had endeavoured, as far as he could in five minutes, to state his reasons for opposing the measure; but it had been talked out by one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own supporters. And now the House was asked to assent to an adjournment, because many of those who advocated the Bill were absent. That he did not regard as a fair mode of dealing with the question.
  MR. BUTTthought, on the contrary, the interest of Ireland in the matter would not be fairly dealt with if the Motion for Adjournment were not acceded to. Over 1,000 voters—he had heard the number put at 2,000—had been disfranchised in the City of Dublin alone, because the same facilities were not given for placing men on the register as those which existed in England.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONbelieved the Bill was a most insidious measure, being a new Reform Bill in disguise. In the borough which he represented (Enniskillen) there was no grievance felt from the existing state of the law. He hoped the House would not consent to an adjournment of the Bill, but would throw it out by a large majority.
  MR. SULLIVANremarked that it was all very well for the noble Lord opposite to say what he did, when perhaps he owed his seat to the fact that a large number of people who ought to be his constituents were deprived of the franchise. What a terrible scare to that House, which sat under a Conservative Reform Bill, and to men like the noble Lord opposite to hear of another Reform Bill! This was essentially an instance of unequal law for Ireland. She would not be deceived by such proceedings as the present, but would declare in the presence of all Europe—he saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  629
  (Colonel Taylor) laughing. It was the only argument that he ever contributed to their debates; perhaps, because it was the kind he was best fitted to contribute. ["Oh!" and "Order!"] If he had said anything unworthy of the most friendly feeling—if his observation was more impolite than the hon. and gallant Member's laughter, he withdrew it. He urged that the clauses of the Bill were copied from the English list, and it was not asking too much to postpone the measure for a fortnight.
  SIR PERCY WYNDHAMcondemned the Bill. Ireland had hitherto been remarkably free from bribery and corruption at elections; but this Bill would put it into the hands of any one to agree to pay a man's rates in order to give him the franchise, which it would lower, while tending at the same time to corrupt practices.
  MR. GOSCHENdiffered from the hon. Member who had just spoken in his views with regard to the effect of this Bill. The hon. Member had said it would have the effect of lowering the franchise; but the franchise would surely remain at £4 in Ireland, whether this Bill passed or not. The question was whether those who were enfranchised by Act of Parliament were to be disenfranchised by overseers? He regarded this Bill simply as the application to Ireland of a system that had been applied to England. If it were an insidious attempt to lower the franchise the House would know how to deal with it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 127: Majority 75. Question again proposed.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved the adjournment of the House.
  MR. LEITHseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Henry Havelock.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Government would not persevere in trying to force the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to proceed with this Bill. The course which the Government were taking in trying to force the hon. and learned Member to proceed was most unfair. It was an unprecedented course.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would not have thought of asking the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) to proceed with the debate, had not the hon. and learned Member himself proposed to do so. [MR. BUTT: "NO!"] The hon. and learned Member for Limerick proposed to go on with the debate, and then the hon and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) moved its adjournment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not treated the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and the people of Ireland well in the course he had taken in reference to this question. What the Irish Members asked was that a measure which had been adopted in England should be extended to their own country. To shovel such a demand as was made out of the House by a peremptory vote of this kind was both unjust and impolitic. He should therefore vote for the adjournment in order to secure a full discussion of the subject.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware of the unprecedented circumstance which had occurred on the previous day, when his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite by giving them an opportunity for going to a division on this Bill. It was important that good faith should be kept; yet no division was taken, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to-night moved the resumption of the debate.
  MR. BUTTpositively denied that he had done so.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsupposed that his eyes must have been deceived when he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman take off his hat. Instead of desiring to crush the discussion, the Government had merely been acceding to the wishes of Irish Members that this matter should be brought to an issue at once. If hon. Members used the Forms of the House to obstruct the progress of Business, they would do so at the risk of the reputation they enjoyed in the House and in the country, even though their tactics were approved by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. In conclusion, he might state there certainly had

  631
  been no attempt this Session to stifle any Irish question which had been brought forward.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had understood that if he had proposed to adjourn the debate till Thursday the Bill would have been opposed, and exactly the same course would have been taken as had been adopted on the present occasion. Believing that if he himself moved the adjournment, he should be deprived of the opportunity of speaking on the Bill, he asked his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Nolan) to move the adjournment in his stead. The present debate had been forced on from the other side. He had no indirect object in view. The occupiers in Ireland could only gain the franchise by claiming to be rated, and paying the rates the same as in England before the recent alteration. It was not fair to press this Bill on in the absence of any Irish Members who had left, under the impression that it would not be taken that night. He believed that if the Prime Minister had been in his place the debate would have been adjourned an hour ago.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the debate ought to be adjourned, and that it was unprecedented to pursue such a course as that proposed by the Government, especially in the absence of many hon. Members who had left for Ireland. He did not think from the number of Orders which preceded it on the Paper that any one could fairly have expected that the Bill would be reached that night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had evidently been, through fault or through accident, misunderstandings on the subject. If the Motion for the Adjournment of the House were withdrawn, he hoped the next Business on the Paper would be proceeded with.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

  PARLIAMENTARY SEATS (PEERS OF IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to enable Peers of Ireland, not being Lords of Parliament, to be elected and returned and to sit in the House of Commons for Irish Counties, Cities, Towns, and Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. BRYAN, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SURGEON, CLERK, &c. SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the Law respecting the Superannuation Allowances of certain officers of the staff of the Metropolitan Police, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

  COUNTY CORONERS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY COLE, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to the Election of County Coroners in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY COLE and Mr. EDWARD JENKINS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.]

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (FEN CHAPELS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Bill for transferring to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England certain Estates now vested in the Pen Chapel Trustees, and to make the Acts relating to the said Commissioners applicable thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, and Mr. MALCOLM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 173.]

  PHARMACY BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Bill to institute a Pharmaceutical Society, and to regulate the qualifications of Pharmaceutical Chemists in Ireland, and to establish certain relations between the Pharmaceutical Societies of Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 175.]

  GLEBE LOAN (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICHS-BEACH, Bill to amend "The Glebe Loan (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 176.]

  JUSTICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Justices of the Police District of Dublin Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Thursday next.