Commons Sitting of 6 April 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Local Government and Taxation of Towns (Ireland), appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class I.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading—Factories and Workshops Law Consolidation [123].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders [108], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
    STANDING ORDERS.

      RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY DEPOSITS.
      MR. RAIKES, in moving that Standing Order 158, relating to Private Business, be amended by substituting in the

      683
      first sub-section the words "Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice" for "Court of Chancery," and by inserting clauses providing that deposits be impounded as security for the completion. of Railway or Tramway Bills, said, that at present, persons applying for a private Bill to make a railway or a tramway were not able to recover the deposit which they were required to make until they could show that they had expended a certain part of their capital, or that they had made their line; but if they went to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order they were able to get back the deposit by instalments, in proportion to the quantity of line they had constructed. The proposed Amendment, without affecting in any degree the position of established railway or tramway companies, would adopt the practice of the Board of Trade with respect to railway or tramway deposits. He did not see that there was much to choose between the two existing practices which he had mentioned; and though, upon the whole, it appeared to him that that of the Board of Trade might be the more convenient, he did not put it strongly to the House so far as that consideration was concerned. He thought, however, the House would see that it would be better for the public that there should be one system of Provisional Orders and Private Bills, and that it would be desirable to adopt that part of the practice of the Board of Trade which had been found to work well as regarded the matter under notice.
      Standing Order No. 158, relating to Private Business read and amended, by omitting the words "Court of Chancery," in sub-section A, line 16, and by inserting the words "Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice," in lieu thereof, and by omitting all the words after the end of subsection A to the end of the Standing Order, and inserting the following:—
      Railway or Tramway Deposits.
      (Clause to he inserted, providing that deposit be impounded as security for completion of the line.)
      "In every Railway Bill or Tramway Bill whereby the construction of any new line is authorised, or the time for completing any line already authorised is extended, if such Bill be promoted by an existing Railway Company or Tramway Company which is not possessed of a Railway or Tramway already opened for public
      684
      traffic, or which has not, during the year last past, paid dividends on its ordinary share capital, or by an existing Railway or Tramway Company when the capital to be raised under the Bill is greater than the existing authorised capital of the Company, or by persons not already incorporated, a Clause to the following effect shall be inserted, viz.:—
      "B. Whereas, pursuant to the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament, and to an Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the ninth and tenth years of Her present Majesty, c. 20, a sum of £ being five per cent. upon the amount of the Estimate in respect of the Railway or Tramway authorised by this Act, has been deposited with the Court, that is to say, the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England [or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, or the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as the case may be], [or Exchequer Bills, Stocks, or Funds to the amount of £ have been deposited or transferred pursuant to the said Act, as the case may be] in respect of the application to Parliament for this Act (which Sum, Exchequer Bills, Stocks, or Funds, as the case may be, is or are in this Act referred to as 'the deposit fund: ') Be it Enacted, That, notwithstanding anything contained in the said recited Act, the Deposit Fund shall not be paid or transferred to or on the application of the person or persons, or the majority of the persons, named in the warrant or order issued in pursuance of the said Act, or the survivors or survivor of them (which persons, survivors, or survivor, are or is in this Act referred to as the 'depositors') unless the Company shall, previously to the expiration of the period limited by this Act for completion of the Railway [or Tramway] hereby authorised to be made [or the time for completing which is hereby extended], open the said Railway [or Tramway] for public traffic [or, if a passenger Railway for the public conveyance of Passengers]: Provided, That, if within such period as aforesaid the Company open any portion of the said Railway [or Tramway] for public traffic [or, if a passenger Railway, for the public conveyance of passengers], then, on production of a certificate of the Board of Trade, specifying the length of the portion of the said Railway [or Tramway] opened as aforesaid, and the portion of the deposit fund which bears to the whole of the deposit fund the same proportion as the length of the said Railway [or Tramway] so opened bears to the entire length of the said Railway [or Tramway] hereby authorised, the Court shall, on the application of the depositors, order the said portion of the deposit fund so specified in such certificate as aforesaid to be paid or transferred to them, or as they shall direct; and the certificate of the Board of Trade shall, if signed by the Secretary, or by an Assistant Secretary of the said Board, be sufficient evidence of the facts therein certified, and it shall not be necessary to produce any certificate of this Act having passed, anything in the recited Act to the contrary notwithstanding.
      "In every Railway Bill or Tramway Bill whereby the construction of any new line of Railway or Tramway is authorised, or the time for completing any line already authorised is extended, a Clause to the following effect shall be inserted:—

      685
      (Application of deposit or penalty in compensation to parties injured.)
      "C. If the Company do not, previously to the expiration of the period limited by this Act for the completion of the Railway [or Tramway] hereby authorised to be made (or the time for completion which is hereby extended), complete the said Railway [or Tramway] and open it for public traffic [or, if a passenger Railway, for the public conveyance of passengers], then and in every such case the deposit fund, or so much thereof as shall not have been paid to the depositors, or any sum of money recovered by way of penalty as aforesaid, shall be applicable, and, after due notice in the 'London Gazette' [or 'Edinburgh' or 'Dublin Gazette,' as the case may require], shall be applied towards compensating any landowners or other persons whose property may have been interfered with, or otherwise rendered less valuable, by the commencement, construction, or abandonment of the said Railway [or Tramway], or any portion thereof, or who may have been subjected to injury or loss in consequence of the compulsory powers of taking property conferred upon the Company by this Act [and also (in the case of a Tramway) in compensating all road authorities for the expense incurred by them in taking up any Tramway or materials connected therewith placed by the Company in or on any road vested in or maintainable by such road authorities respectively, and in making good all damage caused to such roads by the construction or abandonment of such Tramway], and for which injury or loss no compensation or inadequate compensation shall have been paid, and shall be distributed in satisfaction of such compensation as aforesaid, in such manner and in such proportions as to the Court may seem fit; and if no such compensation shall be payable, or if a portion of the deposit fund (or of the sum or sums of money recovered by way of penalty as aforesaid) shall have been found sufficient to satisfy all just claims in respect of such compensation, then the deposit fund (or the sum or sums of money recovered by way of penalty as aforesaid) or such portion thereof as may not be required as aforesaid, shall either be forfeited to Her Majesty, and shall accordingly be paid or transferred to or for the account of Her Majesty's Exchequer, in such manner as the Court thinks fit to order on the application of the Solicitor to Her Majesty's Treasury, and shall be carried to and form part of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or, in the discretion of the Court, if the Company is insolvent and has been ordered to be wound up, or a receiver has been appointed, shall wholly or in part be paid or transferred to such receiver or to the liquidator or liquidators of the Company, or be otherwise applied, as part of the assets of the Company, for the benefit of the creditors thereof: Provided, That until the deposit fund shall have been repaid to the depositors, or shall have become otherwise applicable as here in before mentioned, any interest or dividends accruing thereon shall from time to time, and as often as the same shall become payable, be paid to or on the application of the depositors."
      "N.B. If the Clause lettered (A) is inserted in the Bill, the Proviso at the end of the Clause lettered (C) shall be omitted."
      686
      (Time limited for completion of line.)
      "D. If the Railway [or Tramway] authorised by this Act shall not be completed within the period limited by this Act, then, on the expiration of such period, the powers by this Act granted to the Company for making and completing the said Railway [or Tramway], or otherwise in relation thereto, shall cease to be exercised, except as to so much thereof as shall then be completed. The period limited shall not in the case of a new Railway line exceed five years [or in the case of a new Tramway line two years], and the extension of time for completion shall not in the case of a Railway line exceed three years [or in the case of a Tramway line one year]. In the case of extension of time the additional period shall be computed from the expiration of the period sought to be extended."
      (Where preceding provisions are inapplicable.)
      "In any Railway Bill or Tramway Bill to which the preceding provisions are not applicable, the Committee on the Bill shall make such other provision as they shall deem necessary for ensuring the completion of the line of Railway or Tramway. —(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
      Motion agreed to.

  GAS COMPANIES—ADDITIONAL CAPITAL.
  MR. RAIKES,in moving the following new Standing Order relating to Private Business, to follow Standing Order 188:—
  "In every Bill by which an existing Gas Company is authorized to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained,"
  said, he was not surprised that opposition to it should have been expressed by a number of persons in the country, who regarded their pecuniary interest as being materially affected thereby. He would be the last man in any way to blame those who had such interests at stake for endeavouring, as far as they could, to induce Parliament to adopt their view; but, at the same time, the House must be well aware that it could not be guided altogether by consideration of interests of that description, and that it had a duty to perform to the country at large. At the same time, he held that the proposed new clause could not be fairly regarded as infringing upon private rights, and it would really promote the public interest. Some people had endeavoured to inflame the public mind by hinting that this legislation might be followed by similar steps being taken with regard to other companies—railway companies, for instance—but it

  687
  seemed to him that none of the reasons which should weigh with the House in agreeing to the change which he proposed would in any way apply in the case of railways. The proposed change was based entirely on the policy which had been adopted by Parliament in limiting the dividends of gas companies, and providing that those companies should be called upon, whenever they paid more than a certain rate of dividend, to provide for the public interest out of their profits. By the Gas Works Clauses Act of 1847 gas companies were allowed to earn a dividend of 10 per cent, if they could, and, after that, they might create a reserve fund up to the amount of one-tenth of their capital, which they might employ for purposes to which profits were applicable. It was also in some cases the practice that the companies should be able, out of these profits, to make up the dividends of the past 10 years to 10 per cent, in case of any of those years having fallen short of that amount; and having taken, as he thought, such exceedingly good care of the interests of the companies, the Legislature had provided that any surplus profits beyond the sum necessary for the purposes he had indicated should go in the reduction of the price of gas. It was in this spirit that he proposed this new Standing Order. He should be told that the Gas Companies Clauses Act of 1863 provided that shares in new capital were to be allotted to shareholders in a company at par; this provision was incorporated in various Acts; and on that the companies relied as enabling them to deal with their additional capital as they now did. But if the existing state of things in that respect were permitted to continue—if the companies were to be allowed to create new capital and to allot it amongst themselves at par, a capital which would command a premium in the market—there would be the greatest possible temptation to them to abstain from making any reduction in the price of gas, for the benefit of the consumer, and to create such capital, the interest of which would swallow up the whole of the balance above the 10 per cent divided on the old capital. His attention had been called the other day to the case of a company supplying a town of some size. The original capital was £16,000, which the
  688
  company had contrived to get increased to £24,000, and now they came to Parliament for power to create "improvement capital" to the amount of £48,000 at 7 per cent interest. The value of their undertaking was such that they had been offered £110,000 for it by the local board, which they declined as being inadequate. The difference between £24,000 and £110,000 was the capitalized value of the amount which had gone into the pockets of the shareholders, and which ought to have gone into the pockets of the consumers. By the creation of new capital they would pocket a bonus which, he contended, ought to go to the public. He thought the House would commit a great mistake if it did not resolve steadily to carry out what he considered to be the clear intention of Parliament in its original legislation on this question. A Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), sat in 1875 on the subject of regulating the gas companies of the metropolis, and in consequence of its labours, in the following year the Gas Light and Coke Companies Act and the South Metropolitan Gas Company's Act were both found to contain clauses similar to that which he now asked the House to make general. He might be told that in those cases there was a quid pro quo in the shape of a clause arranging a sliding scale of prices in proportion to dividend; but what he proposed would not prevent any Committee from inserting such a clause in a Bill. Clauses providing for putting new capital up to auction or tender had been introduced into Acts for Nottingham, Swansea, Reading, Yarmouth, Exeter, Brighton, St. Helen's, Bristol, and Newcastle-on-Tyne. It could not, therefore, be said that the principle which he advocated was a new one, and he did not think that any person had a right to complain of that being done by a Standing Order which could be done by a Committee on a Private Bill. With regard to the Amendment which had been put on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), no one knew better than that hon. and learned Gentleman that, while there did not exist a better tribunal than a Committee of the House, as far as a broad general question was concerned, a Committee sometimes discharged its duties in a per-

  689
  functory and hurried manner after the Preamble of a measure had been proved, and when questions of detail in connection with the various clauses remained to be considered. In places, therefore, where there was not a watchful and powerful corporation it might not be possible to secure such a clause when the Bill was before a Committee, and it was specially to give protection in such cases that he asked the House to assent to his Motion. However, he should have no objection to draft a clause which it should be optional to a Committee to insert as a sequence to the requirement as to putting new capital up to auction, and by which provision might be made for a sliding scale of price and dividend. It was now several weeks since he received a deputation of Parliamentary agents on the subject, and a copy of the Order had been forwarded to the agents. He had placed the Notice on the Paper for the week before the Recess, and he had endeavoured to secure early attention to the subject. At the present moment he had five unopposed Bills which had been adjourned until this subject had been brought before the House, and he had postponed them in order that all Bills should be placed upon the same footing this year. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen who would think their interests affected by the proposed Order would give him credit for not being actuated by any motive of hostility to them, but with an endeavour to promote what he believed to be the public good in a matter concerning his Department.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in every Bill by which an existing Gas Company is authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. RODWELL,in moving as an Amendment to leave out all the words after the word "capital," and to insert the words—
  "It shall be an Instruction to the Select Committee to consider the expediency of provision being made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained."
  said, he could assure the House that it was not without great reluctance that he found himself in opposition to his hon.
  690
  Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he was quite sure the House would give him full credit for the spirit of his concluding remarks. He did not see his way to accepting the compromise which had been suggested by the hon. Gentleman; for it appeared to him (Mr. Rodwell) the hon. Gentleman had put himself out of Court by the argument he had used in reference to it. He had certainly never seen any disposition on the part of Committees to shirk business, or to refuse to listen to any claim put forward. He reminded the House that this was a question which affected the interests of the millions upon millions of money invested in gas shares in this country. He believed that something like £100,000,000 was invested in those securities in this country, and it occurred to him that the proposed Standing Order was not one which could be passed sub silentio as it were. He had accepted the responsibility, and had brought forward his Amendment in order to give the Select Committees, before whom these Bills would have to go, a discretion in dealing with these matters, and to prevent the passage of a hard-and-fast law on the subject from which no company could possibly escape. For that would be the effect if this Order were agreed to. He imagined there would be no power to the Standing Orders Committee to set aside such an Order as that, and every Bill affecting gas companies must go into Committee with, so to speak, a rope round its neck; it would amount to a repeal of the existing law of 1863. He believed the Order would be a mischievous one, and that it would operate most unjustly and injuriously against both the shareholders and the public. He believed if the subject were left to be dealt with in the ordinary way, as it would by his Amendment, it would satisfy all parties. It seemed to him to be a strong measure to introduce a Standing Order affecting the interests of vast property, the effect of which would be the actual repeal of a clause of an Act of Parliament. The clause in the Act of 1863 which would be affected by this Order was in the following words:—
  "Shares, stock, or any additional capital raised when the ordinary shares are at a premium shall be offered in the first instance to the existing ordinary share holders."
  Was it proper that a Standing Order from which there was no appeal what-

  691
  ever should be made to repeal an Act of Parliament passed in 1863? He wanted to know whether that was a proper mode of dealing with such a largo question as this? They were, in fact, asked to repeal legislation on the faith of which persons had invested their money in gas property, and on the faith of which they paid the price they had done for those shares. It was a strong measure, and, in his opinion, one which was founded on neither justice nor reason. There was an error which seemed to be very popular, that gas companies were guaranteed 10 per cent. There never could be a greater fallacy. The fact was the law said after you had provided gas of a certain illuminating power and at a certain price you might divide 10 per cent if you could, and that all after 10 per cent was to go for the benefit of the consumer. That was a very different thing from saying they were guaranteed 10 per cent. A prudent man on buying gas shares took into account that he would be entitled to participate in future allotments of capital. He said to himself, "In the course of so many years I shall be entitled to some allotment under the Act of 1863." Were they, then, to override every principle of justice and the principle underlying every commercial transaction in life, to ask that man to give up the profits he anticipated on these shares? That was a question to which he wanted to hear some satisfactory answer given before the House divided on this question. Beyond that, it should be remembered that the price of coal and the state of the labour market might make it impossible for them to have any such dividend. In that case the value of gas companies' shares would become consequently depreciated. A comparison was drawn between gas companies and railway companies, and the latter being prosperous the hon. Gentleman might say to thorn in the course of time—"Your dividends are now far too large, they must be reduced." The fact was that railway companies being limited to 10 per cent had nothing whatever to do with the question now before the House, and he affirmed that Parliament was now asked to break a bargain which it had deliberately made. A question of the public interest in the gas supply had been raised, but he held that if such legislation as that now proposed were carried, it would operate not bene-
  692
  ficially, but most prejudicially to the public. He would take for illustration a case, how the shareholders' interest in the gas companies might become prejudicially affected. It might be necessary to extend the operations of the gas companies to out-districts, a course which would necessarily incur a large outlay of their capital. But new capital was not always profitable capital, and if capital was increased the dividend for the ordinary shareholder would be pro tanto diminished. If then, they put their capital into the hands of strangers the ordinary shareholder would be an actual loser by such a transaction. Parliament had no right to deal with the property of gas companies, unless they went before a Committee, when their case would be heard and their whole conduct reviewed. If a gas company applied for fresh capital, it was in the power of the Committee to say on what terms that capital should be granted. That was fair and legitimate, but this was an arbitrary and summary mode of dealing with the question—by a Standing Order directly at variance with the positive arrangement which Parliament had made. Whatever view the House might take of the Standing Order, he hoped they would. give him credit for having called; its attention to a subject of considerable importance, and a subject which ought not to be lightly dealt with. He hoped that importance would excuse him for having trespassed so long on the time of the House, and would conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which stood on the Paper in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "capital," in line 2, to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it shall be an Instruction to the Select Committee to consider the expediency of provision being made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained,"—(Mr. Rodwell,).
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, his object in rising was to take the opinion of the Speaker whether he (Mr. Speaker) could put such a question as that submitted by the Chairman of Ways and Means from the Chair. The Act of 1863

  693
  expressly enacted that the shares in any additional capital, under certain conditions there stated, should be allotted among the existing shareholders. Therefore, if the proposed Standing Order were carried, it would be in direct contravention of the provisions of that Act of Parliament. No mere vote of that House could repeal an Act of Parliament, and such a Standing Order, overriding an Act of Parliament, could have no legal or binding effect. There was another ground upon which the proposition of the Chairman of Ways and Means could not be put, and that was that they could not repeal an Act of Parliament unless by the substitution of another Act of Parliament; and the Motion of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would, in effect, if carried, repeal the Act of 1863. It would not even leave option to the directors; and those who took shares in the companies must suffer. The Act of Parliament of 1863 said—"You must not come before any Committee for a change of this law, unless you can show strong grounds." Now, any man reading those two things together must come to the conclusion, that if the Motion of his hon. Friend was agreed to by the House of Commons, great injury must result to those who invested their deposits in railway shares. It was only in consequence of the lateness of his instructions—he meant the lateness of the Notice he had received that this question was to be brought on—that he had been prevented from bringing the matter under the Speaker's notice beforehand, and thus giving more time for consideration. He ventured again to ask whether a Standing Order repealing in effect an Act of Parliament could be put from the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me whether this Standing Order can properly be put from the Chair, inasmuch as it repeals, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, an Act of Parliament. Now, a Standing Order does not, strictly speaking, repeal an Act of Parliament. This Standing Order is in the nature of an Instruction to the Committee to insert clauses to give effect to that Standing Order. When these clauses are introduced as part of the Bill, in pursuance of that Standing Order, they will of course be incorporated in the Bill and if the Act of 1863, or any other Act of Parliament is affected,
  694
  it would be by a Bill passed through its different stages in this House, and not by a Standing Order.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, it appeared to him that the question, which was very simple, was whether the gas companies were made for the public or the public for the gas companies. A contract was made between the Legislature and the gas companies by which a monopoly was granted to the latter on certain conditions—namely, that when the amount of remuneration was exceeded, the public should share in the surplus by a reduction in the price of gas; but they had taken advantage of the position in which they were placed, and had attempted to evade the provisions of the Legislature, and instead of reducing the price of gas had issued new shares at a considerable premium and obtained for themselves larger profits than were intended to be given by the Legislature. He thought that while the companies had their monopoly untouched the public should at the same time have their advantage, as laid down by the Legislature more effectually secured to them; and he thought the advantage could be secured only by the passing of the Motion.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means had done good service in bringing this question forward; but he was in the position which, perhaps, several other hon. Members found themselves in—namely, that the subject was new to him, as the facts were only known to those hon. Members who had been accustomed to sit on Private Committees. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was fair, looking at the importance of the interests involved, to attempt to decide the matter—a matter which really affected an Act of Parliament—by a mere Resolution of the House. Committees had, as a general rule, the power of relaxing the severity of Standing Orders; but the present was an exceptional case, as it was proposed that the Resolution should be imperative, and applied to all cases; and when once passed, it would be impossible to repeal it. He asked whether it would not be a dangerous precedent to pass that Resolution. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) that, in substance, the Resolution would have the effect of repealing clauses in former Acts. He

  695
  thought the Chairman of Ways and Means had quite failed in his argument to show that the interests of the public and of shareholders in gas companies wore irreconcilable. No doubt they were antagonistic in certain cases, and he was far from saying that in those instances the utmost vigilance ought not to be exercised in order to ensure that the public should be cared for; but that was different from saying that one rule should be adopted for all cases. The Chairman of Ways and Means had shown from the precedents he had quoted that there was a tendency in present legislation to deal strictly with gas companies. Why, then, not leave the question raised by the Resolution to the Committees? The Committees were alive to the importance of the question, and there would be no danger in allowing things to take their own course. On the whole, he was favourable to the Amendment.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, that an enormous sum of money depended on the decision of the House. There could be no doubt that there had been a bargain between the gas companies and the public. One of the most important points of that bargain was, that when the shares were at a premium, if more capital was required those shares should be distributed amongst the shareholders; and that bargain could not be varied without the authority of an Act of Parliament without doing a great injustice. He thought there were few, if any properties against which so many raids had been made during the last few years as the gas companies. They did not deal in this way with any other vested interests, and he protested against their being treated as public nuisances, which would be the case if the Motion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) were agreed to. He thought they were entitled to some consideration for having done a useful work at a time when few were willing to undertake the risk. What would the metropolis have done without its gas companies? Gas property had not always been a paying property, and he knew families that had hold gas property for years without receiving dividends.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House must bear in mind, in connection with this subject, that it was not a new matter, this question of dealing with the gas companies. It was a subject which from time to
  696
  time during the last 10 or 20 years had been frequently before the House, and there had been important discussions with regard to it. It had led to a great deal of legislation, and to still more in the way of recommendations from Committees and persons in authority. They could not help feeling that the subject was one which naturally excited a great deal of interest; because, on the one hand, it undoubtedly touched the interests of a very large and, as was said, a very meritorious body of capitalists, who had done great service to the country; and it also affected more or less directly the capital engaged in other branches of industry; on the other hand, it did seriously affect the interests of the public. For some considerable time they had been endeavouring to find a solution which should be fair to the gas companies and to the public who were consumers of the gas, and a great deal of legislation not always entirely consistent with itself had taken place with a view to regulate this matter. There could be no doubt that the question of the issue of new capital and the manner in which it was to be allotted, whether to the shareholders at par prices, or to other persons at such prices as they might think fit to give for it, was one of the most difficult questions connected with the subject. This question had been solved in the case of a great number of gas companies connected with the metropolis by the Bill of last Session, and in other cases by providing that new shares should be offered for sale by auction. It did, therefore, appear that means existed at present, in spite of general legislation by Private Bills, of meeting the cases in that sense to which his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had referred. They then came to the question whether they ought to go further, and by a Standing Order at once turn the balance entirely in favour of putting up all new shares to auction. No doubt his hon. Friend's clause was of rather a drastic character as originally proposed. It provided that
  "in every Bill by which an existing gas company is authorised to raise additional capital provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price at which it can be obtained."
  That was a clause which made no allowance for the peculiar circumstances of a

  697
  special case, and his hon. Friend was willing to modify it by a provision excepting those cases in which a Select Committee might take a different view. His hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Rodwell) proposed to invert that provision, and to say that additional capital should only be put up by auction when the Select Committee expressly declared that it ought to be done. He doubted whether much benefit would come from that, because the Committee had already the power to do this. It was likewise a provision that did not cover the whole ground, because it did not cover the case of those Bills which did not go before a Select Committee, and which were dealt with by the Board of Trade or by a Provisional Order. It was acknowledged, therefore, that the question was not without difficulty when the House came to deal with it by a trenchant Standing Order. A Bill, on the other hand, afforded opportunities for frequent discussion, and on these occasions hon. Members were enabled to argue the question up and down and determine in what way the matter could be best disposed of. There, were no doubt, difficulties on both sides. But there was another principle which had been advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), who was acting upon instructions, and he apprehended that the ruling of the Speaker on that point commended itself to the general sense of the House, and that was that the Act of Parliament could not be overruled in the manner proposed. But, although that was the case, the House was now dealing with a Standing Order which had been so far settled by Act of Parliament, and had been the subject of frequent and serious consideration. Without wishing at the present moment to express any positive opinion upon the merits of the different systems which had been advocated, he felt, and the Government felt, that to pass a Standing Order without further consideration which dealt with a subject that had been made a matter of legislation was rather a strong step. He would, therefore, suggest that the present discussion should be adjourned, and that more time should be given to consider what was the best mode of dealing with this subject. He thought what had passed had shown some of the difficulties in the way in a clearer light than ever before, and
  698
  perhaps when the hon. and learned Gentleman himself (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had had more time to consider the matter and to study his instructions, he would be in a situation and the House would be also in a position to see its way more clearly to a solution of this question.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had received no instructions on the subject; but he thanked the Chairman of Ways and Means for bringing this subject before the House. It was all very well for gas directors and coal proprietors to stand up for the interests of gas companies, but this was a very serious matter for the community, and he was quite certain that if the public out-of-doors understood the merits of this question they would support the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the same way as he (Sir Andrew Lusk) intended to do, in the action he was taking in the public interest.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not, after the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resist the Motion for adjournment; but it had struck him, in consequence of the representations that had been made to him, that, as he could not pass a Bill through the House, the course he had taken was the best under the circumstances. He thought, however, that it might be competent for the Government to deal with it by a Bill, and the great interests involved might fairly ask for the most careful consideration. He hoped, therefore, the matter would be settled by Parliament either in the way proposed or in that form.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be acceded to; but, at the same time, he thought the House ought to be informed whether the adjournment was to take place for the consideration of the Resolution of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or whether the subject was to be dropped, or whether the Government intended to introduce some general Act? Upon the general merits of the question he would not trouble the House; but on the strength of the contention he had maintained last year he should, if the Motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means were pressed, be prepared to support it, and give his reasons for doing so. Some of the objections which had been urged to it would apply as strongly to that of the

  699
  hon. and learned Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Rodwell), whose objections would apply as strongly to a Bill as to a Standing Order. Last year, when some of the most powerful gas companies in the Kingdom were before Parliament, there was scarcely any opposition to the adoption of the auction clauses, and if any very strong opposition had been entertained to them a good deal would have been heard on the subject of vested interests. He trusted that if the question were postponed, it would be with the clear understanding that in all cases of Bills that came on this Session there would be full power given to the Committees to insert the auction clause if they thought it advisable to do so.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that as there was a doubt whether this Standing Order would be a really Constitutional proceeding, the best thing would be to appeal to the Government to take the matter into its own hands, and deal with the subject by introducing a Bill. The House would then understand the whole proceeding, and would act in a Constitutional way, instead of doing an act which might be regarded as most despotic, and which might excite a feeling of great alarm.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONwished to make an explanation. He had received no instructions in the matter, and he had used the phrase more from professional habit, stretching over a great many years, than anything else. He had formed his opinion of the proposal from reading the paper after entering the House, and therefore he could not have spoken from instructions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not think he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had meant more than a joke when he referred to the expression that had fallen from him.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 17th April.

  QUESTIONS.

    CRIMINAL LAW—THE LATE EXECUTION AT LEEDS.—QUESTION.
    MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consider the expediency of
    700
    making the appointment of a public executioner, or public executioners, dependent on the Home Office and not on the discretion of High Sheriffs, so as to render less likely the repetition of such a painful scene as occurred lately at Leeds when the rope broke and the culprit was twice hanged?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I need hardly, I am quite sure, say how deeply shocked I was to hear of what occurred at the late execution at Leeds. I immediately communicated with the local authorities, and requested that a full report should be made to me as to the circumstances of the case, but that report I have not yet received. There is no doubt, however, I shall have it in a short time. With respect to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend, the House is aware that the duty of seeing that an execution is duly carried out is cast upon the High Sheriff of the county, and that he is responsible for its being properly and as humanely done as possible. I do not think it would be wise to take away part of that responsibility from the High Sheriff, who is presumably at the place, and to put it upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary, who cannot possibly be there. At the same time, I am quite of opinion that every possible precaution should be adopted to secure that no untoward event should on any such occasion happen; and therefore I am quite prepared to take steps to provide that such assistance shall be given to the High Sheriff on all future occasions as to material and otherwise as I hope will effectually prevent the recurrence of such a lamentable circumstance as that referred to. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say, in reply to the Question which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon) has placed on the Paper, that as far as the information I have been able to obtain is concerned, I believe that death by execution, as carried out under the present form, is as speedy and as painless as under any that could be devised. I am not therefore at the present moment prepared to suggest to the House of Commons any alteration of the existing system.

    COAL MINES — THE WEIGFACH EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

    701
    If his attention has been called to a report which appeared in the "Western Mail" of the 17th instant, which purports to be an account of the investigation which took place before the coroner's jury on its last day's sitting in respect to the explosion which took place in the Weigfach Pit, by which eighteen lives were lost, near Swansea, a few days ago, and if, more particularly, the evidence of Mr. Wales, the Inspector of Mines for the district, and the portion which runs as follows:—
    "It is lamentable to think that persons placed in such responsible positions can be guilty of such conduct as not reporting the true state of the colliery, upon which so many lives depended;"
    whether he will order such of the persons to which the Inspector refers to be prosecuted as may be alive; whether, considering that the manager admitted while under examination that he knew there was gas in the mine, that he will order an investigation to be made into his conduct for allowing men to make reports which have turned out to be incorrect; and, if the board or magistrate find him guilty of gross negligence he will see that his certificate is withdrawn?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have had information from the inspector of the district, and in consequence have directed proceedings to be taken against the foreman and manager of the mine?

    ARMY — COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
    MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention to introduce the Army promotion and retirement scheme by Royal Warrant or not; and if it is true that Majors and Captains who obtained their present rank before the abolition of purchase will not be liable to compulsory retirement under its provisions?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I hope the hon. Member will not think me guilty of discourtesy if I reply that my intention is to introduce the measure as a whole, and not to answer Questions as to parts of it.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    WATER SUPPLY OF RURAL DISTRICTS.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. A. H. BROWN: In rising to ask the attention of the House to the state of the water supply in the villages and rural parts of the Country, and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to confer upon the local authorities further powers in order to remedy the existing evils,"
      said, I feel that I have undertaken a task of great difficulty, and must ask the indulgence of the House on my shortcomings in the matter. The subject is of great magnitude, and I think I shall be able to show that it demands the serious consideration of the Government. But, first, I must explain that it is no part of my purpose to enter into that vexed question, the supply of water to large towns, or to say anything against any existing water company. Indeed, the Pollution Commissioners say that there is not much cause to complain. My point is the supply of water for domestic purposes in the villages and hamlets of the country. I must say a word upon the evidence which we have to show the state of the country in this matter. It appears to have been rather an odd arrangement that the Royal Commission on the Pollution of Rivers should have been the body chosen to undertake an inquiry into the state of the water supply of the whole country. But such is the fact, and to their last—the sixth—Report I must now draw the attention of the House. That Report is an exhaustive Blue Book, of over 500 pages, which deals with the water supply of the whole country. The Royal Commission have been five years at work upon the subject. One part of their Report has been dealt with by the Pollution of Rivers Bill of last Session, and I hope that the other part will now receive attention.

      703
      The practical way to deal with the question is to see, in the first place, from what sources the supply is taken for the wants of the country. These are, as pointed out by the Commissioners, first, river water; second, surface water of two sorts; third, deep well water; fourth, spring water; fifth, rain water; and, lastly, shallow well water. The first three are the sources, speaking generally, from which water companies draw their supplies for the large towns. The last three are the sources from which the villages and hamlets of the country are supplied, and I think I may say that the last two—rain water and shallow well water—are the principal supply. What is the condition of this supply? Is it wholesome and good? and what effect has its condition upon the diseases of the country? Let me read what the Commissioners say as regards shallow well water—
      "It is stated that about 15,000,000 of the British population live in towns and urban districts. Even if we assume, which is not yet the case, that all these people are supplied by waterworks, the remaining 12,000,000 of country population derive their water almost exclusively from shallow wells, and these are, so far as our experience extends, almost always horribly polluted by sewage and by animal matters of the most disgusting origin. The common practice in villages, and even in many small towns, is to dispose of the sewage and to provide for the water supply of teach cottage or pair of cottages upon the premises. In the little yard or garden attached to each tenement or pair of tenements two holes are dug in the porous soil; into one of these, usually the shallower of the two, all the filthy liquids of the house are discharged; from the other, which is sunk below the water-line of the porous stratum, the water for drinking and other domestic purposes is pumped. The contents of the filth-hole or cesspool gradually soak away through the surrounding soil and mingle with the water below. As the contents of the well are pumped out, they are immediately replenished from the surrounding disgusting mixture."
      That is a strong statement to make, but let us see if it is borne out by the analyses which have been made in such great numbers by the Commissioners. To give a complete analysis of all the constituent parts of water would be a long and profitless undertaking, and I may put it shortly and say that the Commissioners report that the three principal parts in solution are—first, organic carbon; second, organic nitrogen; and, third, an estimate of the previous sewage or animal contamination of the water, and they further lay down standards which
      704
      ought to be the limits beyond which the water ought not to be used as potable water. With regard to organic carbon, they say that potable water which contains organic matter, even only partly derived from animal sources, should not yield much more than 0·1 part of organic carbon from 100,000 parts of water. With regard to organic nitrogen, no standard can be laid down; but the previous history of the water must be known. With regard to the third point, the column, headed "Previous Sewage or Animal Contamination" in the analytical Table of the Commissioners, expresses, in terms of average London sewage, the amount of animal matter with which 100,000 lbs of each water was at some time or other contaminated. Thus 100,000 lbs of the water from pump in No. 5 Court, Hurst Street, Birmingham, had been polluted with an amount of animal matter equal to that contained in 151,000 lbs of average London sewage. The Commissioners divided the water under this head into three classes:—1. Reasonably safe water; 2. Suspicious or doubtful water; 3. Dangerous water. Now, let me quote a few of the cases analysed. At a well in King's Head Yard, at Kendal, in Westmoreland, there was 3½ times more organic carbon than the Commissioners laid down as the limit, and 100,000 lbs of this water showed evidence of being derived from a source which was polluted with an amount of animal sewage equal to that contained in 29,000 lbs of average London sewage. This water, according to the standard laid down, is dangerous water. Again, in the well of a Mr. Nicholson, at Gainford, near Darlington, there was 6½ times more organic carbon than the Commissioners laid down as the limit, and 100,000 lbs of this water showed evidence of being polluted with an amount of animal sewage equal to that contained in 48,000 lbs of average London sewage. This water, according to the standard laid down, is very dangerous water. In the case of one well, near Darlington, and the other at Leamington, the water showed evidence of even greater pollution from animal sewage; and in the case of a pump at Allen's Cottages near Wokingham, in Berkshire, there was nearly 13 times more organic carbon than the Commissioners laid down as the limit, and 100,000 lbs of this water showed evi-

      705
      dence of being derived from a source which was some time or other polluted with an amount of animal sewage equal to that contained in 184,000 lbs of average London sewage. This water, the Commissioners say, was at least double the strength of London sewage, and a correspondent says—"You are quite right in saying that the water of this pump is derived from a source 84 per cent worse than London sewage. In other words, if London sewage soaked through a few feet of gravel and supplied the well entirely with water, that water would be 84 per cent better than the water of the pump was at the time it was analysed. If this is not cannibalism it is an approach to it." The Commissioners examined 25 samples of water from shallow wells in Cornwall and Devonshire on Devonian rocks. They say—" Many of them are frightfully contaminated with sewage, and only 8 out of 25 samples could be used for domestic purposes without serious risk to health; and out of the 8 not one could be used for drinking with reasonable safety." Nearly all the samples were palatable, and many were clear and sparkling. Again, 44 samples of water from shallow wells in Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, and Scotland were examined, and the Report says — "A large number of these samples are of very filthy origin." Sir, I could multiply case upon case, but I must not weary the House. I think the facts in this book boar out completely the Report of the Commissioners that the water supply from shallow wells of the country is of a highly disgusting and dangerous character. Nor, Sir, do we find that any geological strata are exempt. Water from shallow wells from all the various strata of England is more or less polluted, although some are worse than others; but I must now expose a fallacy which exists in the minds of some people, though probably not in the minds of hon. Members of this House, and that is that polluted water can be detected by taste or smell; for, Sir, if we look down the long Tables which are given in the Report of the Commissioners, we shall at once see some of the most highly polluted waters are clear and palatable. The water at Allen's Cottages which I have mentioned as being double the strength of London sewage, was palatable and only slightly turbid. Let me mention a few instances.
      706
      There is a well at Hill Morton which is palatable, yet highly polluted. The same was the case in a well at Fountains Inn, Mile End. The same at Pryse Yard, near Cheltenham, and at a well at Newent, Gloucestershire, &c., &c. But I must turn to the second portion of my subject, which is, What has this dreadful state of affairs to do with the health of the population? Let us take the cholera cases, and we find that dirty water is at the root of the evil. We find that typhoid fever is propagated by polluted water. The Commissioners say—
      "Nevertheless, after careful consideration of all the facts accessible to us, we are of opinion that the existence of specific poisons capable of producing cholera and typhoid is attested by evidence so abundant and strong as to be practically irresistible."
      But for further details I must refer hon. Members to the third part of the Report of the Commissioners upon the water supply. In addition to this evidence we have the evidence of the officers of the Local Government Board itself. The Local Government Board has been in the habit of sending down to any neighbourhood an Inspector when there has been an outbreak of fever. Now I have here the summarized Reports of those officers—and what do they show? From the year 1870 to 1873 there were 142 inquiries, and out of them in 125 water was mentioned as one of the causes of the fever. Again, in another series for the year 1873, out of 42 inquiries, chiefly on account of fever, in 32 it was found that bad water was one of the causes. Again, in 1875, out of 27 inquiries, in 15 it was reported that bad water was one of the causes of the fever. The cases were from different parts of the country, and a large number of them from small villages and the rural parts of the country. But I pause for a moment to say that I hope hon. Members who represent large constituencies will not think that this matter does not concern them. They must not forget that a large part of the food supply comes from the country, and I must now show how typhoid fever and other diseases from the country are imported into towns, and which can be directly traced to the fact of polluted water in the country. The Marylebone milk case will illustrate what I mean:—
      "This Marylebone fever outbreak is an illustration of the way in which the water supply to

      707
      country places may affect the health of town populations. Chilton Grove Farm, on which it is believed to have originated, was one of the farms whose milk had been sent to Marylebone; and here alone of all the farms which supplied the milk company, whose customers had been attacked, had there been a case of typhoid fever. The farmer had fallen a victim to this disease shortly before the outbreak of fever in the metropolitan parish, and the water supply to the homestead at Chilton Grove will illustrate the difficulties and dangers which surround the present way of providing water for domestic use in rural clayland districts. The farm-house well, 20 feet deep, was close to the kitchen door, and near to foul drainage from pigsties and from scullery and yard. The house drainage and chamber slops were thrown into the filthy ditch within a few yards of it, and foul water necessarily drained thence into the well close by. It is believed accordingly that matter containing the specific poison of the typhoid fever which had occurred at the farm-house, and been prevalent in the neighbourhood, may have obtained access to the well water, which was used in washing out the milk cans, and that in this way the milk itself had become infected."
      At Islington there was another outbreak: 70 families were attacked, and 175 people were poisoned. Cases have occurred at Armley, near Leeds, of pollution of the milk supply by water, at Moseley and Balsall Heath, near Birmingham. Sir, I could go on, and give more illustrations of the danger we are running in this from our neglect of our water supply. Perhaps we may go on for some time without any great outbreak; but if an epidemic should arise, we should repent bitterly of our folly in not seeing to this matter before; and I conclude this part of my case by quoting the opinion of the Pollution Commissioners, who sum up this part of their inquiry with the remark that—
      "It is humiliating to reflect on the vast amount of premature death and misery which is thus carelessly permitted to exist in the midst of a civilized community."
      Now, I think that I have, though very imperfectly, shown that a grave evil exists in our midst, and the question arises—how are we to grapple with the evil? Sanitary legislation in this country is not an old science. Up to very lately we were content to let matters drift along, only doing a little patching here and there. It was only on the Report of the Sanitary Commission appearing that we began to try and bestir ourselves, and the result was the dividing the country into sanitary districts, by the Act of 1872. That Act was amended in 1874 and in 1875, and a
      708
      consolidating law on public health was passed. That is the governing statute now. When we look at that Act we are struck with its permissive character. A great deal has been done, but more remains to be done. The first thing which strikes one is the absence of any declaration that it is the duty of the builders of houses to provide a proper water supply for the houses which they build. It appears to me that a good supply of water for a dwelling is as necessary as that the dwelling should have a roof. It is as necessary that pure water should be at hand for the inmates of a house as that that house should not be overcrowded with inmates. It does, therefore, appear to me that the first step is to say that houses which are erected in the future should not be inhabited unless they had a proper supply of pure water for them, and that the duty of seeing that this was done should be cast upon the local authorities, for all new houses at any rate. If this were done, the inhabitants would not be compelled to drink the filthy sewage which now passes under the name of pure water. Now I turn to another point of the law as it now stands. The local authority has power to close wells or cisterns, the water of which is not fit for human consumption. Clause 70 gives this power when the case is proved before a court of summary jurisdiction. But there is no power to compel the owner of any cottage or house property to provide a supply in lieu of that which is declared bad, where there is no public supply, and cases of this sort occur—
      "I will merely mention one case which I have before me at this moment. Three adjoining cottages in a large parish belong to three different owners. The only water supply is one shallow much contaminated draw well on the premises of one owner. This is ordered not to be used, and there is no other potable water within half a mile. The owners both singly and conjointly decline to sink a well or wells in a suitable situation, which could be done at a reasonable expense. The only course (as there are no works of water supply in the neighbourhood) is for the sanitary authority to provide the water at the expense of the parish. This is so manifestly absurd that nothing is done. If the above, which is the general, and I believe the correct, interpretation of the law, is correct, it certainly needs alteration."
      Now, this is the sort of case which is likely most frequently to occur, and it is one of cost. It appears to me that where the cost is reasonable, and where

      709
      there is not great difficulty in either digging a well or storing water, the expense ought to be borne by the owners, and that where several owners are concerned the cost ought to be divided among them. The local authority ought to be charged with the duty of seeing this carried out. Now I am aware that in some parts of the country water is difficult to obtain, and the cost could not be considered reasonable. But so important do I think this matter, that I would be prepared to throw a part upon the parish, or on a special district constituted for the purpose; while the balance should be thrown on the owner or upon an estate, as we have charged drainage and other works. The powers of Clause 62 should be enlarged to cover cases where there are not public waterworks. Here, let me quote the opinion of Mr. Caird, before a Committee of the House of Lords on the Improvement of Land—
      "My Colleagues and I would suggest that in the case of charges for the supply of water to a village for sanitary purposes, it will be very advantageous where the village belongs to an estate that it should be included in the objects of the loan, the improvement being one that is for the convenience of the agricultural labourers resident on the estate."
      I shall, of course, be told that something has been done in the Agricultural Holdings Act. There, the water supply is mentioned as one of the points for which a tenant can with consent obtain compensation on disturbance of occupancy; but the point is hardly met in that case, for that Act has not come into operation to any extent. For my part, I am sorry that this subject should have been mixed up with what is a disputed question, compensation for unexhausted improvements. I cannot but think also that the powers conveyed in Clause 69 with regard to the pollution of streams are anything but satisfactory; but on this point I feel that we must wait until some experience has been gained as to the working of the Pollution of Rivers Bill of last Session. But I can assure the House that the defects in the law on this point have caused great evils, and are the cause of a great deal of the disease of the country; and I sincerely hope that a simpler mode than an appeal to the Court of Chancery may be found. But I now come to my last point, and that is, the permissive character of the powers
      710
      conferred on the local authorities. They may do a great many things in sanitary matters; but the duty of doing them ought to be cast upon them. Let me quote the opinion of a Conference of medical officers of health and others convened by the Social Science Association, which passed the following Resolution:—
      "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the powers of the Public Health and other sanitary Acts which are of a permissive character should as far as practicable be made compulsory."
      And as further proof of the permissive character of the Public Health Act, I would refer to Clause 64. By that clause the authority has the charge of certain public wells; but it is directed, not as one would suppose, to keep them in order for the use of the inhabitants, but only if it choose to do so. There can be no stronger proof of the tentative way in which we have proceeded. But now the time has come when we can safely take a step further, and say that upon the local authority should be cast the duty of seeing that every house has a proper supply of pure water, and that the permissive powers should be made compulsory. At the end of last Session the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board, in answer to a Question, told me that a great deal was being done, and in proof told the House the amount of the loans which were being made by the Government for water supply. No one could have been more glad to hear it than I was; but these cases refer to the towns and populous places where large and costly works are required. My Motion is directed at the rural parts, the villages and hamlets of the country, where there is a great deal to do, and as far as I can understand the subject, loans and public works are not applicable to farms, rural villages, and hamlets. The only remedy to cure the evils which exist is the vigilance of the medical officers and the vigilance of the local authorities. Make this matter a matter of duty which they must perform, give them the powers which I propose and compel them to exercise them, and then we have done all that lies in our power. I hear that the Committee in "another place" is about to investigate the subject of storage of water; but I may say in regard to this that in most parts of the country I think the remedy is not to be found in that direction. Of

      711
      course, I am glad to hear that the matter is to be inquired into; but it appears to me that the cost of storage of water would fall on the ratepayers, and we should again have the cry raised about the burden of rates. I do not believe that this is necessary in most parts of the country. In conclusion, I beg to thank the House for the kindness with which they have listened to me in the imperfect statement I have made. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to confer upon the local authorities further powers in order to remedy the existing evils affecting the water supply for domestic purposes in villages and rural parts of the Country,"—(Mr. A. H. Brown,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) had brought the question before the House, as it was a question of the greatest importance, and the evil undoubtedly in the rural districts was one which required a remedy. The present state of things could not be allowed to exist longer, and something ought certainly to be done. In rural districts the water courses were the means by which impure matter was carried from place to place, thereby causing infection. He hoped, with regard to them, therefore, that the Act of last Session would be thoroughly carried out. His opinion was that a thorough system of storing water ought to be adopted. Drainage had been carried out to such an extent throughout the country that water had become scarce, and the only remedy for that was, the local authorities ought to see that it was properly stored and delivered as pure as possible. How much of the disease among cattle might have arisen from an impure supply of water he was not prepared to say, but attention had been recently directed to that question. He trusted that full information with regard to the water supply would be placed in the possession of the Local Government Board through the rapidly multiplying
      712
      local authorities, and that when this information was concentrated in London it would be followed by proper legislation.
      MR. J. COWENsaid, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) for the interesting and instructive statement he had just made. The question he had raised was highly important, and worthy the consideration of both Parliament and the Government. The sanitary condition of large towns had greatly improved during the last quarter of a century. It was not so good as it ought to be—not so good as it might be, if the local authorities used the powers they had at their command—but it was better than it was. There were agencies and influences at work, however, that he trusted would make the future as much better than the present, as the present was better than the past. But while there had been a marked improvement in large towns, the condition of rural districts had not advanced, but in some measure had actually retrograded. The increased populations and the gathering of them into large villages had made the state of things not only comparatively, but absolutely worse. There was an impression that the rural districts were abodes of Arcadian bliss. They had been told of—
      "The cottage homes of England,
      By thousands on her plains,
      They are smiling o'er the silvery brook,
      And round the hamlet fanes."
      This was the language of poetry and fiction, not of fact. It would be more correct to parody Mrs. Hemans's verse, and say—
      "The cottage homes of England,
      Alas, how strong they smell;
      There's fever in the cesspool,
      And sewage in the well."
      There were three qualifications requisite for a correct sanitary state—First, the possession of wholesome houses, with ample open air and breathing spaces; second, a ready and repeated removal of sewage; third, a good supply of pure water. If he was called upon to give an opinion, he would say that this last condition was the most important. There was nothing conveyed infection more readily than water, and there was nothing that impregnated water more than sewage. Some diseases, such as diptheria

      713
      and enteric fever, were specially promoted by drinking impure water. The water supply in villages was obtained chiefly from two sources, from rivers or rivulets—or, as they called them in the North of England, burns—and from wells. The water-courses were in many instances simply channels by which the sewage of one village became the drinking water of the next. They did double duty. They acted at one and the same time as sewers for the carrying away of refuse, and as aqueducts for supplying water. In wet weather, when the streams were swollen, the people got more water than sewage, but in time of drought they got more sewage than water. He would only refer to one case which illustrated this point, and that was as evidence which a clergyman recently gave at a sanitary inquiry. That gentleman said—
      "I took a walk about three miles down a certain brook. At its very source is a village, where it appeared to be washing day, for the women were all employed emptying their suds into the brook, a few yards below the spring, while filthy drains were discharging their contents in the same direction. About a mile below, I came to another large village, where the same acts were being repeated on a large scale. After this several farmyards contributed their drain- age to the brook, which had become in colour and smell just like a very bad horsepond. Being by this time got on to the dry clay, where any other source of water is at present unknown, I looked forward with sad interest to see what would be done at the next village. On arriving there I found a dozen men and boys bathing in a delectable semi-fluid, while a large drain was pouring out a sluggish black slime just opposite, and fifty yards or so before this were a number of poor women engaged in dipping out the water, as they called it, to make their tea."
      It was unnecessary to give further illustration as to the condition of the rural districts with respect to water. That had been already done by the hon. Member for Wenlock. He wished to call the attention of the House to another aspect of the question, and that was the supply of water to the large mining and manufacturing villages in the Northern and Midland Counties. In the Black Country, in Staffordshire, Lancashire, parts of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham a different condition of things existed from that in the southern and agricultural counties. They were not scattered villages there, but one continuous street of houses. Village ran into village, and town into town. From the Tees to Blyth it was almost a continuous population. If you ascended a hill you
      714
      could see at work from 150 to 200 steam-engines, all engaged in tearing out treasures from the bowels of the earth, or hurrying them away for export by sea, or by some great trunk railway. Around these engines, and factories, and. mines, were gathered villages, varying in population from 200 to 2,000. The ground beneath them was, to a large extent, honeycombed by coal working. All the wells and springs were drained into the mines, and the villages themselves were in many instances absolutely drained of water. There were thus huge lakes underground, containing not millions, but hundreds of millions of gallons of water; but this, however, was not useable for culinary or domestic purposes, as it was impregnated with all manner of impurities. In times of long drought, the suffering for want of water in colliery districts was very great. No part of the country required legislation on this subject more than that to which he had referred. His hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) could testify to the want of water in the pit villages of the borough he represented. The mode of dealing with two classes of districts must be somewhat different. In agricultural localities the mass of the people were careless as to the water they consumed. They did not know the value of having it pure, and they drank the filthy fluid that came to them without hesitation. The gentry, on the other hand, were in too many instances nonresident. When they did live in the country, they had an abundant supply of good water on their own premises, and they did not, therefore, feel the want. They interested themselves in magisterial duties—in maintaining the highways, county bridges, and the police—but they were indifferent as to the supply of water. The farmers and tradesmen, again, viewed the question purely as one of rates and expenditure, and declined to incur the cost of bringing the necessary supply to their homesteads. The ignorance of one section, the indifference of another, and the selfishness of the third had prolonged the condition of affairs that existed in the agricultural districts. This was not the case, however, in manufacturing or mining places. There the coal-owners were interested directly in the health of their workmen. If they built 100 houses for their miners, and 10 or 12 out of this 100 were con-

      715
      stantly disabled by bad health, arising from defective sanitary conditions, it was a direct loss to them. The owners recognized this fully, and the houses and surroundings of the colliery villages had unquestionably been improved of late years. Another difficulty arose with them, and that was the want of authority to bring the water to the villages. The mines, as he had explained, had drained the wells and springs, and the only way to get the water was by bringing it some distance from the hills. They had no existing authority that could accomplish this. He knew a mining village in the North of England that was situated in two Poor Law Unions, three parishes, four townships, and that had, in addition, two Local Boards of Health, two Burial Boards, besides other local bodies. It was impossible to get these different bodies to adjust their conflicting interests and obtain the requisite power for bringing water from a distance. The Government had promised to bring in a Bill to establish County Boards, and one of the first and most important duties it would have to discharge would be to provide machinery for giving a good supply of water. One other point he wished to submit to the House. It was only indirectly connected with the question, but it was worthy of their consideration. In the borough of Tynemouth they had recently utilized sea water for sanitary purposes. They had erected an engine, and utilized an old reservoir into which sea water was pumped daily. This liquid was used for three purposes—watering the streets in dry and dusty weather, flushing the sewers, and supplying the public baths, as well as being furnished to such private individuals as wished to have salt water baths in their houses. This experiment had been highly successful. It was found that the streets moistened with salt water remained damp longer than when sprinkled with fresh water. The sewers were not only flushed but deodorized by the sea water. Much of the offensive smell was removed from them, and the cost had been so reduced that it had almost disappeared, because the persons who used salt water in their houses paid nearly a sufficient sum to recoup the Corporation for the expense they incurred in the work. He mentioned this as a consideration for hon. Gentlemen who lived near the seaside, or on the
      716
      banks of tidal rivers. The time for making the changes proposed was specially propitious. The Government, too, were under a pledge to do something for the sanitary condition of the villages. The Home Secretary promised, when he introduced the Artizans Dwellings Bill, that it should be extended to the rural localities. That promise had not yet been fulfilled. The Artizans Dwellings Act had been eminently successful in large towns, and doubtless it would prove equally successful in country districts. This was not a Party question. There was no political excitement in the country. Not a movement stirred the placid surface of public life. They lived in dull, common-place, humdrum, Conservative times. The vocation of the Radical agitator was for the present gone. This subject was one that they could all engage in, irrespective of Party. He hoped, therefore, the Government would prepare some measure for dealing with the subject without delay, and would thus earn the thanks of both present and future generations.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not complain of the manner in which the Motion had been introduced by the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown), who had shown a consistent and very commendable interest in that important question for many years past. No words of his own could exaggerate the importance of a pure and plentiful water supply, and he feared that a good deal remained to be done before that matter could be placed in a perfectly satisfactory position. At the same time the hon. Member had scarcely done justice to the efforts which of late years had been made by Parliament and by local authorities, and through which, in almost every quarter of the kingdom, those elements of sanitary science had been made known which 30 or 40 years ago were unrecognized. The House, he thought, would hardly do well to agree to a Motion of that somewhat general character, as the hon. Member had not brought forward any specific plan for their consideration. He had also wandered somewhat from the strict subject of his Resolution—namely, the condition of the water supply in the rural districts. The hon. Gentleman had relied on a Report of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners. That Report, a very interesting document, was the sixth and last of a

      717
      series of volumes which had proceeded from the same quarter; but before it was printed and circulated in the country, a great deal had been done by way of anticipation; and therefore much of the evil connected with the water supply of the rural districts had either been dealt with already, or was in process of being dealt with. The hon. Member had referred to the clause of the Public Health Act which provided means for the closing of polluted wells. That clause had been in operation with the happiest results. As to the owner of a polluted well not being compelled to seek another well in the place of the one that was closed, it must be remembered that the pollution of a well might arise from the misfortune rather than from the fault of the owner; and it did not at all follow that he was responsible for its polluted state. With regard to the many cases in which milk had become impure from the uncleanliness of the utensils in which it was sent to market, that important fact had become known through the action of the Inspectors under the Local Government Board, who had made most careful Reports on the subject, and had disseminated valuable information for the service of the whole community. The hon. Member said they had not attended sufficiently to the prevention of pollution in the public stores of water. But they had given ample powers to the local authorities, and they ought to be a little patient when they saw things were going on well, and the local authorities were awakening rapidly to the duties which the law had recently cast on them. He objected to the hon. Member's proposal that the Local Government Board should have power to issue a mandamus for the purpose of compelling local authorities to execute sanitary works. Compulsory powers were vested in various Departments of the Government, and more particularly in the Department with which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was connected, and he was not averse from exercising those powers when absolutely necessary. But he did not ask Parliament to confer on his office any further powers of that kind than could be shown to be positively required for the public interest, as regarded safety. He would ask the House what would be the difficulty of determining many of the questions which would indirectly arise. In
      718
      the first place, the hon. Member suggested that, in future, no house should be permitted to be inhabited unless it was furnished with a proper water supply; but in carrying that out difficult questions would invariably arise in determining what would be a reasonable cost to put on the owner, and what should be deemed a proper supply. Surely, when they saw the sanitary authorities exerting themselves to perform their beneficial functions in their several districts they ought to encourage them to proceed in that course, but should not harass them by Government compulsion, or interfere with them by more direct action as between the owners and the tenants of house property. The hon. Member showed, in some of his observations, how imperfectly he had considered a number of the difficulties connected with this question. One of his suggestions had been that, as it would be unjust to throw the whole of the cost of a small village supply on the owners of the houses, a portion should be charged against the owner of the estate. That showed that he imagined that all these cottages were owned by the owners of large estates; but some of the most scandalous cases were owned by small proprietors or by the inhabitants themselves. With respect to the Pollution of Rivers Act of' last year, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had always felt that to put that Act in force in its full scope would require some further legislation. The local authorities would have to be strengthened when they came to deal with the large rivers which were highly polluted by the manufactories aggregated on their banks; but he had stated, as a particular inducement to the House to pass the Act of last year, that it would give the means, immediately it came into operation, of purifying the upper parts of rivers, which formed the sources whence unpolluted water could be drawn. There was no reason why, within a very short period, the upper streams should not be thus purified. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), that, so far as it had come under his notice, some of the mining and manufacturing districts were worse off than the agricultural districts in reference to water supply. But, on the other hand, the mining districts were more easily dealt with, because they were much more populous, and it ought not to be

      719
      difficult to make proper provision for the water supply of a large population. It might be fair to consider, when legislation as to the public health was again before Parliament, whether the owners or occupiers of mines, who by their lucrative operations cut off the supply of water from districts, should not be put under some obligation to replace that supply. The difficulty of carrying out these arrangements in the several rural districts was very great indeed. He would re-state for the information of the House some observations on this subject which he made last year. He then showed that this question of water supply, especially for country districts, had been continually under the notice of the Government, and that it had received a great deal of his attention during the three years he had been in office. The subject was also brought under his notice by an important and influential deputation in 1874. He consulted his Colleagues whether it was desirable or not to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject; but, for reasons that he would not go into then at length, it was considered unnecessary, as the Pollution of Rivers Commission had gone fully into the subject and obtained much valuable information in reference to it, and therefore it was thought better to act on the information they had and lose no time in taking steps in that direction rather than relegate the whole subject to a Royal Commission and delay legislation until a distant period. In 1874, Parliament amended the existing Sanitary Acts, by a measure which contained many provisions relative to a better supply of water in the rural districts. That was the existing law. Again, in 1875, the whole of the sanitary laws were consolidated with further amendment in the same direction, and in the last Session of Parliament the Pollution of Rivers Act was passed, to the immediate operation of which he looked forward with some confidence for considerable beneficial results. The passing of the Public Health Acts of 1872, 1874, and 1875 had drawn the attention of the sanitary authorities to this subject. The rural sanitary authorities had not been negligent in exercising their powers in providing water supply. In 1873 the total amount of money borrowed by them for the improvement of water supply was £1,992; in 1874 it was
      720
      £16,628; in 1875 it was £31,274; and in 1876 it was within a fraction of £40,000. Now, though that £40,000 might not be a very large sum to distribute among not less than 40 different Unions and districts, yet it was not asked for exclusively by the sanitary authorities of the more populous districts—it was asked for, to a great extent, in very small sums indeed. In one case only £350 was borrowed, in another £500, in another £257, and so on. The sums distributed in these 40 Unions and districts ranged from £1,502 to £250. That was a very satisfactory indication of the rapidly growing interest that was being taken in the subject, and that the sanitary authorities of the rural districts were not slow to avail themselves of the powers which they possessed. The rural sanitary authorities had just the same powers of providing for a supply of water as the urban sanitary authorities had. They could authorize the digging of wells, the construction of reservoirs, the buying of waterworks, and the constructing of new ones, and they might require any water company to lay on water if it should be found necessary. Then it might be asked, why did this cry for pure water come more from the rural districts than from the towns? The answer was plain. In urban districts, the population being large, it was easy to lay on a rate and make each occupier or owner contribute to the expense; while it was very difficult to do it in rural districts where the population was sparse. However, the Government had every reason to believe that the owners of property in the rural districts were becoming more and more alive to the necessity of meeting the wants of their tenants, and the tenants were becoming more and more alive to the advantages of a pure water supply. The Sanitary Commissioners undoubtedly went further, and proposed that every house without a water supply should be regarded as a nuisance; but that was a very important and delicate question to deal with. In 1875, when considering the Amendments on the Public Health Act, he informed the House why he thought the time had not come when such an interference with property in the country districts would be just or tolerated. The House acquiesced in that view, and no communication reached him from any quarter to press the mat-

      721
      ter further. He admitted, however, that something further was required to be done. He had lately received a communication from an important rural sanitary authority, asking that they might be empowered to make bye-laws by which to deal with every house in the district not properly supplied with water. He was glad to see such an application coming from the public, because it was satisfactory to know how much attention was being given to the subject, and a desire for improvement in that respect, before such a startling proposition was made by Parliament. There was a case in his own neighbourhood of a parish of 5,000 acres, where there had recently been a water supply established, and the expense charged on the rates. Before, however, the proposition could be made general, there were many points to be considered. It was a question whether all the inhabitants of a district should be compelled to take water, because the hon. Gentleman would see how extremely unjust it would be to do so, when a large number of the houses might be supplied by water from their own wells by their own agency, or by their landlords. The rural sanitary authorities having all these powers, and the difficulties such as he had indicated to contend with, was Parliament to interfere with a view to strengthen the law by passing an abstract Resolution committing them to peremptory action, or wait until they saw an opportunity of dealing with the subject in a way that would cause no irritation, and might answer the purpose, without adopting such suggestions as had been made by the hon. Member for Wenlock. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had stated very shortly what had been done in this direction since the present Government had been in office, and what he expected would be the result of the Act of last Session. His noble Friend the President of the Council was about to propose a Committee in the House of Lords which would deal with a very important portion of this subject, and his noble Friend, he believed, would himself be the Chairman of that Committee. There was also a Bill before Parliament which he hoped—and, indeed, he saw no reason to doubt—would be passed this Session, to give power to the limited owners of estates to charge them for the expenses
      722
      incurred in providing storage for water and expenses of that character; and the Burials Bill, which had been introduced in the other House of Parliament, proposed to deal with the pollution of water arising from neighbouring churchyards, and he might mention that since he had been in the House that evening he had been informed of an outbreak of fever directly attributable to that cause. That being the state of the case, and the amelioration of the past being of a very satisfactory character, he was not afraid of being taunted with the permissive character of most of the legislation that had taken place on the subject. He thought they had educated the local authorities upon this subject. The time, however, had not arrived for another amendment of the Public Health Act for dealing more largely with a great portion of this subject, yet the subject would not be lost sight of, neither by the Government nor by himself; and the hon. Member would give them credit for not having under-valued the importance of the question. He could not promise to introduce this year or next a Public Health Bill, and he must ask the hon. Member, under the circumstances, not to press his Motion that evening to a division.
      MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had satisfactorily disposed of the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown). The right hon. Gentleman was always fair in intention at least, but he had not on this occasion entirely met the statements of the hon. Member. In his (Mr. Stansfeld's) opinion the House was greatly indebted, and for himself he was much obliged, to his hon. Friend for having so lucidly drawn its attention to this very important subject, and the speech he had made in introducing the matter had been distinguished by its moderation of expression and by its felicity of exposition. His hon. Friend had shown the character of the evil complained of, the nature and extent of the danger to which it gave rise, and the remedies that should be adopted to remove it. His hon. Friend had undoubtedly hit a blot in the Public Health Act of 1875, and the right hon. Gentleman had failed to show that the remedies ho proposed would not meet the requirements of the case. It had

      723
      been clearly shown that the rural water supply was injuriously affected, and that, through the milk supply, the large towns were also affected by it. His hon. Friend had also given instances of the pollution of water used for domestic purposes in various parts of the country, and he (Mr. Stansfeld) was himself confident that the statements had not been exaggerated. His right hon. Friend opposite had complained of his hon. Friend's severe comments on the Pollution of Rivers Act of last Session; but if it was then competent to discuss the measure, he (Mr. Stansfeld) should be much more severe upon its provisions. He put no impediment in the way of passing that Act; but the machinery of the Act was most imperfect, and could not be for a moment defended. His hon. Friend's general proposition was unassailable—namely, that when the supply of water in any district was not fit for domestic use, the local authorities should have power not only to close wells, but to provide an equivalent supply of pure water, and distribute the cost of providing it in the way which might appear best to them. This question was becoming one of extreme national importance, and it might be considered advisable to impose upon all sanitary authorities the duty of providing a proper supply of pure water, as well as an effectual system of drainage. But when the right hon. Gentleman said—"Be a little patient; what we have been trying to do has been to educate the people of the country and the sanitary authorities in sanitary administration, do not let us be in too much of a hurry, but let us encourage them to go on," he (Mr. Stansfeld) entirely agreed with him. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the time would come when something more would have to be done in this matter, and he (Mr. Stansfeld) hoped his hon. Friend would be content with this explanation, and not divide the House upon his Amendment.
      MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he would accept the advice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), and would withdraw the Resolution.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 64 Noes 37: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 58.)

    PUBLIC OFFICES AND BUILDINGS.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE,in rising to call attention to the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings, said, he had given Notice of a Motion, which by the Rules of the House he was prevented from moving, to the effect that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings in the Metropolis, and to see whether the adoption of a more comprehensive plan for the extension and improvement of the public buildings would not be more economical and advantageous than the present system. He wished to point out that the annual sum expended under the existing system of maintaining the higher public offices amounted altogether to not less than £36,000 or £37,000—that amount being wasted on buildings which were totally inadequate for the purposes of the State. That was quite an extravagant expenditure in view of the alternative of the more comprehensive system which he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) wished to see carried out in regard to these public buildings. His argument in that direction might be easily enforced by reference to various Departments—the War Office, the Board of Trade, and so forth. The total number of offices was only 45. The War Office occupied about 17 different houses. But he would invite the House to weigh the opinions of Select Committees which had sat upon this subject. In 1831 there was an inquiry into the state of the Foreign Office buildings — the buildings generally in Downing Street occupied for public purposes—and the result was, that they were condemned. Between the years 1831 and 1853 some £24,970 was laid out on these houses in Downing Street, and he believed a similar amount had been laid out since; and yet a Committee which sat in 1855 condemned those buildings as being unfit for the purposes of the State. Before that Committee, of which Sir William Molesworth was Chairman, Mr. Pennethorne, an architect, gave evidence, in which he said—
      "The Foreign Office at present is in a very dilapidated condition. In fact, all the buildings round Downing Street are in a very bad state, because their foundations are on peat, and everyone of them has settled considerably.

      725
      All the heavy chimneys have sunk, and the walls having been shaken and split by the chimneys, are in such a state that. although the houses may stand for some time, for 20 or 30 years, they are not susceptible of alteration, and are not worthy of repair."
      Again, in 1858, the condition of the buildings in Downing Street was brought before a Committee. Before that Committee Mr. Hamond said—
      "That in order to support the floor at any party there were forced to be props placed under the largo room; also under the staircase. When a ball was given the building was obliged to be shored up in Fludyer Street. All our floors on one side of the house are hanging from the roof. There is a large iron truss girder, and all the floors are suspended from it. We have had sometimes very unpleasent alarms from it. At this very moment under one of the rooms the arches are sprung very much indeed."
      Such was the state of Downing Street 20 years ago; the place was not fit to be inhabited then, and, though these houses were not worth the money expended on them, and a different system ought to be adopted, yet he believed that this year a large sum of money was laid out to make the house in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer resided fit for habitation. In 1868 the Committee over which his noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) presided, concluded their Report thus—
      "The Committee are of opinion that it would be the truest economy, in the long run, for the State to acquire at the earliest opportunity at least the freehold of such adjacent property as will for some time be required for the public service; the system of bit by bit purchase is always the most expensive, as each successive acquisition materially raises the value of the residue."
      Mr. Hunt (now Sir Henry Hunt) expressed the same opinion, when he said—
      "You ought to buy freeholds at once, otherwise you will have to pay a much larger price when you require the land; for if you buy the freeholds, as you pull down you raise the value of that which you leave, but if you buy it all at once, I think you do the public a great service."
      Lord John Manners's Committee also said that the Civil Departments should be all concentrated in a line with the Military and Naval Departments on the area bounded by Downing Street on the north, Great George Street on the south, Parliament Street widened by the incorporation of King Street on the east, and St. James's Park on the west. Sir
      726
      Henry Hunt proposed a much greater scheme, for when examined. before the Committee of 1855–6, he recommended the purchase of all the ground in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament—not only all the block of houses between Downing Street, Great George Street, the Park, and Parliament Street, but also all the houses on the side next the river, where unfortunately, St. Stephen's Club and the new Opera House were now situated. Sir Henry Hunt was then asked—
      "Supposing the public offices were concentrated on this site, what property do you think it would be desirable for the Government to take power to purchase in the immediate neighbeurhood?"
      His answer was—
      "The ground on the south side of Great George Street bounded by Princes Street on the west, the Broad Sanctuary on the south, and St. Margarets's Church on the east;"
      And he continued—
      "I think it desirable to include in any scheme Abingdon Street, Great College Street, and the houses abutting on Westminster School; also the ground near the Wellington Barracks, which is bounded by York Street and James Street."
      Sir Henry Hunt went on to say that Victoria Street had partially failed, because enough property was not bought—only sufficient for frontages. "Few people," he said, "will live in Victoria Street, overlooking the wretched property that exists there." All the ground on the south side of Great George Street up to Wellington Barracks Sir Henry Hunt estimated at £642,000. What we wanted was a concentration of the public offices, which Sir Richard Bromley had stated would result in the following advantages:—1. A saving of all the money paid for rent; 2. Economy on the amount annually paid for the repair of buildings; 3. A better arrangement of all public records; 4. Saving of time in the transaction of official business and greater convenience to the public; 5. A more prompt audit of public expenditure; and 6. General economy. Since 1868 there had been no Committee, and in spite of the excellent advice given by the Committee in that year, advice which he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) entertained and desired to impress upon the House, we found now that even in Parliament Street all the houses had not been purchased up to Great George Street. Thus, by want of foresight and

      727
      of a comprehensive plan, we had added to the value of the property we required by the bit by bit system we had followed. The Foreign Office, upon which alone the sum of £24,000, already mentioned, had been twice expended since the year 1831, and the India Office were both full of blunders, which would not have occurred if the proper quantity of ground had been purchased in the first instance. The India Office had been aptly described by Lord Russell as containing windows that did not let in the light, and passages that led to nothing. There were passages in the same building which in the day time had to be lighted with gas. Neither would the offices have been built in their present form. It was because we had only a small piece of ground that we had to group as many as we could together. The whole of the property desired, not only up to Great George Street but as far as Westminster Abbey, might have been purchased for the sum of £4,000,000. After deducting £36,000 now spent in the hire of buildings, and about £300,000, which would probably be derived from the sale of certain public offices, the ultimate cost would be reduced, according to his own calculation, to about £3,000,000, for which amount adequate buildings might have been erected. The general feeling was opposed to the system of bit by bit purchase, even on economical considerations. Yet, in spite of the advice which had been given by the Committees to which reference had been made, we had still the old unsatisfactory state of things, and that, too, notwithstanding the enormous increase of business in recent years which rendered the adoption of a more comprehensive system all the more necessary. By the adoption of such a system there could be no doubt that for a sum of money which would be small when compared with what we expended under the existing system we could have a set of public offices which would be infinitely better than the present, and more worthy of the country. The adoption of a more comprehensive system, of the nature which he had indicated, would be attended with various advantages, both in the way of economy and the furtherance of Public Business, and he trusted that the matter would receive the attention of the Government and the House. He hoped the Government would appoint the Com-
      728
      mittee, and that its labours would do something to improve and beautify the metropolis. He thought that their public buildings ought not only to be an ornament to the metropolis, but a great education to the people.
      SIR WILLIAM FRASERexpressed an earnest hope that the Government would grant the appointment of this Committee. Good might have been done if Dover House, between the Treasury and the Horse Guards, had been purchased, and the land lying between Parliament Street and Great George Street, and also between Parliament Street and the river. The official buildings of the country had not grown at all in proportion to the Public Business. It was quite necessary not only to give public servants adequate remuneration, but to place them in fairly suitable buildings in which to perform their work; he believed the country would not grudge the money requisite for both objects.
      SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the subject was well worthy the attention of the Government, and he thought both the House and the country were indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) for having brought it forward in the comprehensive and able manner in which he had. There was one point which he (Sir George Bowyer) hoped the Committee, if granted, would take into consideration—he meant the propriety of making public buildings loftier than was now the practice in this country. Land was very expensive, but air cost nothing, and a great deal of money would be saved by erecting buildings higher than was now the custom. A grand effect could not be produced without height. If buildings were made much higher, they would be more capacious, a great deal would be saved in area, and they would be more handsome. Even if the National Gallery were only made twice or three times its present height it would have a certain grandeur. The quadrangle of Windsor Castle was another of the public buildings of the country which was low, and which therefore lost much of the attraction and grandeur of aspect that would otherwise attach to it. This Motion might be considered a call to repentance as regarded the past, and its importance could not be better illustrated than by reference to what had occurred in regard to the site

      729
      for the New Courts of Law. An enormous area had been acquired; the houses, of which the rents constituted a considerable annual income, had been entirely cleared away, and the new buildings were not commenced for several years, so that they lost not only the rents, but also the interest on the purchase money, which had remained perfectly unproductive. He hoped that would be a warning against similar proceedings in future. He also hoped that one result of the appointment of the Committee would be the adoption of some plan of public buildings without so-called ornamentation, carving, or statues, and that thereby there would be a large saving to the public purse, and more useful and much handsomer buildings than had hitherto been erected.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though it was true the Forms of the House would not allow his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) to move, nor the House to proceed to the appointment of such a Committee as he asked for; yet he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was quite prepared to say, in answer to his observations, that the Government would be most happy to co-operate with him in the formation of such a Committee as he had suggested. It might be of very considerable use, and the time which his hon. Friend had chosen for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House was very suitable. He confessed he shared, in common with all Chancellors of the Exchequer, some dread when he heard plans for large and comprehensive public buildings discussed, and he confessed he was not so much impressed with that portion of his hon. Friend's argument as perhaps he expected with reference to the house in which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the honour to reside. It was no doubt true, as his hon. Friend had said, that it had been condemned some years ago, but it had since done very good service, and was by no means to be considered as valueless to the country. At the same time, nobody could doubt that the time must come when some further changes must be made in our public buildings, and the longer they were delayed, the greater the price they would have to pay for the land ultimately to be occupied. Everyone who looked at the subject must feel the force of the argument as to the very
      730
      great annual expenditure incurred by renting buildings which were not only not the property of the Government, but scattered very inconveniently over different parts of the town, and in places unsuitable to the purposes to which they were put. Therefore, it was in the interests of true economy that they should deal with this subject in a bold and comprehensive way, keeping in mind the great maxims of economy which he would venture to remind the House ought to guide them as far as they could in this matter. He did not at all undervalue æsthetic considerations. Of course, if they were to have any great construction of offices, they must be suitable to the purpose for which they were intended, reasonably handsome, and appropriate to this part of this great metropolis; but, on the other hand, they must take care not to sacrifice higher considerations or lay too great stress on mere architectural display. He was sure this was the spirit in which his hon. Friend asked for a Committee. It was very heart-breaking when they had spent a large sum in erecting a building of architectural character, to find that two things might have been avoided if they had not uselessly sacrificed them to the fancy of some architect—money might have been saved, and more convenience might have been attained. He hoped the Committee would look carefully into the whole of this subject. He agreed with his hon. Friend that this was a very suitable time for looking into the question. It was some considerable period since there was any such inquiry by a Committee of that House; and in the interval some experience had been gained by the erection of the new Foreign Office, the India, and the Home Offices, There were unoccupied and unfinished portions of buildings to be dealt with, and there was unoccupied ground in the immediate vicinity of the India Office which it was undesirable to leave unoccupied longer than could be helped. The Government would be willing to have a Committee constituted with an intention and Instruction to inquire into the most useful and, at the same time, the most suitable way of providing for the wants of the public Departments, and laying down a plan on which Parliament could act with some consistency. Schemes were proposed, talked over, and sometimes adopted, and sometimes notices

      731
      were given for the acquisition of land, and, after all, some uneasiness was felt on the score of expense, the matter stood over, and afterwards property had to be acquired at a higher price than would have been given in the first instance. If his hon. Friend would give Notice for an early day, say Monday, of a Motion for a Committee, the Government would assent to it and co-operate with him in the formation of the Committee. In conclusion, he thanked the hon. Member for bringing the subject forward and for the manner in which he had introduced it.

    THE FOREIGN OFFICE—COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. B. SAMUELSON,in rising to call attention to the organization of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, said, he believed that the heads of that Office were fully impressed with the importance of the duties of the department which related to commerce, and he could testify that it was impossible to have any transactions with the gentlemen who were connected with that department without feeling grateful for the readiness and courtesy with which those who had business with them were invariably met; but it was precisely because there was that impression of the importance of the duties which required to be discharged, and that readiness to meet what were believed to be the requirements of the public service, that he regretted to find there was no intention apparently of giving additional strength to the department in question. It seemed to be supposed in official quarters that nothing was required beyond what at present existed; but that was not the impression of the Mercantile Bodies of the country. Year after year at the annual meetings of the Associated Chambers of Commerce motions had been brought forward, the object of which was to improve that portion of our public service to which he referred; and although he did not agree with the proposal which had been received with the greatest amount of favour by those Bodies—namely, the appointment of a Minister of Commerce, he entirely shared in the feeling that a want existed which ought to be supplied. So far back as 1864 a Select Committee of the House, known as Mr. Forster's Committee, had been appointed on the subject; at
    732
    that time the relations of this country with foreign States were in the hands jointly of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. Questions appeared to have been handed backwards and forwards between those Departments in a manner which occasioned great loss of time, which was in various ways prejudicial to the commercial interests of the country, and which culminated in 1864 in the neglect of a question which arose upon the commercial relations of England and Belgium. A number of changes had been made since then. One was effected in 1866, when the Commercial and Consular departments of the Foreign Office were amalgamated; but the Commercial department of the Board of Trade continued to exist. In 1872 that department of the Board of Trade was abolished; and he thought it was generally understood at that time that steps would be taken of such a nature as to constitute what he might call a true department of Trade at the Foreign Office. A further change, he believed, had since occurred; but the net result of all the alterations had been that in the opinion of the commercial Bodies of the country the department was not yet in a satisfactory condition. He gave instances showing that official information on important subjects was not obtained at the Foreign Office until many weeks and even months after it had appeared in the newspapers; and occasionally there was also delay experienced in the publication of those interesting Reports which were received from our various Consuls abroad. He referred to cases in connection with the imposition of duties on goods in Russia and Austria, more particularly in the iron trade, in one of which the Foreign Office did not appear to be in possession of information until five months after it could have been obtained. [Mr. BOURKE inquired what particular instance the hon. Member referred to.] He referred to an inquiry as to the duties which under the most favoured nation clause were leviable by Austria on machinery. He imputed no blame to the heads of the Foreign Office; but it seemed to him that there was a want of force within the department itself to deal with those questions, and that if it had been more fully and adequately organized he had no doubt they would have dealt with these and other matters with greater promptitude. It was not possible

    733
    for a private Member of the House to say what the constitution of the department should be; it was the business of the Foreign Office so to constitute itself that each department should be fully capable of meeting the requirements of that portion of the business which was entrusted to it. When the question of the admission of gentlemen to the Foreign Office Diplomatic Service was discussed in the House a short time since, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) pointed to the great facilities which existed in the Office for mutual interchange, and exemplified this by referring to the ease with which gentlemen had been withdrawn from their duties to accompany Lord Salisbury on his recent diplomatic mission. It occurred to him (Mr. B. Samuelson) at the time, that that remark did not apply to the commercial department. He wished to ask the Under Secretary if it were true that a gentleman who was actively engaged in the business of the Commercial department had been appointed a Commissioner to negotiate the Treaty of Commerce with France, and that he would be accompanied by Sir Louis Mallet. A more judicious selection could not be made; but would the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assure the House that the places of the gentlemen to be sent from the department could be as well and as readily supplied from the general staff as the places of those gentlemen who had been taken from the Foreign Office to accompany Lord Salisbury to Constantinople? It should be remembered that France was not the only country with which we were likely to be in negotiation at this time for a Commercial Treaty. A new Treaty must be made with Italy, and our Commercial Treaty with Austria, signed on the basis of the most favoured nation clause, was only of short duration. With these three countries we had a commerce amounting to nearly £100,000,000 sterling, and there should be no want of strength in a department having charge of matters of so much importance. He thought he need say no more in order to point out how important it was to have a properly organized department to deal with transactions of that kind. These were matters which could not be delayed, for he believed that loss had already accrued to this country with regard to the neglect
    734
    of the renewal of the Treaty with Austria. As he was unable to conclude with a Motion, he would only say that if he had raised the question, it was not because he accused the Foreign Office of any breach of duty. There was only a want of strength in that department which required to be supplied. If he were asked what remedy he should like to have applied to the existing state of things, he would reply that it was much more important that an Under Secretary should be appointed for the department in question than that a new legal Under Secretary should have been appointed at the Foreign Office. He would be glad to hear that something was being done to increase the working power of the department, and he trusted that the Under Secretary would be able to give the House some satisfactory assurances on the subject.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that it was the duty of each Member of the House to do all he possibly could in order to preserve and extend that commerce which had made this country what it was in the eyes of the world. It had been said that the commerce of England had attained to the highest point which it was destined to reach; but he hoped and believed that that would not be found to be the case. At any rate, we should certainly take care not to allow ourselves to fall behind our neighbours. The feeling of the commercial community was that the Foreign Office gave a little more attention to politics and diplomacy than to commerce. That might be a wrong impression, but it was an impression which existed; and if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs could disabuse the public mind of that idea he would render a distinct service. Commerce was the life-blood of the country, and certain he was that the House would not refuse to strengthen this department of the Foreign Office in any way which the Government might think necessary.

    COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. DILLWYNcalled attention to the several cases of inconvenience arising to the trade of this country, owing to the want of Diplomatic or Consular relations between Great Britain and Mexico. Our trade with that country

    735
    was somewhat considerable. He believed the imports valued last year some £700,000 or £800,000, and the exports to us some £800,000 or £900,000, and that trade could be largely increased if official relations were re-established between the two countries. There was, he knew, some little difficulty in the way of bringing about an understanding in consequence of some point of honour or punctilio between this country and Mexico; but surely from the position which England held she could readily afford to make the advances which would terminate the existing dispute. He hoped that the Foreign Office would give their serious attention to the subject, with the view of taking some steps to remedy the present state of things and bring about one which would promote the interests of both countries.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was personally in favour of the establishment of a separate Department of Trade and Agriculture; but until that was possible he wished the House of Commons would give such assistance to the Foreign Office as would strengthen it and enable it to meet any emergency that might arise. He could say for himself and for those with whom he acted, who were connected with Chambers of Commerce, that they had always found the Foreign Office ready and willing to co-operate with them in all matters which they had occasion to bring under the notice of that Department. Their letters were promptly answered, and every possible information was cheerfully given. There could be no doubt, however, on the other hand, that the Staff of the Foreign Office required to be strengthened, and that the branch of it which was connected with Trade and Commerce was entitled to claim the services of a Secretary of its own. Lord Tenterden, of whom he could not speak too highly, had devoted some of the time which he could spare from other matters to commercial subjects, but the Foreign Office had to draw on the Indian Office in cases of emergency—for instance, in the late Conference at Constantinople and in the negotiations for the new French Commercial Treaty. In regard to the question of diplomatic relations with Mexico, he had been requested by a large number of merchants trading there, or who might wish to trade there, earnestly to press the question upon the attention of
    736
    the Government. He, therefore, desired to support the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, having no doubt that the re-opening of Diplomatic or Consular relations between England and that country would be of great advantage to the trade of each. He was glad to see that France was meditating a restoration of diplomatic relations with Mexico, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would be able to co-operate in the endeavour which the French Government seemed disposed to make.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he did not think that either the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) or the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) could have cause to complain of the fact that a division was not possible upon the questions they had brought under notice, because it was clear that upon both subjects there was not much difference of opinion in principle. In regard first of all to Mexico, of course every one must wish that our relations with foreign Powers should be as amicable as possible, and also that every facility should be given for increasing as much as possible our commerce with foreign countries. What was so much to be regretted was that when our relations with Mexico were broken off, they were broken off in a manner which rendered it almost impossible for the British Government to initiate any step to restore them. What happened was, that in 1867, when the revolution in Mexico came to an end, the Mexican Government refused in the most arbitrary manner to have any communication whatever with those Powers which had diplomatically recognized the Emperor Maximilian, and not only did they break off these relations, but they declared all Treaties made with those Powers to be null and void. He did not mention these facts for the purpose of widening the breach between ourselves and Mexico, but in order to show how it was that the Government was prevented from renewing the negotiations. And until some advance was made by Mexico it was considered by many persons impossible to restore the former relations. They had, however, told many persons, and he was free to state, that if the Mexican Government by itself or through the mediation of another Power, made proposals for the restoration of the relations which once existed between their own

    737
    country and England, Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to meet those proposals in a friendly manner. With the exception of the few cases referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea he had not heard of any hardships inflicted upon British commerce with Mexico owing to the fact that we had no Consular representative there. Our Consular business had, since the rupture of the relations, been conducted by the United States Consul. It would, without doubt, be advantageous to have Consular representatives of England at the Mexican seaports; but the condition of affairs in Mexico was such that it would not be desirable to place Consular officers in the interior of a country the Central Government of which was not likely to give to such officers the protection which they had a right to require. In a despatch of Lord Derby's he said that Her Majesty's Government had no wish to be on any other but friendly terms with Mexico, both countries having interests in common, and that any communication from the Mexican Government would receive the most friendly consideration. With regard to the subject to which the hon. Member for Banbury had referred, he was glad to give him the warmest thanks for the manner in which he had spoken of the Commercial department of the Foreign Office. It would tend to encourage that department in the efficient performance of its duties. The hon. Member had, however, stated that the commercial community of the country was dissatisfied with the manner in which the business of the department was managed. He (Mr. Bourke) could not think, judging from the small number of hon. Members present, that this was a perfectly accurate representation of the facts. He agreed in the opinion which had been expressed, that the prosperity of the country turned on the mode in which its commercial relations were managed. With regard to the reorganization of the Office which had been made, he had never heard that the commercial Bodies of the country were dissatisfied with it. It was true that in former times when the business was divided between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, the work was not done in a satisfactory manner, but since the re-organization of the department in 1872 a much better state of
    738
    things had existed. As far as the question of tariffs which had been raised was concerned, he could only say that it involved considerations which could not be dealt with offhand, but that careful attention should be paid to the points which had been laid before the House. The hon. Member had made allusions to the examinations for the Diplomatic service, and had inquired whether any interchange of duties could take place. There was no difficulty on that subject. The organization of the Commercial department of the Foreign Office was exactly the same as that of any other of the departments, and there was not the least difficulty in transferring a clerk from one department to another, although such transfers did not often take place. So far as regarded the constitution of the Commercial department, it was organized exactly in the same way as any other department of the Office, and it would not be possible to put an Under Secretary at the head of one department without putting a similar officer at the head of the other departments. The commercial Bodies who came up to London had no complaint to make of the way in which the business was transacted, and under those circumstances he certainly did not think a sufficient case had been made out for a change. He, at the same time, was glad that the hon. Member for Banbury had had an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House, because he was quite sure his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office would pay every attention to the debate and would not, if he saw necessity for it, hesitate one moment to increase the staff. He could not, however, hold out the hope, seeing the way in which the work of the office was done, that any great charge would be made in the organization of the Commercial department.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    CLASS I.
    SUPPLY considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    (1.) £127,437, Public Buildings.

    (2.) £16,290, Furniture of Public Offices.

    739

    (3.) £34,275, Houses of Parliament.

    (4.) £2,250, New Home and Colonial Offices.

    (5.) £8,438, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

    (6.) £195,741, Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.

    (7.) £9,337, British Museum Buildings.

    (8.) £48,305, County Court Buildings.

    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for erecting and maintaining new Buildings, including Rents, &c., for the Department of Science and Art."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that there was a very large increase in this Vote. It began very moderately with a sum of £2,000, and it had gone on growing, growing, growing ever since.
    MR. EDWARD JENKINSremarked that these Votes were taken under a Treasury Letter, dated May 24, 1866, which, in addition to a previous expenditure of £119,000, authorized a further expenditure of £195,000. The House ought to be informed how much of that sum had been already taken. One of the items in the present Vote was £3,000 for the enlargement of a sketch by Mr. Leighton, and he thought some explanation on that subject was duo to the House. He complained of the manner in which the accounts of the Science and Art Department were presented to Parliament. They were not submitted to Parliament, as was the case with the British Museum. It was a Chinese puzzle to him to know how this money had been spent.
    MR. GERARD NOELgave some explanations as to the purposes for which the different items were intended. £1,390 was required to decorate the Refreshment Room, the South Court, and the Lecture Theatre, the other item of £1,320 was to discharge outstanding claims in respect of decorative works on the Lecture staircase.
    MR. BARINGobjected to Votes which seemed only proposed for the purpose of gratifying the extravagant whims of the original designer.
    MR. MELLORwished to know whether the contracts for the various buildings were submitted to public tender?
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEwas of opinion that the expenditure on the South Kensington Museum had given the greatest satisfaction to the general public.
    MR W. H. SMITHsaid, that all the buildings at South Kensington were the subject of tender and contract, and the greatest care was taken that the work should be executed by responsible builders, and at the lowest possible cost. The enlargement of a sketch by an artist could not, however, be made the subject of tender. The whole amount of the sum mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) had been spent on the buildings which were completed. The expenditure now required for the construction of an Art library had been rendered necessary by the removal of the old building, which had become unsafe.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, this was the commencement of an expenditure which, they were informed, would amount to £80,000, and possibly would come to as much more. They had already spent only £735 on this Art library, and they ought to pause before they committed themselves finally to the enormous expenditure which was contemplated—namely, 271,607—and which he looked upon as unnecessary. He moved that the Vo to be reduced by the sum of £5,000 in respect of the Art library.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for erecting and maintaining new Buildings, including Rents, &c., for the Department of Science and Art."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, this country possessed the most magnificent Art collection in the world, but it was crowded into insufficient rooms, and a new building was absolutely necessary. While the Government were not prepared at present to proceed rapidly with the work in question, on account of want of funds, they thought it desirable to incur some expenditure, so as not to disband a number of skilled artificers who were at present employed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconsidered the explanation of the right hon. Member (Mr. Noel) unsatisfactory. He thought this Vote was neither one thing nor another. The Government ought to determine to go on and finish the

    741
    work out of hand, or they ought not to touch it at all.
    MR. ANDERSONalso supported the reduction of the Vote, and wished to know under what circumstances this large expenditure commenced, and what it was to lead to.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that considering the state of the revenue, and the diminished confidence of the people in the South Kensington establishment, the House would do well to endeavour to stop this increasing expenditure.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the question of enlarging the Art library had been pressed on the Government last Session by several hon. Members. An hon. Gentleman opposite had asked him whether it was not the fact that the health of the students suffered in consequence of the confined room in which they had to study. [Cries of "Name!"] He did not remember the name at that moment; but he recollected the question having been asked, and that it caused him to pay a special visit to the library, where he found that the allegation was correct, and that many of the students had suffered materially from overcrowding. This building was required for Art education, and was constantly being used by artizans, students, and others; and it was necessary that it should be put into a good condition. Part of the building was at present dangerous for the safety of the collection of engravings, and that danger ought to be removed.
    MR. WHITWELLthought the Committee ought not to interpose its vote, and prevent a place being built for the study of high Art; but was this building really required?
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the present building must be replaced, and it would be foolish to do that in an unworthy manner. The plan had been adopted by the Government, and this was part of a larger scheme.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the library might be a very sensible thing; but he objected to money being spent for the purpose in driblets, and recommended the withdrawal of the Vote till the Government decided whether the work was really to be carried on.
    VISCOUNT SANDONpointed out that the Government were proceeding on the lines which hon. Members opposite wished, and had specially urged upon him last year. It was part of a great
    742
    scheme, and this was not a Vote taken for something which had not been well considered.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Committee would not be put to a division. He understood that this library was necessary for the use of artists and artizans, and they could hardly say that the work should be done in an incomplete manner.
    MR. DILLWYNunderstood that the Works Department had had to put pressure upon the Treasury, and that the Treasury had acceded with a bad grace. He hoped that the Committee would now put their foot upon this Vote, and not yield as the Treasury had done. It seemed to him that they were having an extravagant building.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had referred to the authentic record of their proceedings, and he found that the junior Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) last year spoke of the absolute necessity of providing library accommodation at South Kensington. The then First Commissioner of Works (Lord Henry Lennox) responded in a manner to meet the very reasonable view of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and, doubtless, of other hon. Members opposite; and the Vote was in fulfilment of that promise.
    MR. EDWARD JENKINSsaid, that what he objected to was not that the expenditure asked for should be demanded, but that it should be asked for by a sort of side-wind, instead of being honestly set forth to the Committee under its proper designation in the first instance. There was great expenditure at the South Kensington Museum for engravings, whilst there was at the British Museum a fine collection of engravings, which it was very difficult to got to see. If they were to spend £80,000, according to the original estimate, for the Art library and facade, a full statement ought to be made to the House.
    MR. SWANSTONasked whether the new building would cover the whole of the ground on the south side of the quadrangle? If so, it was a moderate sum for such a purpose.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, it would not cover the whole of the ground. The plans could be seen.
    MR. RYLANDSasked whether the new building was really wanted? Many of the sums expended on South Kensington had been the cause of grave

    743
    public scandal, and it was right that the present proposal should be properly investigated.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that last year's Supplementary Estimates included a Vote for £3,500 on account of the Science and Art Library and façade, and there was distinct notice given that it was proposed to spend £80,000. [Mr. DILLWYN: When was that?] That was in July.
    MR. DILLWYN: I hope it will be a warning to the House not to take Supplementary Estimates in July again.
    MR. WHIT WELLsaid, he would not object to the Vote, if the Committee could see the plans, and know exactly what was proposed to be done by the Government.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether the voting of the £5,000 would pledge the House to the expenditure of £80,000?
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwished the Vote postponed, as they did not know what had been done.
    MR. GREGORYthought it would be satisfactory to know what the country was getting for the £80,000.
    MR. ANDERSONalso desired information as to what the £80,000 comprised.
    VISCOUNT SANDONtrusted that the Committee would come to a decision on the matter, which he must again say had been well considered. The sum asked for now was only a portion of the amount that would be required, though no doubt the voting of a part did commit the House to the whole. What was intended was to provide an Art library and a reading-room for students to go to. He understood last year that the House had agreed to the expenditure of £80,000; but he could not pledge himself that that sum would cover the whole cost of the building. The Art library was, he believed, an institution quite unique in England. It was perfectly free, and advantage was taken of it not only by artists and those connected with Art in higher positions in life, but also, he was informed, largely by working men. It would not be worthy of the country to have a building of a shabby character, and it was proposed that it should be constructed with good terra-cotta ornament, after the manner of the quadrangle, with which hon. Members were familiar. The whole sum would be expended on the Art library and the
    744
    reading room, and in making more safe their depositories of articles in the Museum. The House having voted the sum taken for commencing the work, it would hardly now refuse what was required for continuing it. Any hon. Member who wished to see the plans could see them at South Kensington.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 88: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (10.) £133,500, Surveys of United Kingdom.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked, whether any steps had been taken, or wore about to be taken to complete the survey of North Wales?
    MR. RAMSAYasked, when it was probable that the survey of Scotland would be completed? It was begun 40 years ago, and he thought there was no more extravagant method of spending money than spreading it in this way over a long series of years. He should be glad to learn from the Chief Commissioner of Works when the survey would be completed, and how soon the country would have the advantage of getting any return for the money which had been expended during so long a period. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an assurance to the country that the survey of Scotland might be expected to be completed at an early date.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that the survey of many of the counties of North Wales had been discontinued. Precedence had been given to the mineral districts; but as they had been surveyed, the staff had been withdrawn to be employed elsewhere. The whole of the main land of Scotland had been surveyed. The survey of the Shetland and Orkney Islands, which would complete the general survey, was now in progress.
    Vote agreed to.

    (11.) £9, 490, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.

    (12.) £10,000, Metropolitan Fire Brigade.

    (13.) £203,991, Rates on Government Property.

    MR. HAYTERasked why there had been a diminution of £30,000 in the Vote?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the estimate of expenditure had been heretofore taken at an approximate amount. It was only recently that the Government had been able to get at anything like a correct amount, which accounted for the apparent decrease.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) £1,000, Wellington Monument.
    MR. GOLDSMIDasked when this monument would be completed? He asked the same question when he entered the House in 1866, 15 years after Wellington's death, and he was then informed by the First Commissioner of Works that the monument would be completed in the course of a year or two; and the same answer had always been given in subsequent years to the same question. From what he could see, however, when he visited St. Paul's last week and looked through the cracks of the scaffolding surrounding the monument, it would be some time yet before the work would be completed. He must again say he should much like to know when it was likely to be finished.
    MR. GERARD NOELreplied, that he went to St. Paul's about a month ago, and on inquiry he was informed that the monument, which had been 25 years in hand, would be completed in six weeks or two months from that time.
    MR. GOLDSMIDinquired whether the original ridiculous design by which an equestrian figure of the Duke surmounted the canopy over his recumbent figure, was to be carried out. He would advise that the pedestal which had been placed over the baldachino should be removed, as the monument would be quite complete without it.
    MR. GERARD NOELstated that the equestrian statue would not be erected. He was diffident about expressing any opinion upon it in that critical Assembly; but he thought when the monument was completed and was thrown open to the public that it would be found to be a noble one, and well worthy of the illustrious man whose memory it was intended to perpetuate. Did the hon. Gentleman wish the pedestal to be left or removed?
    MR. GOLDSMIDhoped that the pedestal would be removed.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the object of the hon. Member for Rochester, whose presence the House always enjoyed, was
    746
    to inquire when the pedestal was to have a figure on the top of it, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would long continue to be a Member of the House to ask the same question.
    MR. GOLDSMIDremarked that if the hon. Gentleman would prefer that he should put his observations in the form of a question to the House he would oblige him.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he would not pledge himself to remove the pedestal without grave consideration.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £70,000, Natural History Museum.
    In re ply to Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. EDWARD JENKINS, and Sir HENRY HAVELOCK,
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that although the architect's estimate had been £350,000, yet when the contract came to be given out, it was found it would have to be increased to £395,000. Of the £80,000 voted last year, only £70,000 had been expended, and hence only £70,000 was asked for in the present Vote, which was a decrease of £10,000. The sum which remained to be voted would be sufficient to complete the building.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,825, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Metropolitan Police Courts."
    MR. RYLANDSasked if that was the sum of money to be contributed towards the purposes of the police courts themselves, as regarded maintenance, or was any part of it a grant in aid of the erection of those buildings in London.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the amount was not a contribution towards the maintenance of the courts, but that £5,000 of it was towards the erection of Bow Street police court, the entire cost of the work being a charge on Votes of Parliament.
    MR. RYLANDShoped the Committee would refuse to pass the estimate. They had £5,000 now asked for without the slightest information as to the total amount required. This coming down to the House for grants from the Consoli-

    747
    dated Fund to aid the metropolis in the matter of police courts was open to grave objection. He would like to know why Liverpool and other large towns should not come down for grants. He thought the policy was one that could not be maintained. He would like to know, whether the Government could inform the Committee what the total cost would be? He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,825, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, fox the Metropolitan Police Courts."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not give the information. The present police court was not adequate, and a new one was required.
    MR. ANDERSONthought that means should be adopted in cases like the present for showing what the entire cost would be, and that might be done by a separate column. By voting the sum of £5,000, the Committee could not know to how large an expenditure they might be committed. He objected to the Committee being asked to vote £5,000 when they had no information given to them as to the total cost of the new court. It might turn out that it would be £40,000 or £50,000, and it was in this sort of way that the House got committed to large expenditure. A vote of this sort was taken to begin with, and next year the Committee would be told they had sanctioned the first Vote and were bound to go on.
    MR. MELLORagreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the metropolis should be subjected to the same rules as other places.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSreminded the Committee that the metropolitan police courts had a claim on the Exchequer which provincial courts had not, as as a great deal of business was done in the metropolitan courts affecting the whole country as well as London, and the fees received there were paid into the Exchequer, whereas the fees in the borough courts belonged to the municipalities.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, that as well as the entire amount, they ought to
    748
    know the object of this expenditure; whether it was for the site of a court, or for the building.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the £5,000 was for pulling down the old building and commencing the new one. At present, no definite estimate could be arrived at, and from what was said on the subject last, year it was thought advisable that no time should be lost.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERthought it was quite time a new police court should be built at Bow Street. The state of the police cells in which the prisoners were placed in the morning while waiting to be brought before the magistrate was disgraceful. The late Sir Thomas Henry had frequently spoken to him on the subject. He had examined them, and could say that they were not fit for a man to be kept in for five minutes. He should like to know whether any improvement of them was contemplated.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that these buildings should be erected; but Parliament ought to have some estimate of the cost before this Vote was taken.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman placed the Committee in a worse position than before, leaving it quite uncertain what was to be paid, as no estimate had yet been made.
    MR. GERARD NOELadmitted that an estimate ought to be given, and he was prepared to withdraw the Vote.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSquite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir William Fraser) that the cells in the metropolitan police courts were not such as they ought to be; but a great improvement had been made within the last two years, and it was the anxious desire of the Commissioners to continue their improvement. The cells under the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner of Police, in which night prisoners were confined, were generally in a satisfactory state.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKcould not help thinking, when he heard so much about the state of the police cells, that some people talked too much of what they did not understand. They were not quite such barbarians in London as people tried to make them out, and the police cells, like the police courts, belonged to a former day, and were not, perhaps, so good as they might be, but they had been improved and would by-and-by be made

    749
    better. Certain persons had almost lived in them for years and years, and he objected to their being held up to execration in this way by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir William Fraser).
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERexplained that he had not spoken of police cells generally, but of those attached to the police courts.
    Amendment, and Motion, by leave withdrawn.
    (16.) £120,325, New Courts of Justice and Offices.
    SIR HENRY JAMEScomplained of the delay in the erection of these buildings. Enough money had not been spent in accordance with previous Votes. £1,181,000 had been expended, principally for the site, £218,000 of which had been expended on the erection of the buildings, leaving a sum of £547,000 to be expended. They were, therefore, paying interest on the £1,181,000 without any result. By the original contract the buildings were to be finished in 1880; but it was quite evident from the little progress that had been made that the contract could not be fulfilled within the time. At the present moment not only had no return been received for a very large expenditure, but the administration of justice was inadequate for the want of proper buildings for its administration, and the evil every year would become more aggravated. He did not blame the Government, the contract having been entered into with their Predecessors; but an expression of opinion on the part of the Committee might be of service. It was evident that the contractors could not fulfil their contract. He hoped that warning would be given to the contractors that they must fulfil their contract, or the penalties would be exacted as sonic return to the public for the expense and inconvenience which would be caused by the non-completion of the work by the specified time.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the hon. and learned Member was justified in expressing dissatisfaction at the slow progress made with the building but lately the progress made had been more satisfactory, and the evidence of this was the fact that there had been a Supplementary Estimate for £40,000 to provide the money required for work that had been
    750
    done. The administrative offices would be completed by the spring of next year. It would be a strong measure to enforce the penalties, but the expediency of doing so would be taken into consideration, and every endeavour would be made to force on the building as rapidly as possible.
    MR. GREGORYconsidered it was most desirable on all accounts that the building should be completed with as much despatch as possible. The Government were losing something like £40,000 or £50,000 a-year in the shape of interest upon the money laid out upon the site, and they were also compelled to pay a composition to the rates in respect of the buildings pulled down. There was a much more serious consideration, however, than any mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend—namely, the impossibility of bringing the new Judicature system into harmonious operation until these buildings were completed.
    Vote agreed to.
    (17.) £1,082, New Palace at Westminster—Acquisition of Lands and Embankments.
    In reply to Sir WILLIAM FRASER,
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that no conclusion had been arrived at as to the disposal of the vacant land to the west of the Houses of Parliament.
    Vote agreed to.
    (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £177,637, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished to make an inquiry of the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. In the Vote under the head of Board of Works no less a sum than £29,000 was put down for the labour of the servants of the Board. He asked whether the work might not be more economically done by contract?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, though the sum was £29,000, yet if the hon. Gentleman turned to the Schedule he would find that it referred to a large number

    751
    of buildings, and the amounts themselves were very small. The work was executed by contract, as far as possible.
    MR. BUTTsaid, in the Vote there were items which ought not to be included at all. For instance, considerable grants for Queen's Colleges were included, and they would more properly come under the head of education.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Vote was set forth in the usual manner.
    MR. MELDON,referring to the Vote of £431 for the Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, said there were other places like the Botanic Gardens which afforded an immense amount of amusement to the public, and also encouraged a taste for flowers, and tended very much to elevate the masses. The Botanic Gardens was a very useful place, and drew an immense population out of Dublin away from the public-houses, and tended very much to the public advantage. But there was another place which was probably of very much more use, and which stood very much in need of some assistance from the Government. He referred to the Zoological Gardens, which were not only celebrated in Ireland, but had acquired a European fame. The breeding of wild animals had been conducted there with very great success, and they had acquired a wide reputation for efficient management. He regretted to say that the amount of support they received from the public was not at all adequate to their deserts and necessities. The Zoological Gardens were very badly in want of houses for keeping the wild beasts, and he hoped the Government would take into consideration between now and next Session the propriety of giving a grant to the Gardens. At a time when they were endeavouring to legislate with the view of keeping people out of the drinking shops, he thought that one of the first things they ought to do was to afford them greater facilities for spending their time in places of harmless recreation. He hoped, therefore, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see his way next year to recommending a grant that would enable the parties to provide permanent houses for the animals in the Zoological Gardens. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the frightful state in which the Board of Works allowed the Four Courts of Dublin to remain. The Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer had only
    752
    lately been incapacitated from discharging his duties by reason of an illness resulting from the filthy, dirty state of the Court in which he sat. When he spoke of the Court of Exchequer, he might apply the same remark to all the other Courts. The state in which they were kept was monstrous, but no order could be obtained from the Board of Works to put the Courts in a proper state either as regarded the condition of the sewage or the ventilation. It was only very recently that it was found impossible for the Judge, jury, or counsel to remain in one of the Courts, it was in so bad a state, arising from the miasma which obtruded into the atmosphere; but although this had been going on for a length of time, the Board of Works could not be induced to make arrangements such as would render the buildings properly habitable. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that the Board of Works did their duty in this matter.
    MR. BUTTobjected to the way in which these Estimates were set out, as compared with the way in which similar Estimates were brought forward for England. He should have been inclined to object to the Estimates with regard to the Queen's Colleges and other matters, but owing to the way in which the Votes were furnished, he could not go through them without great inconvenience and an unnecessary tax on the time of the House. He would suggest, however, that the Irish Votes should be furnished in the same way as the English Votes.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmoved the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £100. He complained that no detailed statement was given of Estimates for expenditure on post offices in Ireland. On a recent occasion, in the city of Limerick, a new post office was built; but the old one was still kept open for the accommodation of the public in that portion of the town in which it was situated. Suddenly that post office was closed, and the business was transferred to a shop in the neighbourhood so small and inconvenient that merchants and professional men had informed him they were afraid to trust important letters to it, and were thereby subjected to considerable inconvenience. The closing-up of the old post office had all the appearance of a job, and had caused much dissatisfaction. He as-

    753
    sumed the cost of fitting-up the shop as a post office was about £100, and therefore he moved the reduction of the Vote by that amount. He considered it a violation of all laws of economy to make such a removal, and complained that the fact was not set out in the Estimate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £177,337, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the recommendation of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), as to the Zoological Society of Dublin had been anticipated, and a sum of £500 was annually granted to that Society. With regard to the Four Courts, he would undertake that the attention of the Office of Works in Ireland should be called to the observations of the hon. Member. If he was rightly informed, however, it was not altogether in the power of the Office of Works to prevent the state of things complained of. If the Liffey was in a better condition it would be much more easy for the Office of Works to undertake to place the Four Courts in a better condition; still, so far as it was in their power to remedy the evils, he would undertake that every effort should be made by them for that purpose. The remarks of the hon. Member as to the closing of the post office in Limerick had taken him and his noble Friend the Postmaster General completely by suprise. His noble Friend was not aware that anything had been done to inconvenience the inhabitants of Limerick, and an inquiry would be made into the particular case mentioned. With regard to the complaint of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), he would do all in his power to make the Estimates generally more intelligible when they were next laid before the House.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwithdrew his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAMSAYobjected to an item of £13,000 for the erection of public elementary schools in Ireland being included in this Vote. They should be
    754
    placed before the House in the Vote for educational purposes.
    MR. MELDONthought that the item of £13,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk was an illustration of the inconvenience alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick of mixing up Votes which should be kept distinct. The year before last this sum came under discussion with the Education grant, while last year and this year it was placed among the Public Buildings works, with which it really had nothing to do. He also wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether the Government were prepared to put the vested schools on the same footing with non-vested schools as regarded Government grants? The non-vested schools managers were empowered to erect residences for teachers, paying half of the purchase money by instalments, Government finding the other half. But the other class of managers did not enjoy the same privilege. He would also like to know, if the Government would make it compulsory on the part of managers to erect residences for teachers?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that the reason why the item for schools in Ireland appeared in this Vote was, that the money was expended by the Board of Works in Ireland, and not by the National Education Board as the latter Board had nothing to do with the purchase of land, and the erection of buildings thereon. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kildare, he did not think it desirable to compel the managers of schools to provide residences for the teachers, but the question whether a system of loans should not be substituted entirely for the present grants in aid of building was one well worthy of consideration. He was expecting a full report on the subject from the proper Department, and that was the reason he had made no proposition with regard to it.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that the explanation was not satisfactory, and that this system of expending public money prevented any comparison being drawn between the grants for the three countries.
    MR. MELDONwished to state that the observations that he made with reference to the compulsory provision of having school residences were made

    755
    without consultation or communication with anyone, and they represented his own views only. Ho thought that it was just as requisite to provide a residence for the teacher as to find the children with suitable appliances. A grant of money would not be made unless all the arrangements of the school were approved of, and he asked why a grant should be made where a residence was not provided? These were his own views, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not lose sight of this point. Then, with reference to the Zoological Gardens, he was perfectly well aware that the charge for maintenance was included; but the drift of his observations was that some money should be spent beyond the mere maintenance—some small sum of £200 or £300—to do what was necessary for the protection of the animals which they had there for the purpose of amusing and interesting the visitors.
    CAPTAIN NOLANobserved that if they were compelled to find residences for the teachers, one-half of the schools in Ireland would be closed, and the teachers would thus be deprived of their salaries. In the interests of the teachers of Ireland he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not make this compulsory provision. He was anxious to see residences for the teachers, but he thought that it would be very wrong to shut up all the schools where a residence was not provided for the teacher. It certainly would be a very great advantage to have them if the Government would provide them.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (19.) £11,660, Lighthouses Abroad.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £46,907, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFcomplained that the Government had not, pursuant to a recommendation of the House in 1870, purchased Embassy
    756
    houses in place of renting them. As matters stood they were constantly exposed to increased rentals, and from the present Estimates it appeared that the rental at Berlin had been increased from £1,500 to £3,000 a-year, which was an extravagant sum, as at St. Petersburg, which was quite as expensive as Berlin, only £1,440 was paid for a better house.
    MR. GERARD NOELpointed out that there was sometimes an objection to purchase in the event of the price being too high.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, there were many items in this Vote which required explanation, and he would therefore move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Macdonald.)
    MR. GOLDSMIDwished to draw attention to the case of the Embassy house at Rome—["Progress"]—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould have been glad, as this was the last Vote, if the Committee would have consented to have completed its discussion; but as there really appeared to be a desire to debate some of the items, he would not oppose the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving for leave, said, that at that late hour it was not his intention to take up any length of time in laying before the House the provisions of a Bill which he hoped he might be permitted to introduce to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Factories and Workshops. Before going into the measure at all, he thought it would only be due to the Royal Commissioners who inquired into this matter for a considerable space of time, that he should thank them publicly for their

    757
    labours, and for the great mass of evidence which they had got together, as well as for the very able Report which they had presented to Parliament. The Acts of Parliament relating to factories and workshops at present were contained in no less than 16 statutes, and the Commissioners were quite right in saying that the first thing to be done was to consolidate the Acts. Anyone who remembered the way in which these Acts had grown, the tentative processes with which they first commenced, the way in which they had been improved from time to time and from year to year, and the way in which they had been extended to different trades and manufactures, and eventually to include workshops—of course, a very much larger scheme—must see that in passing 16 or 17 Acts of Parliament of that kind, the present state of the law must be very much confused, more particularly when it was remembered that all those statutes were full of exemptions of all kinds and descriptions; many of them most inconveniently placed in Schedules to the Acts, and dealt with in such a way as that, at the present moment, it required really a very great amount of study to find out what the law on any particular point really was. Therefore the first object he had in view was to sweep away all these Acts of Parliament and repeal them, and the Bill which he hoped to present to the House would be a consolidation of all existing statutes relating to these matters. He hoped the House would not think the Consolidation Bill too long when he said that the 16 statutes had been placed in 100 clauses. The next question he had to consider was how far he should extend the provisions of the factory law. Of course, that might be done in one of two ways. They might, in the first place, extend them to every person employed everywhere, but that was too wide a field for him to be inclined to enter upon. The Commissioners did, however, recommend certain extensions of the Acts, and that was the other alternative he referred to. They first recommended that he should take the Bakehouse Acts in and repeal them; and he had also extended that recommendation to certain other trades, such as public laundries, shipbuilding yards, and industries of that kind. Now, if they went into the old law they would find, as the Commissioners stated, that
    758
    it was drawn in three different ways. First of all, there were textile factories, which were dealt with in a most restricted form. Then they had the application of the law in a modified form in the Acts of 1864 and 1867 to other manufactures; and, lastly, there were the workshops, to a certain extent following the same lines, but vastly different in the way in which they were treated, and creating a great amount of confusion between persons working in one class of manufactory and those working in another. It often happened that children sometimes of the same family, and frequently living in the same street, were working in these factories, and great confusion existed as to their hours of labour and matters of that kind. It was, of course, quite impossible in trying to amend the law, to place everybody upon the same level, and if they did they would be inflicting great hardship in many cases. On the other hand, by relaxing other restrictions in certain cases, they would revive many of the evils which the Factory Acts were designed to cure. He proposed to start by dealing with the textile factories. He had taken it for granted that when the Act of 1874 was passed, so far as those factories were concerned, they had arrived at a satisfactory settlement, both as regarded employers and employed, and it was not his intention in this Bill to interfere with that settlement in any way. With regard to the other factories and workshops, he had endeavoured to draw them together as far as possible. He had done away with the limit of 50 hands, which was the dividing line between factories and workshops, than which a more unsatisfactory line of division could not be taken, for it often happened that persons employed 48 hands in order to escape the provisions of the factory law and to remain under the Workshops Act. He had retained in his Bill the names of "factories" and "workshops," and of "manufacturing processes" and "handicrafts," simply as a convenient nomenclature, but the words would have the same meanings in the Interpretation Clause. There could be no doubt, however, that there must be a certain difference between a manufacturing process and handicraftism, and that some dividing line was necessary, because some relaxation must be given in certain trades. He had, therefore, in

    759
    the Bill called that a factory—he was not now speaking of textile factories—in which there was any steam, water, or other mechanical power used, and he classed all the rest under the head of workshops. When hon. Members read the Bill they would find that both factories and workshops, so-called, were dealt with precisely on the same basis, although in one or two instance there were certain relaxations, which he had referred to as being necessary, in favour of the workshop class. He did not wish to interfere with adult female labour any further than was necessary, and therefore he proposed to allow women their own hours; and he did not think it was wise to restrict adult women working where there was steam, water, or mechanical power. The other restrictions were of slight importance. Then came the question of how they were to meet the case of domestic factories, where a man had his workshop in his own family, and in regard to that the hours of labour alone would be dealt with. But so far as sanitary measures went, it was very much better, in his opinion, to leave them under the Sanitary Acts. He did not interfere with that or the question of their meals or their registration, because he did not think it was possible to have a sufficient staff of Inspectors to carry it out. These were the main lines upon which the Bill had been drawn. He would now very shortly explain the working of the Bill. The first part of the Bill was given entirely to what he called the law of factories—that was to say, where there was nothing but an ordinary factory or workshop the whole law was given very simply. He would now run over the heads very shortly. There was a provision as to the prevention of the escape of effluvia or anything offensive from a drain; secondly, a provision as to the fencing-in of machinery and matters of that kind; and then they came to the point of meal hours, in which case he had drawn a distinction between the textile and non-textile factories keeping the textile factories to the Act of 1874. There was a great change made in the hours concerning those employed in workshops, because they were thrown into the same category except in the case of adult women, who would remain as at the present moment. With regard to the clause relating to the holidays, and the clause
    760
    with regard to education, and also with regard to certificates for fitness, and certified surgeons, and to accidents, that was the whole law simply put in the first 33 clauses of the Bill for the ordinary model workshop or factory. He treated them all in the same manner, so that members of the same family and of the same neighbourhood, though working at different places, would be pretty much on the same footing. He next came to the second part of the Bill, which referred to particular classes of factories and workshops. He was alluding to those exemptions which formerly were put at great length in Schedules—exemptions which enabled certain factories at certain times to work at from 8 to 8 and from 9 to 9, instead of from 6 to 6. But there were one or two points of importance in which he had treated those exemptions in a different way from the present law. In the first place, no exemption for the future could be given to an individual manufacturer. The exemption, where it applied at all, applied to a class of manufacturers or a locality, and the reason for the exemption was shown in the Bill. A man did not apply as he used to do to the Inspector for leave; but the exemption was placed in the Bill itself, and the trades to which the exemption applied would be found in the Schedules of the Bill; and the Secretary of State had also power, if he thought fit, for special reasons pointed out in the statute, to extend the exemption to special trades. There were also special clauses in the Bill to show that where these special exemptions were allowed certain special provisions would be added, in order to avoid certain special dangers, as a condition of manufacturers availing themselves of the exemptions in the statute, and before any manufacturer could avail himself of any of these exemptions he would be bound to fix in the factory a notice of his intention to do so. There was a further exemption to which he would allude, and that was as to the question of hours; because there was a class of persons whom he thought it was necessary to deal with in the second part of the Bill, and that was the class of persons engaged in bleaching and dye works. There would be a great objection to putting them on the same footing as persons employed in textile factories, because textile factories had always

    761
    hitherto stood by themselves, and there had never been in a textile factory any of the exemptions to which he had alluded; therefore, he had put bleaching and dye works in the second part of the Bill, because they had certain exemptions which it was almost necessary they should have by the peculiar circumstances of their trades, because in the trades in which they were employed they could not stop at a moment's notice. They had, by law, an extra half-hour for certain processes, and if that was not granted, the whole of their trade might be put a stop to. Then came the question of hours, and looking to all the circumstances, as to the character of the trades and the engagement of the children of the same families working, some in one, and some in another factory, he proposed that the hours in bleaching and dye works should be the same as the hours in textile factories. That was the course which he had adopted, after much discussion, and he felt sure that it would give great satisfaction to the country. The third part of the Bill took up the administration of the law. He wished to add very little, if at all, to the number of Inspectors, but there was one matter that must be altered, and that was that the whole inspection should be under one head. They had—as hon. Members were aware—at present two co-ordinate jurisdictions in the factory administration. For both the gentlemen exercising it he had the highest regard and esteem; they were both most admirable public servants; they had worked the Acts most judiciously, and deserved the thanks and praise of the country. At the same time he thought that for the future carrying on of the work it would be very much better to have all managed by one head. That really was the Bill. And he hoped that hon. Members when they came to read it, would see that it was clear, and that its provisions were easy to be understood, that no mistake was possible as to the provisions affecting any particular trade, and that it would practically put an end to the confusion which now existed. He had endeavoured to take care that masters should be responsible for the health, safety and comfort of those under their charge, and he hoped on the other hand, that those who were employed would find that they had every consideration, not only for
    762
    their health and safety, but for their education, and would be satisfied with the change. He did not think he should be justified in taking up any longer the time of the House. Although he had altered the scheme, he had preserved the spirit of the old law, and had endeavoured in the Bill to consolidate it on broad and general principles. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the measure proposed was of too much importance to be discussed at that hour. He must, however, express his satisfaction that the Home Secretary was going to stand by the educational clauses of the Factory Act of 1874. There was an important exception, however, as to the regulations affecting children in regard to hours of labour and education. He referred to children employed in agriculture. The effect of the Bill would be that children employed in textile manufactories—say, in a village in Yorkshire—would be educated from the age of 10 to 13; while children, perhaps of the same family, employed in agriculture would only be educated up to their 10th year. He thought the House should recognize the fact that education was as important in the one case as in the other, and he wished to know if there was any intention on the part of the Government to supplement this Bill by another, in order to improve the education of agricultural children. If the right hon. Gentleman should find it inconvenient to answer at once, he (Mr. Fawcett) would ask the question on a subsequent occasion.
    MR. TENNANTsaid, that by the Bill one great inequality remained untouched. He should therefore on the second reading move the following Resolution:—
    "That, in any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, it is desirable, in the interests alike of employers and employed, that all trades and manufactures employing the same class of labour should be placed on the same footing, and under the same protective and restrictive regulations."
    MR. MACDONALDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having placed the whole inspection of workshops and factories under one head. There were several matters which, he considered, would be defects in the working of the measure, but he would, at the present, abstain from expressing any

    763
    general opinion upon its merits. That he thought the proper course, as, from a mere statement as to what a Bill was, they were often drawn into making statements they often had cause to regret. He should like to know when the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Bill had been printed for some time, and he hoped it would be in the hands of hon. Members by the beginning of the week—say, Monday or Tuesday next. He would not propose the second reading until the country had had an opportunity of considering the provisions a the Bill—namely, on Thursday, the 26th April.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION OF TOWNS (IRELAND).
  Select Committee of last Session to inquire into the operation in Ireland of the following Statutes, 9 Geo. 4, c. 82, 3 and 4 Vic. c. 108, 17 and 18 Vic. c. 103, and the Acts altering and amending the same; and to report whether any and what alterations are advisable in the Law relating to Local Government and Taxation of Cities and Towns in that part of the United Kingdom, re-appointed:—Committee to consist of Seventeen Members:—Mr. KAVANAGH, Mr. BUTT, Sir ARTHUR GUINNESS, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. ASSHETON, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. O' SHAUGHNESSY, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, Dr. WARD, Mr. JAMES CORRY, Mr. MURPHY, and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Reports and Evidence from the "Local Government and Taxation of Towns Inquiry Commission (Ireland)," be referred to the Committee.—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.