Commons Sitting of 30 March 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Thurstaston Common)* [122]; Metropolitan Open Spaces Act (1877) Amendment [9]; Infectious Diseases Notification (Ireland) [40]; Elections (Closing of Public Houses) [58], debate adjourned; Municipal Corporation Act (1859) Amendment [25].
ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 9.]
  (Mr. W. H. James, Mr. Bryce.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. H. JAMES,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,
  218
  said, that the Metropolis was not so well provided with open spaces as many of our Provincial towns, and his Bill was an endeavour to remedy that defect. Anyone who looked at a map of the Metropolis would see that open spaces abounded most where they were least needed. At the West End there were many squares which would be affected by the Bill; but in the North and East, where the population was densest, and they were most required, hardly any spaces were to be found for the recreation and health of the people. London compared unfavourably in that respect, not only with some of our Provincial towns, but with Paris, which no one could see without being struck by the arrangements made for the adornment of its central portion. The Bill itself consisted of three general provisions. The first affected squares which were regulated by Acts of Parliament; the next related to squares which, for the purposes of the Bill, might be called "private squares," which belonged to the owner of the soil or the ground landlord, but in which the neighbouring lessees had rights; and, thirdly, the disused burial-grounds in the Metropolis, of which there was a great number since the Act relating to the closing of graveyards became law. Roughly speaking, the area which would be affected by the Bill was about a seven-mile radius from St. Paul's Churchyard as the centre. He had been unable to find out how many squares the Bill would affect within that radius; but within a radius of four miles from St. Paul's the squares affected would be five, regulated by Act of Parliament, 188 other squares, and 78 disused burial-grounds. In that Metropolis there were 1,114 persons for each acre of open space available for recreation, and as many as 23 acres of house property to each acre of park or open space. And yet there were nearly 100 acres of clear garden space within a four-mile radius of Charing Cross inaccessible to the public. With regard to mortality in the Metropolis, Dr. Farr had stated, in a letter addressed to the Registrar General in 1877, that the denser the population the greater the mortality. Hence the desirability of providing more open spaces in the midst of such populations. As regarded that, London was a peculiar case, because its circumference was larger and its population more numerous than

  219
  those of any city the world had ever had. The portion of the Bill upon which, from some quarters, animadversion was likely to be made was that which would give to a certain majority of the lessees, with the consent of the owners, the power to dispose of proprietary rights as to the opening of particular squares. The Bill was only permissive in its character; but if it were passed and acted upon, it would put a stop to what in some of the squares might be called a considerable nuisance. One scarcely ever walked round any of our squares without seeing a number of poor children outside gazing at the flowers and longing to get in. Many connected with the squares would be quite willing to give them admission; and he would be sorry to think that any persons should be animated by a dog-in-the-manger spirit and would wish to keep them out. He was often surprised when, in summer, the inhabitants of the squares were at the seaside, that the garden space was not thrown open. The 3rd clause of the Bill proposed that, with the consent of the owner and a majority of two-thirds of the lessees, either the Vestry or the Metropolitan Board of Works might take possession of a square, adorn and beautify it, and devote it to the public use. It was for the benefit of the whole community that the squares should be used as he now proposed. There were Acts of Parliament furnishing precedents which, if not absolutely, were nearly analogous to the provision of the Bill relating to private squares. Those Acts included the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act and the General Enclosure Act, which gave the majority power to bind the minority in what approached nearly to common rights. As instances of the kind, he would refer hon. Members to some provisions embodied in an Act passed last year relating to a railway in Norfolk, and others, which had been passed under the Acts he had referred to; and he would contend that, so far from the property being depreciated by the gardens being thrown open, its value would be enhanced. He now passed to the squares regulated by Act of Parliament—namely, Trinity square, Tower Hill; St. James's Square, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Red Lion Square, and Finsbury Square. He had looked through the Act by which St. James's Square was placed under trustees, and he did not see anything in
  220
  it to authorize its inclosure at present. Various efforts had been made by the Kyrle Society to obtain, both from the trustees of the square and the Metropolitan Board of Works, permission to beautify the square at their own expense; but the negotiations had fallen through, because there was no enactment under which the trustees could make such arrangements with the Kyrle Society. If, however, the Bill passed, it would enable the Metropolitan Board of Works or the District Vestry to enter into negotiations of that kind. Efforts had also been made within the last 12 months to throw open Lincoln's Inn Fields, the immediate neighbourhood of which was one of the most densely populous portions of the Metropolis, and there was much discussion in the Press on the subject. A number of charitable persons were willing to maintain it, if the consent of the trustees could be obtained. The Metropolitan Board of Works also opened negotiations with the trustees, and proposed that its maintenance should be made a charge upon the rates. But none of these efforts had been attended with success, because no power existed under any Act of Parliament which would enable the trustees to enter into such arrangements. Although the majority of the trustees would be glad to throw open the square, they found, acting on legal opinion, that they could not divest themselves of their powers; but, if this Bill passed into law, it would be competent to the Metropolitan Board to enter into negotiations with them in order to obtain the great advantage which the public desired. With reference to the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Percy), he (Mr. W. H. James) would only say that if the Bill were read a second time he should not object at a subsequent stage, with the approval of the Government, to insert a clause by which, in certain cases, compensation might be given where it was considered that the rights of private persons were interfered with. With regard to the other squares mentioned—Red Lion Square, Finsbury Square, and Great Tower Hill—the observations he had made as to Lincoln's Inn Fields would also apply to them. With regard to the disused burial-grounds in the Metropolis, he did not hesitate to say that many of them were a disgrace and a

  221
  scandal, and it was impossible to conceive anything more wretched than their appearance. Any movement to improve them, which would, at the same time, have the effect of providing open spaces for the recreation of the people, would therefore be a great public benefit. Anybody at night scampered over them. It was possible to obtain lead from the coffins, and to break the tombstones. Some of them, he was glad to say, had been converted into gardens and thrown open to the public, and he urged that power should be given to have more of them beautified in that way. Measures were being taken for this purpose with regard to St. Margaret's Churchyard, which would, no doubt, meet the approval both of hon. Members and the Government. Parochial Vestries either had no funds, or objected to apply them in taking care of these grounds, and they were now scenes of nightly desecrations and depredation. He would ask hon. Members to look at a correspondence in The Times, which showed it to be most desirable that something should be done, both in a sanitary and a social point of view, by throwing open and planting these grounds with trees and shrubs and flowers. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
  EARL PERCY,in rising to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he agreed with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) as to the desirability of an increased number of open spaces in the Metropolis; but the Bill did not propose to add one single open space to the Metropolis. They heard a great deal now-a-days, both in the House and outside, about the superior and advanced spirit of the people of the towns; but he (Earl Percy) could not help expressing his opinion that for England the country was better, both physically and morally, than the crowded cities. Therefore, he was prepared to go further in the direction of the Bill than its proposer went. He believed in the old proverb that "God made the country and man the town." He would, therefore, bring the country more within the reach of those in large towns; but he did not
  222
  see how the Bill would do so. Neither could he see how, with all deference to Dr. Farr, ozone, nitrogen, and oxygen would be created by pulling down the railings of squares, or by giving access to them to those who were now excluded. The hon. Member for Gateshead had not once named the Act of Parliament which he proposed by the Bill to amend. That Act enabled the Metropolitan Board of Works to purchase the rights of those who were owners of any open spaces, which might then be used as places of recreation or exercise. That measure was a most admirable one, which had received the support of all sides of the House. But this Bill was really a measure of confiscation, and what he chiefly objected to was the power the Bill gave to confiscate the indefeasible rights of a minority. He was unwilling to deprive the poor of any of the open spaces to which they had a right of entry; but, at the same time, he was equally averse to deprive the rich of what was their undoubted right. Another strong argument against the Bill was that if these squares were thrown open many persons would be deprived of that solitude and quietude which they now had. The hon. Member said that such enjoyment was a matter of little moment, and might be easily given up, if compensation wore provided for time owners and lessees of the property; and he also mentioned that the throwing open of these spaces would be no detriment to the houses in the locality; but it should be remembered that in London great advantage was taken of the squares by those who inhabited them for the exercise of their children, and it was saying too much to assert that the letting value of the houses in such localities would not be deteriorated. If the squares were thrown open rents would certainly fall. He further objected to the Bill because it proposed to override all Acts of Parliament. It also gave a majority of two-thirds of trustees, or others present at a particular meeting, power to control the other third. In fact, it gave power to a two-thirds majority to hand the property over, no matter what the views of the one-third minority were. No such compensation as that indicated could be adequate in such a case. Not content with giving such powers to the Metropolitan Board, it would also enable Vestries and smaller district bodies to

  223
  increase the rates by planting and decorating the opened spaces. To all that he objected. He thought that there would be a great increase in the rates in consequence; and it might be well to throw the cost upon the Consolidated Fund, if it were true, as alleged last night, that that fund was got chiefly out of the labour of the country. With regard to the state of the disused burying grounds in the Metropolis, it might be quite right that measures of improvement should be adopted; but if the malpractices referred to had taken place in some churchyards, it was rather a matter for police regulation than for changing the ancient churchyards of the country into places of amusement and recreation. It was all very well that St. Margaret's should be improved, because there was a road through it; but that was no reason why a road should be driven through every other disused burying ground in the Metropolis. He looked upon them as sacred and consecrated ground, and he did not see why they should be secularized in the manner proposed by the Bill. He trusted that the House would pause before they passed the Bill, because, although he understood the hon. Member for Gateshead to be willing to accept the principle of compensation, he (Earl Percy) did not think that adequate compensation could be given, since the value of the houses surrounding the square would certainly be deteriorated. It would be far better that the position of each square should be considered and dealt with separately by the Board of Works. He had hoped that the hon. Mover would have been more explicit in his statements as to many points, and he should most like to know how the Act now in force had failed in its object. Finally, he objected to having a Bill of that character introduced and pushed through the House on a Wednesday afternoon; and, therefore, he moved its rejection.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE. in seconding the Amendment, said, his objection to the Bill was that the Act of 1877 conferred on the Metropolitan Board of Works sufficient powers with respect to the open spaces referred to in the Bill, as that Board could take such open spaces for the benefit of the public, with the consent of all the owners and occupiers affected. The power proposed now to
  224
  be conferred upon Vestries and district Boards would be objectionable, looking at the way in which those bodies conducted their business. It should be remembered that the occupiers of houses in the squares had paid for the privileges which they possessed in having these open spaces, because they paid a higher rent than others in the locality. But that was not his chief objection to the Bill. He objected to two-thirds overriding the minority of one-third. The Bill was permissive as to two-thirds, and compulsory as to one-third of the owners and occupiers; and nothing would be easier than for some crotchety person to call a meeting when most of the occupiers were out of town, and thus to secure the throwing open of a square in the absence of those immediately interested. Great injustice would thus be done. Again, many houses which looked into squares behind would become uninhabitable, their privacy being invaded by allowing the public to wander about at will. He strongly objected to this, which was certainly not the first attempt this Session to override the voice of minorities.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Earl Percy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ARTHUR PEELhoped that the House would affirm the principle of the Bill, as nothing loss than an Act of Parliament would enable the trustees of Lincoln's Inn Fields and other places to negotiate with the Metropolitan Board of Works for throwing them open to the public. There was a vast difference between being on the outside of a square in the dusty street, and being inside a square, as it might be made by the conservators. In supporting the Bill, he could not, however, but remember that in Inclosure Acts the rights of a minority were provided for in the arrangements made. The Bill was all the more appropriate as coming from his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), who had taken the lead last year in the endeavours to throw open Lincoln's Inn Fields to time public. His hon. Friend had quoted a number of precedents in favour of the Bill; but he (Mr. Peel) did not wish to cite as precedents

  225
  cases which were not strictly in point. It was said that by the Bill the House was asked to allow a majority of two-thirds of the occupiers to override the rights of the minority of one-third; but did not hon. Members believe that, in the case of a West End square, where there was such identity of associations and feelings among the inhabitants, the consent of two-thirds of the occupiers would practically amount to a unanimous consent? The noble Earl (Earl Percy), in asking that the consent of every person interested should be obtained before the space was thrown open to the public, was asking for that which it was impossible to obtain, because there were always sure to be some few persons who would reject any proposal of the kind. He (Mr. Peel) would urge the House to confer this enormous boon upon the poorer classes, subject, of course, to such restrictions and regulations as it might be deemed expedient to adopt. On the question of the depreciation of property, he might say that some ground landlords were contemplating a change of the kind proposed by this Bill; while as to the other point he had referred to, there might be such careful regulations as to the time of day and year during which the public would be allowed to make use of these squares, that the upper classes, as some of their Representatives feared, would not suffer any inconvenience from allowing the privileges granted by the Bill to be legalized. He had not any apprehension that there would be the least clashing of interests by the throwing open of the squares referred to in the Bill, while it was absolutely certain it would be a great benefit to the poorer classes; and, therefore, he trusted that the Bill would be read a second time, on the understanding that the necessary provisions with regard to compensation were introduced into the Bill in Committee.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he could not understand how it could be contended that, by throwing open these open spaces, either they or the surrounding property would be increased in value. It had been urged by some hon. Members that these open spaces, and particularly the disused graveyards, if thrown open, would become the play-grounds of the children of the poor, and that the provisions of the Bill would thus be conducive to their health. The air surrounding graveyards,
  226
  however, was far from wholesome. In fact, no places could be worse for children to play about in than disused burial-grounds. He must protest against this proposed invasion of the rights of the minority, especially at a time when they were trembling on the brink of a democracy.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, that, as representing a large urban constituency, he felt bound to testify to the importance of preserving these open spaces for the benefit of the public generally. A Bill of the sort under Notice ought to commend itself to all who were interested in the health and well-being of the poorer classes. He hoped, therefore, that after the assurance given by the promoter, that persons injuriously affected should receive compensation, the noble Earl (Earl Percy) would not persist in his Amendment, but would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
  DR. KINNEARthought that, if the Bill became law, it would show that Parliament was anxious for the welfare and the health of the poorer classes. Having travelled abroad, he had often heard comments to the effect that the state of the cemeteries and the spaces inclosed from the general public was disgraceful to this great city and people. He hoped the selfishness of a few would not be allowed to prevail against the good of the many.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) upon the success his Bill had met with. Even the noble Earl opposite (Earl Percy), who had objected to the measure in no very strenuous manner, did not appear to regard its principle with very strong disapproval. He (Mr. Courtney) himself rose to express on behalf of the Government their approval of that principle, subject to the understanding that provision for the compensation of those whose interests were injuriously affected by the Bill was to be introduced in Committee. If such an understanding was not come to, it would be impossible for the Government to assent to the Bill; but the introduction of such a provision into it in Committee would entirely transform its character, and in the event of that course being adopted Her Majesty's Government would be prepared not only to assent to the Bill, but to assist in it passing. He did not share the views of the noble Earl opposite that graveyards would be desecrated by throwing them

  227
  open to the public. They would not be converted under the operation of this Bill into places of amusement, but into places for walking and for quiet recreation. He trusted that upon the hon. Member for Gateshead entering into the proposed undertaking, that a provision for the compensation of those whose interests were injuriously affected by this Bill should be introduced into the measure in Committee, the noble Earl opposite would withdraw his Amendment, and would permit the Bill to be read a second time.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was himself prepared to give his most cordial support to the Bill. In no other country, so far as his observations extended, were the labourers called upon to perform such hard work as in England. The House was bound, therefore, to promote in every way it could the recreation of the humbler classes. There was nothing so exhilarating after fatigue as exercise in the open air; and if that could be provided the working classes would not require that stimulus which they now often found in the public-house.
  EARL PERCYsaid, that although he objected to the Bill, yet the clauses providing for compensation somewhat reconciled him to it. He therefore proposed, with the permission of the House, to withdraw his Amendment for the time, reserving his right to oppose the measure at any future stage.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he most willingly gave his undertaking not to move for the committal of the Bill until the Amendments suggested by the Government had been placed upon the Paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 26th April.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES NOTIFICATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 40.]
(Mr. Edmond Gray, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Dawson.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GRAY,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time,
228
said, that he had not heard the slightest objection taken by any individual to its principle. In Committee there might be certain details open to discussion; but the principle involved was one which met with such general approval that he did not feel called upon to say very much in support of it. The Bill simply provided that the existence of certain infectious diseases, named within it, should, under certain conditions, be notified to the sanitary authorities in Ireland. It proposed to give no new power whatever, and it would be construed with the Public Health Act, which conferred certain powers on the sanitary authorities for the prevention of infectious disease. The main difficulty experienced by the sanitary authorities hitherto had been that information did not reach them in sufficient time to enable them to take steps in order to check the spread of infectious disease. He need not say that, in such a case, time was the very essence of the business. If they had immediate knowledge of the existence of such diseases as those dealt with in the Bill, it was possible to check them effectively; but once let them make way, and it was almost impossible to overtake them. His attention had been directed to the subject by the fact that last year, when he occupied the Dublin Mansion House, a very influential deputation waited on him, consisting of the whole Medical Profession of Dublin, asking that the Corporation of Dublin should see that steps were taken to secure the notification of infectious disease, when it occurred within their sanitary district. It was pointed out that at the time 14 or 15 towns in England and Scotland—and he believed that five or six more had since been added to the number—had by Local Acts obtained that power to get information of the existence of infectious disease, and the principle was also approved by the whole Medical Faculty of England. From the Reports of the medical officers in the places where those Acts were in force, there was no doubt that they had a material effect in reducing the mortality from the diseases with which they were concerned. It struck him, however, that the English system was a very undesirable one, in allowing every town to go to Parliament to obtain separate powers, differing in more or less important points from those existing in the neighbouring towns;

229
and he thought it would be better to base the Irish legislation on some general principle. The proposal the Bill contained was that the authorities of every sanitary district might apply to the Local Government Board to declare the Act in force within its district. It required the sanitary authority to take the initiative, not the Local Government Board; and then it would be in force in such district, or in whatever portion of it, as that sanitary authority might decide; but the identical provisions would obtain in every district in which it might be put into operation. If the Bill turned out effective, and did result in checking infectious disease, it would be open to Parliament to act in regard to it in the same manner as it had done in the case of previous Sanitary Acts, and make it compulsory, after it had first been tried as a permissive enactment. He had a large body of evidence to urge in favour of the Bill; but he would not weary the House by going into it. In Edinburgh, a Local Act of this character had been introduced two years since, and it was shown that it had largely checked the number of deaths from zymotic diseases. In Burton-on-Trent, an Act had also been in force; and by its help an epidemic of small-pox, which threatened to be of a very virulent character, had been so effectually checked as to reduce the mortality to very trifling proportions. In Dublin, unfortunately, they had had very bitter experience of the way in which small-pox could make its home in a district. For the past four or five years, a state of things existed which would be rendered impossible, if the sanitary authorities possessed the power conferred on them by the Bill now before the House. With such power, it would be possible for them to reduce the mortality very largely, if not to stamp out the disease altogether. It should be understood that the Bill did not interfere with the interests or convenience of any section of the public; it did not harass the poor at all. The poor, however the wretched tenements in which they dwelt favoured the spread of disease, were, when they were dealt with properly, generally tolerably ready to do whatever might be right. If they did not take proper care to isolate as much as possible cases of contagious disease, it was generally found that they were ready enough to go to an hospital,
230
without any compulsion when it was urged upon them. The difficulty was their ignorance, and their permitting disease to spread through the members of their families before they were rightly aware of the risk they ran by so doing. No additional powers were sought under the Bill; it asked for no compulsory powers, nor did it interfere with individuals; it simply provided that notification should be given to the sanitary authorities to take whatever steps for the checking of disease they were already empowered to take by existing Acts. It could not be doubted for a moment that if that were a case of foot-and-mouth disease or rinderpest, the powers sought for in the Bill would have long ago been granted, and would have been in force; but it was not usual to place the same value on human life as on those of sheep or cattle. In Dublin, for the past year, the number of deaths from zymotic diseases alone had been 2,700, and there could be no doubt that that enormous mortality could be reduced, if a Bill such as the present were in force in the City. With regard to the details of the Bill, he could only say that whatever views the House was disposed to take with regard to them he was quite prepared to accept. In conclusion, he would just mention that recently a conjoint Committee of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland was appointed to inquire into the causes of the high death-rate of Dublin; and, in their Report, the very first remedy they suggested was the notification and registration of infectious disease by the sanitary authority. He believed that, but for the amount of work on his hands, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have introduced such a measure as the present himself; and as he did not anticipate any objection to it, but, on the contrary, hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would tell them that the Government approved of its principle, and would be prepared to facilitate its passage through the House, he would content himself with moving the second reading without detaining the House further.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gray.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the Government entirely approved the principle of the measure, the object of which was, by the early notification of the outbreak of infectious diseases in Ireland to the sanitary authorities, to preserve the public health. Probably there was no place in the United Kingdom where something of the kind was so necessary as the City of Dublin. They, therefore, would not oppose the Bill going into Committee, but would facilitate its passing as far as they could conveniently do so. It was necessary, however, that the Government should reserve to themselves the right of proposing Amendments, or even, if necessary, of opposing the Bill in Committee, simply on the ground that a large and influential medical body in Dublin—the physicians of the King's and Queen's Colleges—were of opinion that some of the details of the Bill required to be altered. The hon. Member for Carlow Borough (Mr. Gray) would agree that it was desirable to obtain all the assistance they could from the Medical Profession to alter and extend the scope of the Bill. At any rate, however, the Government would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 25th April.

ELECTIONS (CLOSING OF PUBLIC HOUSES) BILL.— [BILL 58.]
(Mr. Carbutt, Mr. Hussey Vivian, Mr. Hugh Mason, Mr. Caine.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CARBUTT,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it provided for the closing of public-houses during the hours of polling at Parliamentary Elections. His object was to render all elections as pure as possible by providing that they should be conducted without riot or tumult. He had no doubt that hon. Members occupying the Opposition Benches were all as anxious as he could be that the elections should eventuate in the return of Gentlemen who represented the feeling of the whole country, without prejudice to any particular interest; and, there-
232
fore, be reckoned on receiving their support. Of course, he did not count on receiving any support from any of the Gentlemen opposite who were connected with the brewing, the distilling, and kindred trades; but as regarded the publicans, he was confident the better class of them would be in favour of the Bill rather than against it. It was because of the non-existence of such a measure that several hon. Members, who had been returned to the House at the last General Election, were now no longer Members of it; and he believed that he (Mr. Carbutt) himself was the only Member who had been returned to the House by a poll taken in a town where all the public-houses were closed; and when he explained the circumstances of that election, and how they got over the difficulty of having open houses, hon. Members would, he thought, share with him the opinion that there should be some general rule on the subject. As a rule, the inhabitants of South Wales were a law-abiding people; but, at times of excitement, when political feeling ran high, the people of Newport used to be hurried on to acts of violence, so that the military had to be called out to put down the riot and the tumult. Indeed, at preceding elections several people had been killed. Under those circumstances, on the eve of the last Election, the Mayor consulted the magistrates whether something might not he done to prevent a recurrence of such disgraceful scenes, and they came to the conclusion that the best thing they could do was to shut up all the public-houses in the town during the day. That being so, they resolved to avail themselves of the provision of the Licensing Act, Section 23, Sale of Intoxicating Liquors Acts, 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 94, which enacted that two Justices of the Peace might order all public-houses to be closed during a Parliamentary election, if there was any ground to suppose that breaches of the peace might be expected, and that under a penalty of £50. Accordingly, all the public-houses were closed from 2 o'clock on the day of polling until the following morning; and the result was that the Election was conducted without tumult or disturbance. In 1868, when Sir John Ramsden contested the borough, the military had to be called out, and one or more persons were killed. In 1874, a sum of £400 had to be paid for the

233
damage done by drunken rioters; whereas, at the last Election, there was not a penny spent in that way, there having been only a few windows broken. It was a curious sight heretofore to see all the windows in the main street of the town boarded up in anticipation of a riot. It had the appearance of a besieged city. He might be asked why the single example on which he relied was to rule the country. Well, he believed if hon. Members would read the Reports of the Election Commissioners recently published, they would come to the conclusion that they contained more than sufficient evidence to justify the passing of the Bill. It might be objected that the Bill included not only boroughs, but also counties. It did so, because the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on the subject of corrupt practices at elections contained a provision that the polling places in counties should not be more than three miles apart; and he did not think that a man who had only three miles at the utmost to walk to the polling place needed to have the public-houses kept open for his convenience. The Oxford Election Commissioners reported that the evidence showed that on the polling day there was considerable drunkenness, and many breaches of the peace; and, further, that the least thing would have brought about a riot which would have been beyond the control of the civic authorities. Further evidence proved that large numbers of voters received beer before and after they had voted, that most of the public-houses were the property of one gentleman, and were used as agencies to secure his return, and that at nearly every public-house in Oxford drink was freely given away on the day of the Election. The Sandwich Commissioners reported that 71 public-houses had been engaged for the purposes of the Election, at a cost of £5 or £10 each; and the evidence showed that quantities of drink were supplied "to keep the mob quiet." In Knaresborough, where the voters numbered only 770, there were no fewer than 47 public-houses, and these were kept open for the purpose of supplying drink to the electors on the polling day. It might be said, too—"Why do you close public-houses during the hours of polling for Parliamentary Representatives, and not close them during the election of
234
town councillors?" For his own part, he did not see the force of that objection, for there was nothing like the same excitement at a municipal election as there was at a Parliamentary one. He had had large experience of municipal elections, both as a town councillor and as the returning officer when Mayor of Leeds. Again, he might be asked if he had any precedent for the proposal, and his reply was that he had. In Canada, all the public-houses were closed from 7 o'clock in the morning until the close of the poll on election days; and in New York, on the day of the State Elections, the public-houses had to be kept closed all day. The Mayor of Oxford described the last Election in that city as a scene of drunkenness, noise, and shouting. The excitement was great, and the people hurried to the polling places before 8 o'clock, without their breakfasts; but when they got hungry they slipped into the public-houses unawares, drank beer or spirits on an empty stomach, and so got drunk. His object in bringing in the Bill was to take away temptation from the people. With respect to Chester, the Commissioners reported that the great weapon of Parliamentary warfare there was beer; that the Party who secured the most public-houses usually secured a majority of votes; that beer was lavishly given away on the polling day; that most of the voters refused to poll except they were treated, adding that there was in Chester a class of "professional treaters," who exercised their function as such very busily on polling day. One man supplied drink without stint all day to everyone who called at his house; and when he was asked to explain how he made up the amount which he charged to the candidate, he said he took stock in the morning before the poll commenced, and took it again when the poll was over, and charged for the quantity consumed, including all he had sold in the way of regular trade, which, in the case referred to, was a considerable fraud upon the candidates. He had no doubt the more respectable licensed victuallers would like to see everything of that kind done away with, as they did not wish to be held responsible for the malpractices of those who were engaged in the same trade with themselves. He hoped the House would come to the

235
conclusion that he had given sufficient reasons why they should read the Bill a second time. He had endeavoured to make it as mild as possible. Some advised that he should go in for a strong Bill, and then give way, so as to secure as much as he really required; but he was not in favour of asking for more than was really wanted. He had endeavoured not to interfere with the private convenience of anyone; but some sacrifice should be made, and it would be a small one, as, on an average, a General Election only occurred every five years, and he did not see how keeping a man from drink on one day in that period of time could be described as robbing a poor man of his beer. He believed the closing of public-houses would have a very material effect in the direction desired. He had exempted railway refreshment bars and steamboats from the operation of the Bill; and, much against his will, he had also exempted the City of London, because London was a great commercial centre, where business men spent the whole day, and did not return home till the evening. Besides, it was generally believed that people in London took less interest in elections, and showed less excitement on those occasions, than they did in the country. If, however, it was the wish of the House that London should be included, he would be glad to do so. Referring to the Wigan Election, he said he understood that the colliers on strike had been supplied with free drink during the Election. ["Oh, oh!"] He would not go further into the matter, and was sorry if he had inadvertently offended. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Carbutt.)
MR. LITTONsaid, he highly approved of the Bill, for when people drank too much beer they had a tendency to riot. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] Well, he (Mr. Litton) could not estimate the extent of the hon. and learned Gentleman's capacity; but he thought the Reports of the Election Commissioners, to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Carbutt) had alluded, afforded ample proof of the fact that, at times of a General Election, when Party spirit ran high, an indulgence in drink had a tendency to stir
236
up strife; and he considered the provisions in the Licensing Act, under which the public-houses could be closed on such occasions, was an argument in favour of that principle being adopted as the basis of a general Act. The fact that the magistrates had a right, when apprehensive of disturbance or riot, to close the public-houses was in itself sufficient to show that a general law was required on the subject. Indeed, it seemed to him that the tendency of modern legislation justified the Bill of his hon. Friend. The only thing of which he was afraid was that sufficient opportunity had not been afforded the licensed victuallers to express their opinion upon the Bill. He was not at all sure that, as a body, they would be opposed to the Bill, for the compulsory closing of their houses on election day would free them from the risk and danger of certain pains and penalties arising from excessive drinking on their premises, and they would get rid of that liability by the surrender of the privilege to sell intoxicating drink on one day every four or five years. Another consideration was, the House would have another and a much better opportunity of discussing the question when they came to deal with the Corrupt Practices Bill of the hon. and learned Attorney General than they could have in discussing a measures brought in by a private Member. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give time to the trade to consider the Bill.
BARON DE FERRIERES,in seconding the Motion for adjournment, admitted the desirability of closing public-houses during polling hours; but thought the matter was too important to be dealt with by a private Member. He also wished to point out that while he was in favour of the principle of the Bill as stated in the Preamble, the exemption of certain interests from the operation of the Bill by the 3rd clause greatly interfered with and nullified its principle. If a publican were to be allowed to keep his house open for the sale of non-intoxicants during polling hours, every facility would be afforded for the sale of intoxicants, which it was the object of the Bill to prevent. Again, the exemption of river steamers from the scope of the measure was likely to be abused, for many great towns had large rivers on which steamers plied; and the result of the exemption might be that

237
on election days 20 steamers might be moored along the shore, and that drinking on a large scale might be carried on, while the public-houses were compulsorily closed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Litton.)
MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he could scarcely understand the motive of the Motion to adjourn the debate. He could have understood the proposal if it had come from someone who was favourable to the Bill, and would in that case have assented to it; but he could not accept it in the present circumstances, because he feared it was made in order to prevent any decision on the subject with which the Bill was intended to deal. He knew that there was a strong feeling in its favour in many parts of the country, and could speak from personal knowledge to the existence of such a feeling to a very large extent in Wales; and he was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) to say that that feeling also largely prevailed in Cardiff. That he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) took as a test case. If a place like that, with a large and mixed population, was in favour of the proposal, it showed how desirable it was that the Bill should receive the assent of the House. He thought, however, the Bill was far from perfect, and required many alterations and Amendments. One obvious defect was the provision requiring all public-houses within any parish containing a polling place to be closed; whereas the polling place might be on the borders of one parish, and the public-houses in an adjoining parish—a few yards, it might be, from the polling place—were allowed to be open. On the other hand, there was no sufficient reason for closing public-houses which might be situate many miles away from a polling place simply because they were in the same parish. He also agreed with some other hon. Members that there were other objections to some of the details of the Bill; but he wished to see the principle of the measure, which was undoubtedly good as far as it went, affirmed by the House, after which it would be easy to cure any defects of detail in Committee.
MR. GREGORYsupported the Motion for adjournment, on the ground that it
238
would give an opportunity for the careful consideration of the details of the measure not only by hon. Members of the House, but by the general public, who would be largely affected by the Bill. As far as those details were concerned, ho could only say that many of them were of a most unjust character, and. could not possibly be accepted in their present form, especially the provision which closed the houses in a municipal borough in which a county polling place was situated. Thus, in his own county (Sussex), the houses in Brighton, a town containing 80,000 inhabitants, and. having a polling booth in it, would all have to be closed, if there was a county election proceeding. A more monstrous proposal than that he never heard. The polling hours were now extended to 8 o'clock, so that poor people who had not a supply of beer upon their premises would be deprived of a generous enjoyment during the whole of the day, while any amount of drink might be sold on board steamers and at the railway stations. The Bill would, moreover, give scope for the most flagrant violations. He objected also to the exemption of the Metropolitan area. He could conceive no logical reason for excluding London, and yet including places like Manchester, Liverpool, or Leeds. It could only have been done to stave off opposition, in the hope of gaining the support of the Metropolitan Members for the Bill. He hoped the proposals of the Bill would be fully considered, if the debate was adjourned; but he desired that the Government should keep their minds open. It was also because he thought that the matter required further consideration in the interest of the publicans that he supported the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought he need hardly say that the subject proposed to be dealt with in the Bill was one to which the Government, who were not behind any other section of the House in wishing to put a stop to it, had had to give very careful consideration. The only question was how to attain that object; and he was sure every hon. Member of the House would agree that there was necessity for considering the subject which would be affected by the Bill. All would agree that the practice of corrupt treating which existed in

239
Parliamentary Elections, and municipal elections too, was one that had pressed itself lately upon the attention of the public, and that no one could regard that practice but as an evil, and as a growing evil. He was not saying that as a censure on any particular class. The fault rested not only on the person in the trade who supplied the means of treating, but on those who provided the money for the treatise, and on those who encouraged the treating. It would, he thought, be a great evil if they were, while attempting to check the practice of corrupt treating, to proceed in a spirit of hostility to a trade, and inflict punishment upon them alone in order to put a stop to this Bill. It being the desire of all to stop corrupt treating, as injurious to the representation of the country and as evil in every way, it would be wise not to take any hasty, ill-considered action, which public opinion would not support. He did not believe for one moment that the promoters had any such object, but simply to remove corrupt treating, which was injurious. Those who had to deal with the question felt it was a matter which ought to be dealt with with great caution. Any prohibition that was contrary to public opinion was generally an evil, and was certainly not a successful remedy for what was desired to be corrected. In the case of this prohibition, it would affect not only the interests of the publicans, but also the convenience of the community. If this was to be carried out so as to be beneficial to elections and electors, the remedy must be in accordance to public opinion rather than against it. Without saying anything as to the provisions of the Bill before the House, if a measure severe in its consequences as affecting a portion of the community was to be passed, the responsibility ought to be borne by the majority of the House, above all, supported by the public opinion of the country. He believed that a right method of prohibition would meet with considerable support from those persons who were principally affected by it. He meant the licensed victuallers. Only a few hours ago he had an opportunity of meeting a representative deputation from that body; and he must say he never heard more reasonable views expressed by any persons than by those licensed victuallers, and that a majority of them
240
would be prepared to acquiesce in any proposal that met with the approval of a majority in Parliament and in the country. The House would be greatly strengthened in its action if there was to be a decided public opinion expressed in the matter. When it had to deal with the question of all corrupt practices, amongst them corrupt treating, he expected there would be great difference of opinion as to the mode in which the evil was to be dealt with; but he was certain that that difference of opinion could only be solved by what was known to be the opinion outside. In these circumstances, he had to make an appeal to the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill (Mr. Carbutt). He expected that great advantage would result from the discussion; but he hoped his hon. Friend would not, while feeling he had done a good service, push this matter to a final vote that day. The views of the hon. Gentleman would not be furthered by taking a vote. His hon. Friend had also an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill bearing on this subject. What he (the Attorney General) had to say, not speaking for his Colleagues, was that when that Bill came on they would have the best opportunity for all practical discussion of the matter. Whatever they voted to-day, there must be a re-consideration of the question when the Bill for Corrupt Practices was before the House. When that Bill was under consideration, there would be the fullest opportunity for discussing and voting upon the subject; and their discussion and votes would be guided, to a great extent, by public opinion. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had heard with great pleasure the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He thought it was a wise advice, and he hoped those in charge of the Bill would follow it, and they would not suffer by it in the long run, inasmuch as there were important and varying interests to be considered in dealing with a matter of this kind. There were, in the present instance, three sets of persons who were very closely affected. There were, in the first place, the publicans. As far as the publicans were concerned, all he would

241
say, at the present moment, was that if, for the general benefit of the country, the closing of public-houses on the day of polling was proved to be necessary, although it might affect the trade, the trade must give way to the general public opinion. But then it must be proved to their satisfaction that such a step was absolutely necessary. The second class affected were the general public. In a case of this kind, it was a great mistake to think that they were only dealing with the electors of a particular town on a particular day. It might be quite right that they should take every means to prevent corruption and treating so far as the voters were concerned; but there were many people who would be in the town in which the election was taking place who had no connection with the election, but whose business took them to large towns; and those persons would think elections a positive nuisance if they found, when they went there, they interfered with them in their ordinary business and trade. The Bill would do harm, therefore, to those who had nothing to do with elections. There was a third body of persons to consider, and that was the candidates; for he knew of no more miserable position than that of a man who went down to a constituency resolved to take every precaution not to offend the law, and who found, through no fault of his own, but of some agent, that his election was invalidated. All these were questions which must be taken into account, and they could not discuss the question without discussing it in all its bearings. He hoped that no attempt would be made to support the measure by certain hon. Gentlemen who held advanced views, simply on the ground that it was a step in the further direction they wanted to take, because to do so would, in his opinion, weaken their influence in both ways, and also cost them support, as far as the present proposal was concerned. There were many points of detail in which the present Bill was defective; and he hoped it would be determined to deal with the whole question of corrupt practices at the time when the Government proposals were fully before the House. He, for his part, would do his part in his place in Parliament to put down corrupt practices and treating. He thought that what had been revealed in connection with the last Election of
242
corrupt practices in boroughs was a disgrace to the country, and the sooner such a matter was put a stop to the better for all parties. On a matter of that kind it would, however, be unwise for any Government to attempt to carry legislation beyond a point up to which they had the support of a majority of public opinion; and he, therefore, strongly urged the importance of using great caution in dealing with the matter. In that view ho hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Carbutt) would consent to the adjournment of the debate. He believed that when the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General became law, as he hoped it would with certain modifications, there would have been constructed a machinery sufficient to secure much greater purity of election than now existed.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he entirely concurred in the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir B. Assheton Cross), as to the adjournment of the discussion, in order that the matter might be better discussed on the general Bill. At the same time, it was very desirable that the opportunity should be taken just now to ascertain the mind of the House on the question; and when hon. Gentlemen had already given the opinion of England, Wales, and Ireland, he thought a Scotch Member should express the opinions of Scotland. He had no doubt that he was quite correct in saying that, in a matter of this kind, they would have the very general support of Scotland. Not that Scotland suffered more from the evils of drinking on election days than England did; but he thought that there opinion was more advanced on the subject than in England. There were two evils which required to be remedied by a Bill of this kind. There was not only corruption by treating at the time of an election, but there were evils which followed the election. In connection with this latter point, his only complaint was that the Bill did not go far enough. It proposed that the closing of the public-houses should cease after the hours of closing the polling. His opinion was that public-houses should be closed during the whole of the day on which an election took place. On those days the population was, to a

243
large extent, in an unsettled state, and they resorted in large numbers to the public-houses after the voting was over, and scenes of disorder ensued. In America the public-houses were closed throughout the entire Union on an election day, and he had trustworthy testimony to show that the proceedings there were of an orderly description. In this matter he was not actuated, nor were his Friends actuated, by feelings of hostility to the trade. Their object was to secure the public good. He hoped his hon. Friend would agree to the adjournment of the debate; and he could assure the Government that if they proposed similar measures to those which had been suggested they would have the almost unanimous aid of Scotch opinion.
MR. CAINEhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Carbutt) would accept the advice given from the Government Bench, and not insist upon a division. He (Mr. Caine) was glad they had had an opportunity of discussing that important question so early in the Session, without having to wait two or three months for the hon. and learned Attorney General's Bill. As for the unfortunate and unhappy candidates referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department as being defeated, there were others who had seen cause since the Election to regret their haste in self-congratulation, because they had been unseated as a consequence of public-houses being open. They had to look forward to a time—and he (Mr. Caine) hoped it would be five years hence—when they would be placed in the same position; and, therefore, he thought they should support a good measure for purifying elections without causing serious inconvenience to the public at large, or interfering harshly with the trade concerned. There could be no doubt that such a law as was here proposed would cause a certain amount of inconvenience in boroughs during an election; but the inconvenience caused to a few people for having once in six or seven years to take their meals without beer or spirits would be little as compared with that often suffered by many boroughs under the present system. The borough he represented (Scarborough) was, as a rule, as peaceable and orderly as any to be found in the United Kingdom; but at the last General Election, in consequence of the
244
public-houses being open on the polling-day, all his windows were broken by a disorderly mob, and it cost him £14 10 s. to have them repaired. Many other hon. Members could remember similar occurrences. He should never forget the picture presented by his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Dodson) on returning on his election day from meeting a drunken mob, for the right hon. Gentleman looked more like an ancient Briton than a Cabinet Minister, in consequence of being covered from head to foot with blue dye. On election days much greater inconvenience was suffered by the general public now than what would result from the passing of that Bill into law. With reference to the trade which was to be taken care of, he did not wish to be hostile to it; but they must not forget that it was an exceptional trade, existing under licence for the convenience of the public, enforced by restrictions, and placed under police supervision. If Parliament should think public-houses ought to be closed at particular times, no great injustice would be done to such a trade. Having had great electioneering experience as President of the Liverpool Liberal Association, he had, as a matter of electioneering policy, refused to engage public-houses as part of the machinery of an election. He was satisfied, from his own experience, and close study of the Reports of the Election Commissions, that treating was of very little use indeed unless public-houses were open on the day of election, because the whole system culminated upon that day. Upon one occasion, a ward in Liverpool was contested by a brewer and a teetotaller, and the latter sent watchmen wearing his colours into the public-houses to take down the names of those who were brought in to be treated by the other side. As the result of this expedient, he won the ward from the party which had held it nine years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would inquire in various parts of the country, he would find that all who were experienced in electioneering thought it would be a good thing to close public-houses on the polling-day. He trusted that the Bill would be postponed, because no harm would result from delay; but, on the contrary, when the Government Bill came under consideration, a great deal of evidence in

245
favour of this proposal would be forthcoming.
MAJOR NOLANsaid, he did not think that such a Bill was necessary at all, at least, not in Ireland, where heavy blows had been struck at the trade of late, in particular, by depriving publicans of Sunday profits. He would not say whether that had been done rightly or wrongly; but, at all events, he felt inclined to object to the Bill being applied to Ireland. He did not see, as long as elections were legitimately conducted in Ireland, why the licensed victuallers should be deprived of the profit they would ordinarily receive on the day of election too. He believed it was a fact that it had not been proved that there was any drinking in any county election in Ireland except one; and, even in that, it was not proved that the electors had been treated, and it seemed that what they drank, they drank at their own expense. Therefore, he did not see why Irish electors, having come from long distances, should be precluded from having their glass of spirits or their glass of beer, because people in other countries had abused that privilege. He believed the elections in Ireland would be found to be very pure in a general sense, and he thought it would be injudicious to have a special remedy as far as counties were concerned. He should feel inclined to vote against the Bill, unless a more specific case was made out for it, in the way of extending it to Ireland.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not know what course would be taken, and did not think anything he could say would have influence with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He had been looked at and referred to as a man of extreme views, and rightly so, for his views were extremely right; and if he had his way, the Bill would go much further, and would extend not only to election time, but to all the time between one election and another. Hon. Members had great difficulty in bringing in any measure in that House. There were two ways in which a reforming Member was treated. When a Member brought in a measure of reform, he was sure to be told there was no use in bit-by-bit legislation; and if he brought in a large Bill, he was asked—"What business have you, an audacious private Member, to deal with
246
a question like this, as to which some comprehensive measure ought to be brought in by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department?" He did not think his hon. Friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. Carbutt) had suffered much in the debate that had taken place. Notwithstanding the efforts to persuade his hon. Friend to adjourn the debate, he did not see that that should be done, because the arguments which had been used had gone pretty much in the line that the Bill ought to be withdrawn, on the ground that it was not stringent enough. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was very much inclined to think that his hon. Friend should go on with the Bill, and the ingenious appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not alter his opinion much; but when the late Secretary of State for the Home Department backed up the Attorney General, he felt no doubt at all, for was it not an axiom with all right-minded politicians that when the two Front Benches agreed there was something wrong? When the hon. and learned Attorney General said—"Don't do anything until you get public opinion on your side," it might have been thought that he was speaking of the Permissive Bill, which could come into operation only with the assent of public opinion. This was a national matter; how were they to get at public opinion? Fancy the hon. and learned Attorney General insinuating that the House of Commons did not represent the public opinion of the country; it was a most extraordinary thing. Why, the Ministers were the products of public opinion, and the House of Commons was the result of public opinion. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would say to the hon. and learned Attorney General that public opinion was to be got at, not by going into the Conference Room and talking to the most reasonable licensed victualler he ever met with, but by coming to that House on a quiet Wednesday afternoon, when they were all sober. What more did they want? Let them not withdraw the Bill, but let a division be taken, so that the opinion of the House might be known on the subject. There could not be a better time to settle the matter. It was either right or wrong that public-houses should be closed on the polling day. They were not going into Committee at once; all that they decided by

247
the second reading was whether the principle was right or not. The hon. and learned Attorney General said he had a good Bill on the stocks; so he had, almost too good a Bill to be carried; and when they came to discuss it he would be fortified if the House had assented to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. WARTONsaid, that the real evil they had to deal with was having an exaggerated view of possible purity at elections. As a matter of fact, they had now a standard of impossible purity, and they would not get what they required if they set up too high a standard. If they allowed a moderate amount of beer to be drunk, public opinion would go further in repressing worse forms of electoral corruption. Public opinion was in favour of some beer; and it was of more importance that the beer should be pure than that the elections should be pure. The public had a right to their beer, and it was wrong to deprive them of it. Put up with a moderate amount of beer; call it corruption, call it cheating, but let beer be given, by both sides if they liked, provided worse practices were not resorted to, and then they could punish with greater severity the giving of money; but there was greater difficulty in dealing with electoral corruption if they puritanically deprived people of what they had a right to expect, and what public opinion did not think it was a very horrible thing they should have.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)desired, on his own part, to say that he did not think the Bill was required in Ireland.
MR. CARBUTT,in reply, said, he believed that if he went to a division he would have a good majority, and if he had consulted his own feelings he should have gone to a vote. He believed public opinion was on his side, and he trusted the provisions of the Bill might be incorporated into the hon. and learned Attorney General's Bill. After the debate that had taken place, and which had amply justified him in introducing the measure, he felt he had not made it stringent enough; but he did not desire to interfere unduly with. business or social arrangements. Trusting, however, that hon. Members would support him when they got into Committee on the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till Monday 25th April.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (1859) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 25.]
(Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Rylands, Mr. Walter James, Hr. Henry H. Fowler.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. W. FOWLER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was identically the same as a measure which was carried through that House with the support of a Liberal Government in 1872. Its object was to equalize the municipal representation of boroughs by taking representatives from districts which had greatly decreased since the Municipal Corporation Act passed, and allowing them to be given to the districts which had increased in population. Under the present law, however great the change in a borough might be with regard to the wards, no alteration could be made unless two-thirds of the Council applied to the Privy Council for inquiry and re-arrangement of the wards. This, which the provisions of the Bill would reduce to one-third, sometimes could not be done, and boroughs had then to come to Parliament for Private Bills at great expense; and that, he thought—especially in the case of small boroughs—was a cause of unnecessary trouble and expense. In Cambridge, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, and other places, there wore great anomalies in ward representation which would be redressed if the Bill were passed, to the second reading of which he hoped the House would now agree.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. William Fowler.)
MR. COURTNEYagreed with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) that the Bill was similar to that approved of by the Government in 1872. The present Government approved entirely of the objects of the measure; and, on their part, he had pleasure in assenting to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.
House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.